If You Read This, It May Increase Your Complicity and Culpability.

[host]

Just another reminder, if your political sympathies are aligned with the GOP and the current administration in the White House, that you are supporting an unprecedented co-ordinated campaign to intimidate, control, or silence the media and the poltical opposition:

The White House has launched a disinformation campaign to intimidate Newsweek into retracting a previously verified and well documented report of prisoner abuse, specifically that U.S. prison guarda at Gitmo and in Iraq and Afghanistan desecrated the muslim koran by "flushing it down the toilet'"

Is the bigger problem at Newsweek, or at the White House?

The "spin":

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=765093
May 17, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House called on Newsweek magazine on Tuesday to help repair damage to the U.S. image in the Muslim world by its false report that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo...

Bay desecrated the Koran.
"We appreciate the step that Newsweek took yesterday," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It was a good first step. And what we would like to see now is for Newsweek to work to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region, and Newsweek certainly has the ability to help undo what damage can be undone."

While offering few specifics, McClellan said Newsweek should explain "what happened and why they got it wrong, particularly to people in the region."

The background to refute the White House attempt to shift it's own responsibility for the repercussions of it's own policy of abuse, onto Newsweek: (The "toilet story" is reported for a year from multiple sources)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533804.stm
Wednesday, 4 August, 2004, 22:22 GMT 23:22 UK
Britons allege Guantanamo abuse
......................
* guards threw prisoners' Korans into toilets and tried to force them to give up their religion

The men allege that when a new camp commander, Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, took charge, new practices began, including the shaving of beards, playing loud music, shackling detainees in squatting positions and locking them naked in cells.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm
Guantanamo: Detainee Accounts
The following is a compilation by Human Rights Watch of accounts by thirty-three former detainees at Guantanamo of their experiences there. Human Rights Watch interviewed sixteen of the detainees, reviewed press reports containing statements by former detainees interviewed by journalists, and used as well statements published by the detainees themselves.
October 26, 2004

.....Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion. For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans. They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards “would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.”27

[27] Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, “Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay,” released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 72, 74, available online at: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/doc...AL23july04.pdf, accessed on August 19, 2004. The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike. Ibid., para. 111-117.

The Miami Herald March 9, 2005
Yet recently declassified court documents allege that, as far back as 2002, some of Guantanamo's staff cursed Allah, threw Korans into toilets

Three Kuwaiti captives -- Fawzi al Odah, 27, Fouad al Rabiah, 45, and Khalid al Mutairi, 29 -- separately complained to their lawyer that military police threw their Korans into the toilet, according to the notes of Kristine Huskey, a Washington attorney.

The Miami Herald March 6, 2005
Captives at the Guantanamo Bay prison are alleging that guards kicked and stomped on Korans and cursed Allah, and that interrogators punished them by taking away their pants, knowing that would prevent them from praying.

Philadelphia Inquirer January 20, 2005
Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine

<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050516-091558-8106r.htm">Harry Reid, below the belt</a>
<a href="http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsowell/2005/ts_05171.shtml">The Senate's 'Dirty Harry'</a>
<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=harry+reid+saad+fbi&btnG=Search+News">Click Here for the rest of the links to the Harry Reid smear stories....</a>
<h3>Republicans and their lap dog media supporters launched a smear campaign against Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid:</h3>
Charles Hunt "broke" the "story" on friday,may 13, by reporting:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5326-7077r.htm
GOP decries 'stunt' by Reid

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Republicans charged yesterday that Minority Leader Harry Reid was wrong to mention on the Senate floor "a problem" he said is in a Bush nominee's "confidential report from the FBI" as grounds for keeping him off the federal bench..................

.........Republicans said it was irrelevant that the file had previously come up, saying Mr. Reid went further and characterized the contents as being bad enough to keep Judge Saad off the bench. Especially odious to Republicans is that Judge Saad -- since he's still under consideration for the federal bench -- is unable to respond to the attack..........

The problem is the irony that Charles Hunt, himself, reported the very same information about Judge Saad and the implications of the contents of his FBI file nearly a year ago, on June 3, 2004.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2813-1241r.htm
The 6th Circuit squabble goes back to 1992, when Judge Saad was first nominated to the federal bench by Mr. Bush's father and blocked by committee Democrats.
Although yesterday marked the 20th time Judge Saad's nomination has been postponed in committee, it was significant because Republicans thought that Mr. Hatch had been serious this time when he promised to move the nominee out of committee.
"My goal in moving this nominee through the Committee today is to see if we can help set the stage for a compromise on the 6th Circuit seats," Mr. Hatch said at the start of the meeting yesterday.
<b>From the moment Mr. Hatch began the meeting, he struggled to get the quorum required to vote on a nominee. As soon as a quorum gathered, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, requested a private meeting to discuss accusations stemming from Judge Saad's FBI background check.
Though several Republicans noted privately that the routine check had been completed more than six months ago and that no questions had arisen, Mr. Hatch acquiesced and removed the public and reporters to hold a meeting. During that meeting, Judge Saad's hopes of getting out of committee faded.</b>
Although the closed-door meeting succeeded in delaying Judge Saad's nomination one more week, it failed to remain secret. The hearing was broadcast over the Internet because of apparent inadvertence on the part of Republican staffers.

