Did Newsweek Cause The Koran Riots?

Editor & Publisher thinks they have caught WH Spokesperson Scott McClellan backpedaling on the question of whether Newseek's dubious reporting "caused" the riots in Afghanistan in which 17 people died.  The debate seems to be swirling around root causes and triggering events; to round out the record I have clipped some key excerpts from various Administration briefings over the past few days, but I will (modestly, as ever) assert that this earlier post holds up quite well.

Briefly, my point was that the Pentagon General on the scene (Eikenberry) may have been referring to the root causes of the violence - here are the Times and the WaPo describing how what might have been peaceful demonstrations were hijacked by violent groups.  In that sense, it is, and always was, absurd to say that Newsweek's report "caused" the violence.

On the other hand, the other press reports are quite clear that the report had a triggering influence.  Scott McClellan is quite clear on these distinctions in his May 17 comments, but apparently this idea is just too subtle for some.

And do these reporters really think that Scott McClellan is the best person to deliver a balanced perspective on Newsweek's complicity in this, or are they simply playing "gotcha" games?

Below we track the Administration statements forward in time (and we will put President Karzai in the mix.  We lack a transcript for his May 12 comments but he too is either back-pedaling or attempting to present a clearer distinction between root causes and triggers.)

MORE:  Let's get media hawk Brendan Nyhan in the mix.

UPDATE:  A guest piece in the NY Times by "Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter", develops the "hijacked demonstrations" theme and explores root causes:

In other words, it's a mistake to focus on the Newsweek article as the cause of the recent demonstrations in Afghanistan. Instead, the reason was President Hamid Karzai's May 8 announcement that Afghanistan would enter a long-term strategic partnership with the United States.

...Yet for all the artificial nature of the conflagration, fires cannot be started without tinder and fuel - in this case, popular exasperation about the unkept promises of the post-Taliban order and shock about some aspects of American conduct.

...The kind of behavior that has been documented in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib or Bagram presents a gift of inflammable tinder to the very extremists we claim to be fighting.

May 12, President Karzai:

"It is not the anti-American sentiment, it is a protest over news of the desecration of the holy Koran," Karzai told reporters in Brussels. He said Afghanistan was now a democracy in which demonstrations were allowed, but that security forces were not yet prepared to handle them.

May 12, Gen Myers:

Q:  Do either one of you have anything about the demonstrations in Afghanistan, which were apparently sparked by reports that there was a lack of respect by some interrogators at Guantanamo for the Koran.  Do either one of you have anything to say about that?

GEN. MYERS:  It's the -- it's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eikenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran -- and I'll get to that in just a minute -- but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan.  So that's -- that was his judgment today in an after- action of that violence.  He didn't -- he thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.

May 14, Larry Di Rita, to Newsweek:

"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"

May 16, Scott McClellan:

MR. McCLELLAN:  I mean, it's -- this report has had serious consequences.  It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad.  It has -- people have lost their lives.  It has certainly caused damage to the credibility of the media, as well, and Newsweek, itself.

May 17, Scott McClellan:

Q    Back on Newsweek.  Richard Myers, last Thursday -- I'm going to read you a quote from him.  He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran."  He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting."  And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.

So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those -- that that violence was a result of Newsweek?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America.  The protests may have been pre-staged by those who oppose the United States and who may be opposed to moving forward on freedom and democracy in the region, but the images that we have seen across our television screens over the last few days clearly show that this report was used to incite violence.  People lost their lives --

Q    But may I just follow up, please?  He didn't say "protest," he said -- he used the word very specifically, "violence."  He said the violence, as far as they know from their people on the ground -- which is something that you always say you respect wholeheartedly -- it was not because of Newsweek.

MR. McCLELLAN:  Dana, I guess I'm not looking at it the same way as you do, and I think the Department of Defense has spoken to this issue over the last few days.  But the facts are very clear that this report was used in the region by people opposed to the United States to incite violence and to portray a very negative image of the United States, one that runs contrary to everything that we value and believe, and it has done some serious damage to our image.

Q    You don't think there's any way that perhaps you're looking at it a little bit differently, now that you understand that the Newsweek report is false?

MR. McCLELLAN:  I think you can go look at just about every news report that has covered this and they have pointed out that this report, itself, helped spark some violence in the region.

Q    Scott, to go back to Dana's question, are you saying that General Myers was wrong, therefore, that this -- the violence he's talking about?  Are you saying he was wrong in his assessment of what happened in Afghanistan?

MR. McCLELLAN:  No, not at all.  In fact, maybe you didn't hear me, but as I said, there are people that are opposed to the United States that look at every opportunity to try to do damage to our image in the region, and --

Q    Okay --

MR. McCLELLAN:  Hang on, let me finish -- and this report gave the additional material to incite violence, and additional material to exploit in the region.  The report was wrong.  Newsweek has stated that it was wrong.  And there has been some lasting damage that has been done to our image because of this report.  And it's going to take some work to repair that damage.  And that's why we would encourage Newsweek to do its part to help repair the damage.