[RangerDick]

The difference is that Newsweek claimed that a US government official had confirmed that the allegations were true, whereas the other reports you cited from the past year from other sources were simply random reports of 3rd person accounts of what detainees had alleged. Big difference there, host. Nice try.

Newsweek lied. People died.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Newsweek lied. People died.

That's the greatest little one liner talking point ever.

For two reasons:

1- In someone else's words:

So now there's a bunch of right-wingers who are pitching the desecrated Koran riot story with the line "Newsweek Lied, People Died."

Get it? It's funny, because it's making fun of what all the anti-war people said when 1,700 Americans were killed based on lies they were warned about but didn't listen to. What, don't you have a fucking sense of humor?

This isn't even not caring. It's beyond not caring. It's taking pride in not caring.

http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchiv...15.html#001302

And 2- Because before it became apparent that the source for Newsweeks information was not fully informed of the information he was responding to, the Pentagon stated that the violence in Afghanistan was not a result of the Newsweek article (<a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-12-voa74.cfm">Pentagon: No Abuse of Koran, Afghan Protests Unrelated</a>). Which means the post-facto attempt to make Newsweek responsible for the violence is comically brilliant - as long as we ignore the fact that it's actually considered a valid opinion by the right wingers who take pride in not caring.

[docbungle]

Lol. Anyone who can't see the irony and hipocrisy coming from the white house on this issue....well, should be declared legally blind.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Newsweek lied. People died.

As if anyone who supported the war in iraq can claim with a straight face that they care if a lie results in death.

[Ilow]

Bush lied people died.

see I can do it too! In another matter, unless they flushed it down page by page HTF do you flush a Koran down any toilet?

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

The difference is that Newsweek claimed that a US government official had confirmed that the allegations were true, whereas the other reports you cited from the past year from other sources were simply random reports of 3rd person accounts of what detainees had alleged. Big difference there, host. Nice try.

Newsweek lied. People died.

At this point I have to disagree that Newsweek intentionally lied. The unnamed US official that confirmed the Quran incident now says he can "no longer be sure" of the information provided to the reporter. I would like to know how he became unsure for starters.

What if it is true that Newsweek reported accurately, not realizing the symbolic significance of the Quran to the whole of the muslim world? What if the Bush administration pressured Newsweek to retract the report in an effort to quell the religious uproar that it caused? I'm inclined to think that this would be the best outcome for such a politically charged situation.

I suppose that this instance would make me compliant with suppression of a free press.

[connyosis]

Originally Posted by Ilow

Bush lied people died.

see I can do it too! In another matter, unless they flushed it down page by page HTF do you flush a Koran down any toilet?

Maybe a pocket size edition?

[RangerDick]

"Maybe a pocket size edition?"

....with a handy suicide-bomber target reference printed on the inside flap. I've heard that Karl Rove's turds would make an unabridged dictionary look like a leaflet in size by comparison. I smell Rove all over this one, that evil genius is behind this... *rolls eyes*

[trickyy]

i was wondering the logisitics of this too. (by the way, what do they do with old korans? it seems like some could be opposed to recycling)

one of the reasons people died is that they are very excitable. perhaps they'd riot less if they had some jobs over there? they'd still be pissed off, but maybe less volatile.

[samcol]

It's ok, the pentagon gets intelligence from a drunk informat named curveball. Newsweek needs to be reprimanded though because they print a true story.

[RangerDick]

This is classic leftist deflection, and obfuscation at its best (bringing Harry Reid, Judge Saad, etc. etc. into it). Just admit that Newsweek fucked up and be done with it. Why can't you do that? Could it be because anything that's printed that in any way, shape, or form portrays the US Government, the military, or the current administration in a negative light is embraced and defended by the left (facts be damned - *cough*Dan Rather*cough*).

Originally Posted by Manx

the Pentagon stated that the violence in Afghanistan was not a result of the Newsweek article (<a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-12-voa74.cfm">Pentagon: No Abuse of Koran, Afghan Protests Unrelated</a>). Which means the post-facto attempt to make Newsweek responsible for the violence is comically brilliant -

What? Well, if the Pentagon says so, it MUST be true! ha! What happened to your disdain for any word uttered by any official in this adminstration all of a sudden? No connection? Someone forgot to tell these guys.......

[Manx]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

What? Well, if the Pentagon says so, it MUST be true! ha! What happened to your disdain for any word uttered by any official in this adminstration all of a sudden?

Taking my point, turning it around and pushing it to extremes doesn't mean you've addressed my point in any way. It just means you've taken my point, turned it around, pushed it to extremes and failed to address my point.

Apparently in this instance, you don't believe the Pentagon for the express purpose ofblaming a news article.

[RangerDick]

Afghan clerics threaten Muslim holy war over Koran

FAIZABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A group of Afghan Muslim clerics threatened on Sunday to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it hands over military interrogators reported to have desecrated the Koran. ......

Newsweek magazine said in its May 9 edition investigators probing abuses at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay found that interrogators "had placed Korans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet."

Muslims consider the Koran the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence.