May 17, Pentagon Spokersperson Larry Di Rita:

Q : General Myers, when he was with us some days ago, implied that the violence in Afghanistan, which has now spread, as you know, was not a spontaneous reaction to the Newsweek article but, in a sense, using the Newsweek article as a device to further whatever their agenda is.

So my question is, does this department have any specific evidence that the Taliban, al Qaeda, anybody else, is using this particular story to foment or try to foment the overthrow of the Karzai regime or to start civil war in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

 

MR. DI RITA:  Well, General Myers's comments were based on assessments form coalition commanders in Afghanistan in which they assessed that, just based on the nature of the location of some of these and the participants in some of these protests, that there may have been some preplanning going on, but that this article may well have been a part -- one of the opportunistic pretexts for this.

 

Certainly Newsweek's own reporting, if it's -- Newsweek's own reporting suggests that, at least in Pakistan, this was -- the article was very much involved.

 

But I think General Myers' comments referred to Afghanistan, to comments that General Eikenberry, who's the coalition forces commander over there, made based on his own observations and interaction with Afghan officials.  There was a perception that this was an opportunistic pretext, that there was probably some preplanning going on for sort of anti-government rallies.

 

That's our best assessment.  I'm not sure that we've gone back to refresh that assessment.  I think there was a contemporaneous assessment about this time last week.

May 18, 2005; Gen Myers:

Press:  [Afghanistan riots caused by the Newsweek article or other factors]?

Myers:  I have not talked to General Eikenberry since, but what I said was that his initial thought based on what he knew at the time, and there were lots of caveats there, that he thought the political unrest had been previously planned and was more about internal Afghan politics.

I think he probably would go on to say that it was probably fueled, you'd have to ask him, but I think he'd probably say that once it gets going of course anything can fuel unrest like that, and perhaps that article did.  I don't know for a fact, I just don't know.  It certainly wasn't helpful.  Inaccurate reporting like that is not helpful in that part of the world when we're trying our best and we have our men and women in uniform and our DoD civilians and State Department people and people from Treasury and Justice trying to help people have a better life, it's not helpful when you have inaccurate reporting that incites people to violence.  It's just not helpful.

May 23, President Karzai:

PRESIDENT KARZAI:  Ma'am, yes, we discussed those questions on the -- on the demonstrations, or the so-called demonstrations in part of the -- parts of Afghanistan.  You saw that government buildings were burned and private property was damaged, broken.  Those demonstrations were, in reality, not related to the Newsweek story.  They were more against the elections in Afghanistan; they were more against the progress in Afghanistan; they were more against the strategic partnership with the United States.

We know who did it.  We know the guys.  We know the people behind those demonstrations.  And if -- unfortunately, you don't hear -- follow the Afghan press, but if you listen to the Voice of America, the Radio Liberty, and the BBC, the Afghan population condemned that -- those acts of arson in Afghanistan.

May 23, Scott McClellan:

Q    One other question.  Karzai was quite definite in saying that he didn't believe that the violence in Afghanistan was directly tied to the Newsweek article about Koran desecration.  Yet, from this podium, you have made that link.  So --

MR. McCLELLAN:  Actually, I don't think you're actually characterizing what was said accurately.

Q    By whom?

MR. McCLELLAN:  As I said last week, and as President Karzai said today, and as General Myers had said previously, the protest may well have been pre-staged.  The discredited report was damaging.  It was used to incite violence.  But those who espouse an ideology of hatred and oppression and murder don't need an excuse to incite violence.  But the reports from the region showed how this story was used to incite violence.

Q    But Karzai seemed to think that that wasn't what led to the violence, that it was --

MR. McCLELLAN:  That's right, he actually -- he talked about -- President Karzai spoke about how the demonstrations were aimed at undercutting the progress being made toward democracy in Afghanistan, and the progress on elections.  They have elections coming up soon. And I spoke about that, as well, last week.

Q    So could it be said that the Newsweek article played a role, but was not --

MR. McCLELLAN:  John, I think we've made our views known when it comes to the discredited report.  There are some that want to continue to defend what is a discredited report that has been disavowed by Newsweek, and that's their business.  We're perfectly willing to trust the American people to make their own judgment about it.

Comments

[creepy dude]

Don't forget Larry Di Rita's "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch [i.e. Newsweek's source] said."

[creepy dude]

Furthermore, have you seen anywhere that the people killed in the riots were killed by other than Afghani security forces?

There's lots of blame to go around, no doubt, and Newsweek clearly has to take some. But it's the selective calculated outrage that brings out the cynic in me.

[creepy dude]

In your voluminous research, can you find a quote from any U.S. government official at any time saying words to the effect: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch [i.e. CIA informer 'Curveball'] said." ?

[Cecil Turner]

"Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States . . ."

Give the man a kewpie doll!

It's also worth noting that a general in charge of an area of operations is a foremost authority on relative military strengths, and whether a particular group is inflicting serious casualties, etc. He's less of an authority on the group's motivations, or how any particular protest incident was orchestrated. Why media figures from a certain corporation would suddenly find his opinion more credible than that of reporters on the scene is a bit hard to justify . . .