The United States has tried to calm global Muslim outrage over the incident, saying disrespect for the Koran was abhorrent and would not be tolerated, and military authorities were investigating the allegation.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...gion_afghan_dc

No connection? It seems highly unlikely that the the deadly riots, and threats of fatwas, and protesters holding signs that say "Newsweek Should be Banned" and "Bush Should Apologize for the Desecration of the Quran" all immediately follow the publishing of an inciteful lie in Newsweek magazine, yet the Pentagon contends that they are unrelated events. Yes, I have a hard time believing that.

[Manx]

Which I what I said.

Of course, the Pentagon wants to claim they know more about the events in Afghanistan than you do.

"The nature of where these things occurred, how quickly they occurred, the nature of individuals who were involved in it, suggest that they may be organized events that are using this alleged allegation as a pretext for activity that was already planned," said Larry DiRita, Pentagon spokesman.

Now, normally, I don't trust Larry DiRita. But I also don't trust you either. So I'll go with the logic of his statement in this case.

That DiRita later jumped on the bandwagon with you, to deflect responsibility for the violence onto Newsweek instead of the decades of U.S. Mideast policy is certainly not suprising:

Told of what the NEWSWEEK source said, DiRita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said."

[Manx]

And lastly -

Is it supposed to be hard for me to believe that some soldier has desecrated the Koran in some fashion? Am I seriously supposed to believe that would never happen?

The U.S. is torturing people and yet somehow the thought that the U.S. is also desecrating the Koran is some kind of impossibility?

And to top it off - I'm supposed to believe a military investigation that exonerates the military? Why don't we let all organizations investigate themselves when there is an accusation of criminal activity? Because that's absurd. But when it comes to the Defense Dept. - they get a blank check. The fetishism of the military in this country continues to such a degree that it becomes normality to accept internal investigations. Ridiculous.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

What? Well, if the Pentagon says so, it MUST be true! ha! What happened to your disdain for any word uttered by any official in this adminstration all of a sudden? No connection? Someone forgot to tell these guys.......

RD, I would be interested in seeing the original source document where you obtained these images. They are obviously mass produced, and I can't read the smaller print at the bottom of each poster.

I would appreciate it if you could provide that for me.

[sprocket]

Im still trying to figure out how a book as big as the koran gets flushed down the toilet. Mine can barely handle a paper towel.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Manx

And lastly -

Is it supposed to be hard for me to believe that some soldier has desecrated the Koran in some fashion? Am I seriously supposed to believe that would never happen?

The U.S. is torturing people and yet somehow the thought that the U.S. is also desecrating the Koran is some kind of impossibility?

That's just it. Wanting it to be true (just as Newsweek did) does not make it so. Is it possible? Of course. But reporting it as fact is plain irresponsible, shoddy, and dangerous. But again, if it reflects poorly on the US military, facts are irrelevant.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

RD, I would be interested in seeing the original source document where you obtained these images. They are obviously mass produced, and I can't read the smaller print at the bottom of each poster.

I would appreciate it if you could provide that for me.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


Actually, I'm on the secret "Karl Rove distribution list of manufactured pictures to be used for propaganda". Send me your email addy and I'll get you on it too.

I was at work when I found it, I'll try to locate the source and provide it, though (I think it was a Yahoo article).

[samcol]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


Actually, I'm on the secret "Karl Rove distribution list of manufactured pictures to be used for propaganda". Send me your email addy and I'll get you on it too.

I was at work when I found it, I'll try to locate the source and provide it, though (I think it was a Yahoo article).

There's something very strange about that picture. Especially since they aren't hand written. They look like they have been printed out and distributed. I wouldn't be suprised if Karl Rove is behind it.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by samcol

There's something very strange about that picture. Especially since they aren't hand written. They look like they have been printed out and distributed. I wouldn't be suprised if Karl Rove is behind it.

One size fits all......just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


Actually, I'm on the secret "Karl Rove distribution list of manufactured pictures to be used for propaganda". Send me your email addy and I'll get you on it too.

I was at work when I found it, I'll try to locate the source and provide it, though (I think it was a Yahoo article).

I wasn't intending to be provocative in any way, and I don't appreciate your attempt at humor in answering my question. I would still appreciate seeing the source document.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

That's just it. Wanting it to be true (just as Newsweek did) does not make it so. Is it possible? Of course. But reporting it as fact is plain irresponsible, shoddy, and dangerous. But again, if it reflects poorly on the US military, facts are irrelevant.

From the post you quoted of mine you formed the opinion that I want it to be so.

Almost interesting. But honestly I'm more than a little suprised I even bothered this much considering your "Newsweek Lied. People Died." opening salvo.

I'm done here.

[RangerDick]

Lighten up, Francis. I know you weren't trying to be provocative. I'll continue to try to locate the source for you.

Jeez, it was a joke E... c'mon! I'm sorry if I offended you. I tend to try to keep things a little light, there's no reason to be contentious.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Manx

From the post you quoted of mine you formed the opinion that I want it to be so.

Almost interesting. But honestly I'm more than a little suprised I even bothered this much considering your "Newsweek Lied. People Died." opening salvo.

I'm done here.

As interesting as this thread title "If You Read This, It May Increase Your Complicity and Culpability."?