[TJ Jackson]

The main point is whether Newsweek released these stories to discredit the war and Bush. Obviously they didn't realize what would happen. Most certainly not that they'd be revealed as the new Dan Rather but nevertheless their agenda has been exposed and they have lost what little credibility they might have especially after Evans incredible statement that "the media was going to bloster Kerryt by 15 points."

[gt]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501395.html

Ooops!

[gt]

or

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501395.html>Ooops!

[Tom Maguire]

Re: "Ooops" - isn't this the same set of allegations that Newsweek's source was referring to, and which continue to be unconfirmed?

Oh, Irish - May 14 is Di Rita's "People are dead" quote. I left out Rumsfeld's similar yet vaguer comment that "people are dead", since, well, they are.

[Cecil Turner]

"The summaries of FBI interviews, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an ongoing lawsuit . . ."

I suspect that would be this lawsuit, which has, among its allegations:

On one occasion, a guard in Plaintiff Ahmed's cellblock noticed a copy of the Koran on the floor and kicked it. On another occasion, a guard threw a copy of the Koran in a toilet bucket. Detainees, including Plaintiffs, were also at times prevented from calling out the call to prayer, with American soldiers either silencing the person who was issuing the prayer call or playing loud music to drown out the call to prayer.

I wonder, however, why it's newsworthy that prisoners have alleged Koran abuse? And what's the point of emphasizing "FBI interviews"? Are we supposed to believe the detainees are more truthful when talking to the FBI? Or is it another attempt to portray the claims as "documented" by government sources? Finally, is it cynical of me to wonder why the WaPo is suddenly so active (presumably it's Dana Priest in the above May 17 press briefing) in trying to make their co-publication look a little better?

[max]

Thisa sure sounds like cause and effect to me (essentially unroprted by the msm of course):

"By my reckoning, just five American newspapers mentioned the name of Imran Khan last week ....

Imran was the guy who, in a ferocious speech broadcast on Pakistani TV, brought it (Newsweek's Koran story) to the attention of his fellow Muslims, many of whom promptly rioted, with the result that 17 people are dead."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn22.html

[creepy dude]

TM the declarative statement is not the key part, it's the inferential statement following the "because."

IOW Afghani cops shot street protesters not because they paniced, or the crowd threatened them, etc. but because of what a senior government official said.

That's a fun game. The source had a mother didn'the? So people are dead because some bitch gave birth to this son. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone...

Along with national review though-i again call for a special prosecutor to ferret out this nefarious son of a bitch.

[creepy dude]

Oops myself-Now I see that you did quote Di Rita. My bad.

You expect me to read all that before popping off?

[Cecil Turner]

"IOW Afghani cops shot street protesters not because they paniced, or the crowd threatened them, etc. but because of what a senior government official said."

Apparently it wasn't all that one-sided:

Police officers are reported to be among four dead in Ghazni province, 150km south-west of the capital, Kabul, after security forces clashed with protesters.

Interior ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal told the BBC that some of the demonstrators involved in the Ghazni protest were armed with AK 47s and handguns.

"They tried to attack the governor's house and office", he said, "and fired on police and afghan army troops."

"That's a fun game."

Ooh, let me play! How about: a couple of soldiers abused detainees not because they had a sadistic streak and were left unsupervised, but because of: a memo they never saw; a set of interrogation guidelines that didn't apply to them (that they obviously weren't following); or obviously unlawful suggestions from someone not in their chain of command?

[creepy dude]

Curious and curiouser. So the protesters "tried to attack the governor's house and office" because guards in Guanatanomo commodified a Koran? Makes perfect sense.

[Forbes]

This is a little out of hand; the commentary on the commentary; the he said-he said; reporters making (and making up) the news, not reporting the news. The MSM bends over backwards so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities, but then insists that no one could've anticipated a violent reaction to such allegations. Doesn't pass the smell test. Or is the MSM culturally ignorant of everything outside of the Upper West Side, Georgetown, and Hollywood?

Maybe the MSM should learn where the al Qaeda types learned to be something less than scrupulously honest, and to use "western" sensibilities to their advantage, when being interrogated. See al Qaeda's training manual: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

[TM]

You expect me to read all that before popping off?

I think that might create an Eighth Amendment problem.

[Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien]

Dana Priest is probably the reporter referred to. Dana Priest is the one with the anonymous source that produced the April 3, 2003 report about the capture of Jessica Lynch, "She Was Fighting To The Death," a report based (as is normal for the Post) entirely on anonymous (or nonexistent?) sources.

When Lynch was rescued and reported that no such events befell her, Priest would have been embarrassed, if she had any integrity. Post Ombudsman Michael Getler lamely concluded that the report was defensible, see the column here, because -- I am not making this up -- "the events described could have taken place."

That's the standard of the so-called professionals at the Washington Post. That's their ombudsman for Christ's sake.