Oh, I've never!

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Lighten up, Francis. I know you weren't trying to be provocative. I'll continue to try to locate the source for you.

Jeez, it was a joke E... c'mon! I'm sorry if I offended you. I tend to try to keep things a little light, there's no reason to be contentious.

Francis? E? It's all about keeping things a little light? And I believe you were the one to become ... eh... not serious in your comments but it sounded to me as contentious.

Big Dick, I come to the Politics forum because I believe that our domestic and foreign policies are of extreme importance. I do my best to respond to topics without any preconceived partisan bs. I do my best to be respectful of all responses including your first image post.

This is a Politics forum, not a Joke forum. I can only speak for myself, but I hope that you can distinguish the difference and post accordingly.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Manx

And lastly -

Is it supposed to be hard for me to believe that some soldier has desecrated the Koran in some fashion? Am I seriously supposed to believe that would never happen?

The U.S. is torturing people and yet somehow the thought that the U.S. is also desecrating the Koran is some kind of impossibility?

And to top it off - I'm supposed to believe a military investigation that exonerates the military? Why don't we let all organizations investigate themselves when there is an accusation of criminal activity? Because that's absurd. But when it comes to the Defense Dept. - they get a blank check. The fetishism of the military in this country continues to such a degree that it becomes normality to accept internal investigations. Ridiculous.

Ballsy. You claim that I want to give the military a blank check. Negative Manx, any deviation from legal interrogation techniques should be investigated and dealt with harshly.

On the flip side, it appears that you and your ilk want to give Newsweek a blank check for printing lies.

Am I wrong? I've yet to see any of you libs say that Newsweek fucked up. Is it that hard for you to admit?

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Francis? E? It's all about keeping things a little light? And I believe you were the one to become ... eh... not serious in your comments but it sounded to me as contentious.

Big Dick, I come to the Politics forum because I believe that our domestic and foreign policies are of extreme importance. I do my best to respond to topics without any preconceived partisan bs. I do my best to be respectful of all responses including your first image post.

This is a Politics forum, not a Joke forum. I can only speak for myself, but I hope that you can distinguish the difference and post accordingly.

Yes, mea culpa. My posts have been so out of line. Thanks for the advice on how I should post.

/soon to to be banned ala j8ear and alansmithee for no apparent reason

[trickyy]

just so we keep the story straight, here's what newsweek said:

Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.

i don't know that this statement is false, provided source_S_ did in fact tell them.

true or not, it is not a far cry from what has already been verified.

[Elphaba]

::Sigh:: Newsweek certainly fucked up when they took as truth a comment from a US official who now claims to be unsure of his own statement. Would you be satisfied if I did that in all caps? NEWSWEEK FUCKED UP!

And I'm not one of those commie liberals. Why not try keeping an open mind Mr. Dick?

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

::Sigh:: Newsweek certainly fucked up when they took as truth a comment from a US official who now claims to be unsure of his own statement. Would you be satisfied if I did that in all caps? NEWSWEEK FUCKED UP!

And I'm not one of those commie liberals. Why not try keeping an open mind Mr. Dick?

There.... you said it. Now don't you feel better? Good job, nice to see you reach across the aisle E!

[Elphaba]

I have a greater appreciation now of why Manx left without further comment. A shame really, this was a topic worth discussing among reasonable people.

[RangerDick]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I have a greater appreciation now of why Manx left without further comment. A shame really, this was a topic worth discussing among reasonable people.

For you guys, it's only a topic worth discussing if it bashes the US or the military. Now that you've admitted Newsweek fucked up, the party's over. Later gator. ty

[RangerDick]

hit and run.....

another one of host's tangent, lengthy posts.....

host, prove me wrong, tie your op together (what's the connection?= maybe I'm just thick).

[RangerDick]

in your own words... no cut and paste

[Lebell]

If you folks can't play nice, this thread will also be locked and the ban stick unsheathed again.

Your choice.

[host]

Originally Posted by RangerDick

The difference is that Newsweek claimed that a US government official had confirmed that the allegations were true, whereas the other reports you cited from the past year from other sources were simply random reports of 3rd person accounts of what detainees had alleged. Big difference there, host. Nice try.

Newsweek lied. People died.

Originally Posted by RangerDick

hit and run.....

another one of host's tangent, lengthy posts.....

host, prove me wrong, tie your op together (what's the connection?= maybe I'm just thick).

Originally Posted by RangerDick

in your own words... no cut and paste

My opinion, RangerDick, is that the Bush administration and it's alliance of Republican "operatives" and sympathetic media organs; Fox, NY Post, WashTimes, Rush, Hannity, Scaife owned http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-.../s_334838.html , and a long list of others who echo the "message du jour" , are well aware that journalism is the "first draft" of history. Further, I am acutely aware that Mr. Rove presides over "ops" similar to the two examples that I've highlighted.
The common thread here is that two old "stories" highlighted recently, in the instance of Judge Saad's FBI file, because Harry Reid was attacked for publicly discussing the very points that WashTimes Charles Hunt reported last year, and because a delayed attack was launched against Newsweek for publishing allegation about US prison guard abuse of the Koran, fully two years after former Gitmo prisoners similar allegations were reported by the press.

What this is about is a methodical and well executed plan to smear the oppostion, while scapegoating and intimidating the non-sympathetic press.

This is classic and oft repeated Karl Rove offensve strategy. It is similar to the attempt to manipulate public opinion to believe that long after Cheney's daughter, Mary, was reported to be working as Coors Brewing Company's liason to the gay community, qualified because she was the openly gay daughter of a prominent conservative poltical figure, she could somehow have been involuntarily "outed", and thus maligned, by Kerry's mention of her sexual orientation as an example of tolerance and acceptance as he answered a televised presidential debate question, last October.

Rove is a master manipulator and propagandist. He succeeded in eliminating the advantage, related to public opinion, of war "heroes" McCain and Kerry, vs. Bush's record of avoidance of foreign military service, preferential TANG selection, promotion, and training, and the lack of confirmation that Bush properly completed his TANG service. Rove, with the chorus of Anne Coulter and TV spots that linked Georgia Senator Max Cleland to Saddam, succeeded in unseating Cleland in favor of Republican Saxby Chambliss, who avoided Vietnam era service with a football injury to his knee.

Newsweek reported in good faith, an old accusation. It is not true that Newseek incited violent and deadly protests. This is a Rove "op", that was delayed in it's launch, until an opportune time.....

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world...as/4551149.stm
............Media under fire

The weakness of the story lies, as the Pentagon spotted immediately, in the vagueness of its sourcing, though Newsweek was perfectly clear that the source was an official who had seen the detail about the Koran in an official report.

With hindsight, perhaps, the magazine would have been more comfortable if it had had more details. But it did not try to deceive its readers about the story.

Yet since this was by no means the first time that allegations of the desecration of the Koran by US guards and interrogators have emerged, Newsweek may not have been as concerned as it might otherwise have been. ...........
...........It is hard to avoid the inference that the people who are really to blame are the men and women who have abused their prisoners, not those who have reported allegations about the ill treatment.

What happened in prisons like Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib after 2001 has done serious damage to the United States and its allies: not just the dwindling number who still have troops in Iraq, but the new governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do not blame the news media for this. Instead, all the effort needs to go into convincing the world that the abuse has stopped, and will never be allowed to start again.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46140.htm
On Respect for the Holy Koran

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Remarks before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs
May 12, 2005

....There have been recent allegations about disrespect for the Holy Koran by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and that has deeply offended many people. Our military authorities are investigating these allegations fully. If they are proven true, we will take appropriate action. Respect for the religious freedom of all individuals is one of the founding principles of the United States. The protection of a person's right to worship freely and without harassment is a principle that the government and the people of the United States take very seriously. Guaranteeing religious rights is of great personal importance to the President and to me.............

But.....on Tuesday, May 17, the DOD spokesman contradicts Dr. Rice....

http://www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/d...0517-2841.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0517-2841.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0517-2841.html
Q Larry, on an affair of high moment or low moment, this business about the Koran in GTMO, the Pentagon has reacted very sharply, as has the White House, about the Newsweek story. And there have been statements by you, I believe, and others -- correct me if I'm wrong -- there is -- that there has been shown to be no credible evidence or no credible charges regarding the Koran.

Has -- I guess what I'd like to ask is, to try to clarify this whole thing, because while the news -- while Newsweek has retracted its story, it hasn't come out and said it's flat wrong. Has the Pentagon ruled out -- ruled out -- that there's been a desecration of the Koran at GTMO? And have there been or are there current investigations of possible similar desecrations elsewhere -- (inaudible)?

MR. DI RITA: Well, first of all, let me be just clear about one point. Newsweek wrote something that was quite specific about a particularly troubling act of willful Koran desecration in the context of interrogations. And they attributed to an ongoing investigation that we've discussed at other times. None of that turned out to be true, and I gather that's why Newsweek decided to retract its story.

In trying to establish some veracity into the Newsweek story -- again, there was no specific allegation. There was an alleged allegation, if I could put it that way. But in trying to establish some veracity behind that story, which now Newsweek has basically told us don't try, because e you won't be able to, we've nonetheless -- the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, which is responsible for Guantanamo, has been doing a review of detainee operations in Guantanamo, going back pretty much to the beginning of when we were conducting detainee operations, to determine is there something about -- which we should be more focused on. <h4>It has not -- those types of allegations and -- about the willful desecration of the Koran as a component of interrogations or how it was described --

Q The allegations …

MR. DI RITA: No, no, no, let me finish. Those types of allegations have not previously been -- there's -- we've not previously included that in any kind of previous investigations into detainee operations, because there haven't been credible allegations to that effect. And we've tried to pursue specific, credible allegations carefully, and we think we've done that.</h4>

But nonetheless, in the course of reviewing -- in the course of the -- in the wake of the Newsweek piece, we thought it useful to go back and review to be sure. And that's what's going on right now. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs talked a little bit about it yesterday, where we -- we will have more to say about that as it gets -- I think this is something we all want to be able to wrap up quickly. We've certainly found nothing that would give any substance to the Newsweek story in this regard. And as I said, the chairman has talked about instances here and there, about -- where there may have been the detainees themselves -- we've found several instances in logs -- again, these are not corroborated, either -- in detainee logs that suggest that detainees have, for whatever reason, torn pages from the Koran, et cetera.

And we need to corroborate that and see if there's anything there or if there's anything that we could substantiate. But there are log entries to that effect.

And so that's the process that we're in right now. We're trying to determine is that -- one thing we have done is given everybody else the opportunity to see the degree to which standard operating procedures at Guantanamo are very focused on the proper respect for the Koran, and in fact those standard operating procedures have been reviewed over time to make sure that they are as careful as they should be. We, I think, provided that to most of you all in the last day or two. But I think what you'll see there is a command philosophy that is clearly one of treating religious items, including the Koran, with a great deal of respect.

That being said, there have been instances, and we'll have more to say about it as we learn more, but where a Koran may have fallen to the floor in the course of searching a cell. And so they've reviewed the standard operating procedures to see if perhaps we could have been more careful in those cases. But as I said, the philosophy as reflected in the standard operating procedures is one of great respect for the Koran and other religious articles, and for the detainees' practice of their faith, and that's what we're doing.

MR. DI RITA: So this review -- let me finish up for one second -- this review will also take a look at our procedures and say we've got these very careful procedures, they're procedures that have been reviewed over time, and let's look at them and see if they're still the procedures we want or that we think are appropriate. At the moment, we think they are.

Q So, to make a long story short, while you aren't suggesting there are any credible charges or any credible evidence, you haven't -- you can't rule out now that that might have happened? And --

MR. DI RITA: I'm not going to say any more than what I said because that is a loaded question, and you know that is.

Q Are there any investigations into possible desecration in Iraq, Iran or elsewhere, or --

MR. DI RITA: There is -- what is happening is what I described. We're reviewing records and logs to see if there's any. We have received no credible and specific allegations of this nature. But that doesn't --

Q You mean beyond GTMO?

MR. DI RITA: Certainly as we do this, if other situations arise, we'll be mindful of that. At the moment we're focused on where detainees are being managed principally in Guantanamo?

Q Larry, just to be clear, there have been numerous allegations by detainees who have been released --

MR. DI RITA: Mm-hmm.

Q -- by attorneys who have talked to detainees, alleging mistreatment of the Koran, including instances where it was supposedly thrown into a toilet. Are you saying that none of those allegations were credible, and that none of them have -- have any of them been investigated, and were any substantiated?

MR. DI RITA: We've found nothing that would substantiate precisely -- anything that you just said about the treatment of a Koran. We have -- other than what we've seen, that it's possible detainees themselves have done with pages of the Koran -- and I don't want to overstate that either because it's based on log entries that have to be corroborated.

Q Wasn't there a hunger strike last year at Guantanamo? And wasn't it sparked in part by complaints from the detainees about the treatment of the Koran?

MR. DI RITA: We've had instances, as I said, and we're reviewing those, where detainees have said, "A Koran fell to the floor and I was offended by that." So we're looking -- that's the nature of these reviews. We're seeing log entries to that effect. And that's the purpose of making sure that our procedures are as careful as they can be.

With respect to lawyers making allegations of detainees who have been released, we anticipate, and have seen, in fact, all manner of statements made by detainees -- as you recall, many of whom as members of al Qaeda were trained to allege abuse and torture and all manner of other things.

When we have received specific, credible allegations -- and typically that's not what we see when we see a lawyer speaking on Al- Jazeera -- but when a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we've not seen specific, credible allegations.

Q The State Department has put out a message to all embassies abroad, or diplomatic posts, making a statement that seems to contradict or in some way not jibe entirely with what you just said. I don't know if you're aware of this, but they've said that, "Department of Defense has been looking into allegations of desecration of the Koran and has found nothing to substantiate them."

MR. DI RITA: Yeah. What we're -- that's not quite accurate. And we'll work with State to make sure it's more precise. But we've not gotten allegations of desecration. What we've seen are incidental log entries that suggest that either detainees themselves have done something untoward with the Koran or there have been inadvertent mishandlings of the Koran. And we're trying to review those to better understand them. This is not an investigation per se. It's to review practices and make sure practices are appropriate. We believe practices are, but there's always an opportunity to learn, and we'll try and do that.

Q So State Department doesn't understand what the history of this is, or they have this wrong?

MR. DI RITA: I don't want to characterize it. I've said what I've said. And we aren't looking into specific allegations. We did not.

So.....Dr. Rice announced on May 12, that "There have been recent allegations about disrespect for the Holy Koran by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and that has deeply offended many people. Our military authorities are investigating these allegations fully." On May 17, the DOD spokesman tells the press that "disrespect for the Holy Koran" is not part of an investigation, because the DOD has not regarded the allegations by former Gitmo prisoners and their lawyers as having enough veracity to warrant an investigation. It is not so simple as RangerDick painted it via his mocking "talking point". Read another excerpt, and then read the entire DOD Q&A. It is illuminating!

http://www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/d...0517-2841.html
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.........

..................Q New topic here.

MR. DI RITA: Why don't we -- I don't have a heck of a lot more to say about the Newsweek thing, so --

Q Well, I just -- I want to be -- I have a point of clarification. I just want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on what you said before. Is it fair to infer from what you said that the allegations that I've cited from released detainees and detainee attorneys were deemed to be not credible, and therefore were not investigated?

MR. DI RITA: No, I think I would say it's fair to say that we have found nothing that would substantiate those types of allegations. And they were, as a matter of fact, not specific, and I don't --

Q They weren't specific --

MR. DI RITA: They were not specific, and --

Q -- and so therefore were not investigated?

MR. DI RITA: Yeah, and they were also remarkably contrary to the way that we manage this particular issue, the religious -- the detainees' religious faith, and therefore were not credible. I mean, not credible means you can't believe it. "Credible" -- "credo" is the word in Latin -- it's belief, and we don't believe that they're true.

Q But sort of the fine point I'm trying to just make sure I understand is whether or not the allegations were deemed to be not credible or specific enough, and therefore were not investigated; or whether some of them were, in fact, investigated and then not --

MR. DI RITA: I'm not aware that we've ever had any specific credible allegations to investigate. We certainly didn't investigate detainees' lawyers on television saying this is what happened to my detainee.

Q And these were lies when they made these allegations?

MR. DI RITA: I think it's very likely. But we have investigated them, so --

Q Larry, you said that these allegations are contrary to any practice and any rules that you have down there --

MR. DI RITA: I said it's contrary to the way we try and manage this issue.

Q All right. But you say since it is contrary to the way you try and manage it, therefore they are not credible at all.

MR. DI RITA: No, no --

Q What happened in Abu Ghraib was also contrary to your all's rules --

MR. DI RITA: Which is why people are going to jail. And people do wrong things sometimes, but we found nothing that would substantiate any of these allegations of willful Koran desecration. We just found nothing that would substantiate it.

Q But you haven't even investigated them.

MR. DI RITA: In the course of the review, which is what we're doing as a result of the Newsweek article, we're starting to develop a more -- a very detailed sense of what's out there, and it's the kind of episodic thing I've described and nothing that would substantiate these kinds of very willful and specific.

Now I never say never, but that's where we are and that's -- certainly, as I said, lawyers and their -- detainees and their lawyers will make all kinds of charges, and we recognize that.

And in fact, in their own training manuals they say: Here's what we'll do if we ever get into a court; we allege torture, we allege abuse, we allege all kinds of things to influence public opinion.

And that's happening. And when articles like the Newsweek article come out and it's unsubstantiated and it turns false, it will encourage other people to do the same thing. And we should be on notice that other people will make similar types of inflammatory allegations of this nature. We're reviewing the matter. But at the moment, we are where we are, which is the only types of practice that we've seen that correlates to what Newsweek said has to do with what detainees themselves did at Guantanamo. That's what we've found thus far.

Q Larry, did you --

MR. DI RITA: I'm going to take, I'll tell you what, I'm going to take one last thing because I just have nothing to add on this.

Q Larry, did you or another senior Pentagon spokesman get a chance to review the substance of the Newsweek allegations prior to their publication?

MR. DI RITA: No. I would like to say that if that's a new policy you all would like to institute, I am welcoming it. (Laughter.) If you would like to submit your articles in advance, we will happily review them and --

Q As a follow-up, from time to time, you have background --

MR. DI RITA: -- and give them to Bryan, we'll review them --

Q From time to time you have background briefings up here where the speakers are not allowed to be named in the press. Based on this, do you feel that that practice encourages the use of unnamed sources; are you considering changing that practice so all briefings have names and sources?

MR. DI RITA: Well, here's what I'd say about that. When we do that we make it clear those are the rules, and if reporters don't want to participate on that basis, that's your choice.

Q So you encourage the use of unnamed sources?

MR. DI RITA: I don't know. I don't know. It's a reasonable question. .................

.............Q It requires the use of unnamed sources, if people --

MR. DI RITA: No, it requires the use of them if you want to participate on those ground rules.

Q Well, wait, can I follow up on [inaudible] question, though --

Q Can I belabor this?

MR. DI RITA: You are belaboring it.

Q I have one quick question --

MR. DI RITA: Somebody wanted to go to a new topic and I was ready to do it.

New topic.

Q Larry, come on. Newsweek in all its reconstructions of this say that it went to the Pentagon to try to comment on the draft or John Barry's walking and running. Most reporters interpret that as they came to you or a spokesperson --

MR. DI RITA: They didn't come to me.

Q Do you know, did they come to someone in the building officially or quasi-officially?

MR. DI RITA: Not that I -- I will -- I guess I have no choice but to take them at their word, but I -- they didn't come to me. That's why I announced they didn't come to Bryan with, "Here's a draft of the statement, can you kind of quality check it?" I know that reporters rightly have sources that aren't all public affairs officials, which is sort of take your chances, see how you feel about that.

Q (Off mike) -- if it's a hot story you see to try to get --

MR. DI RITA: They didn't come to me.

Q -- something on the record.

MR. DI RITA: They didn't come to me.................

........Q Isn't this commander's inquiry by General Craddock -- I understood it that he was actually looking into these allegations.

MR. DI RITA: I think he'll make a determination -- and it's not he, it's a colonel at his command. I think he'll make a determination based on what he finds, whether any of them -- whether -- how much he wants to go out and try and corroborate some of them. I mean, for example, a detainee who was alleged to have torn pages out of his Koran and shoved it in a toilet, he may want to go out and try to corroborate that. I mean I don't know to what extent the next steps will involve that kind of thing.

Q This is an ongoing inquiry into the --

MR. DI RITA: No, it's what -- it is separate from the Schmidt investigation, but I think it's something that General Craddock would like to wrap up as quickly as he can wrap up.................

...............Q There's still some confusion about what General Myers said, in which he said the violence in Afghanistan, in the view of U.S. commanders, didn't appear to be linked at all to the Newsweek article and what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday, in which he said people were dying --

MR. DI RITA: Right.

Q -- he said -- because of the reporting. Can you reconcile those two statements for us?

MR. DI RITA: I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do it to your satisfaction. What I've said is that our commanders at the time -- I'll note the lack of interest at the time the commander said it in this room. But Myers said that the commanders at the time believed that there was some preplanning that went into -- we're talking about in Afghanistan now; I don't believe he was speaking about the other regions -- and that the coalition forces commander there believed that there had been some evidence of preplanning. And that would suggest that there were some anti-government protests that were going to happen and that without question it's -- period. Now it has been subsequently reported that -- and if you watched the protests you could see there were references to the actions involved in Newsweek story.

So it could have been a sort of unfortunate coincidence of two strains of activity. But the commander's assessment at the time was there was some preplanning that went into this. I believe, although I'm not certain, that the Afghan government had comments to that effect as well.

Q Do you now believe that people died because of this erroneous report in Newsweek?

MR. DI RITA: I do. I absolutely do..............

..........Q Larry, I do have another Newsweek question. Sorry if you've already addressed this yesterday, but Newsweek -- again, the editor said it took the Pentagon 10 days to come out with any kind of official response --

MR. DI RITA: No.

Q Given that, you know, back in 2003 in January, the Pentagon realized the sensitivity of handling the Koran, why didn't you guys respond much quicker when the article first came out? In the past, you've issued press releases when there have been questionable broadcasts or news reports.

MR. DI RITA: Well, we just -- I'm not sure; I didn't know about it. I think when we learned about it and started to understand it better, we went after it and tried to understand it quickly. I don't know that there's a better answer than that. It appeared I'm told, as early as May 2nd, or something like that? Or May 3rd? And I just -- when it started to become something that we were more cognizant of, we focused on it. There's an enormous amount of stuff out there.

By the way, there's an enormous amount of stuff that we respond to regularly that's in the press, that doesn't get to this level of attention. And that is very often ignored by the news organization, because they just don't agree with us. This is not one of those cases. But we do engage a lot, even when you don't know it or don't see it. This is not one of those cases. When it started to become something that people were mindful of -- I first learned of it when I was asked by one of your colleagues a week ago today. That's when I first learned of it.

Q Why do you think out of all the allegations that are made against the military over the course of these wars, that this one took off the way it did?

MR. DI RITA: Well, it's interesting, but I think it's a particularly -- I think it gets a little bit to Pam's question, that it's sensitive in an era when these kinds of things matter. But it gets to a particularly troubling alleged allegation, particularly troubling behavior that was described, and then it connected it directly to U.S. forces in a way that gave it a lot of -- a lot of traction. And it's unfortunate that it did.

Q Larry, what particular incident or incidents, if any, prompted the creation of that January 2003 memo on the proper handling of the Koran at Guantanamo?

MR. DI RITA: I'm not sure. And they had handling procedures from much earlier on that they regularly reviewed. And I'm not sure if at some point they decided to have a written SOP as opposed to pass-down log-type stuff or training without an SOP. And they subsequently had developed additional standard operating procedures that had found its way into a different level of guidance. So I think these kinds of things evolve, which is not atypical for military standard operating procedures.

Q So you don't know if there was an --

MR. DI RITA: I don't.

Q -- incident of mishandling the Koran that prompted --

MR. DI RITA: I don't. And as I said, one of the things that General Craddock will want to do is review procedures to see if he's comfortable with them. They're very refined right now, but there's always an opportunity to review these things...............

Harry Reid disclosed nothing new. Judge Saad's FBI file was reported to contain negative info that would impede his senate confirmation, last June 4th by the same reporter and newspaper that are now accusing Reid in current reports and in an "editorial" this week. Both are linked in the thread starter.

Rove counts on the short attention span and penchant for brief "Macnews" blurbs that pass for most of America as "in depth" coverage, if the average citizen is interested at all. Criticize the length and the depth of my offerings on these threads, RangerDick, but bear in mind that readers of this thread will be exposed to more relevant content in my two posts, (so far) on this thread, than they will in your fourteen.

[stevo]

I've got an article too. maybe you've read it.

Newsweek Blows Smoke
By George Neumayr
Published 5/17/2005 12:08:47 AM

The mainstream media often denounce conservative criticism of Islam as "inflammatory." Then they make sure it is inflammatory by broadcasting the criticism in tabloid form to the ends of the earth so that Muslims will be properly inflamed. A few years ago, for example, Jerry Falwell's critique of Islam as a violent religion was beamed to the Muslim world by media outlets very deeply concerned about Muslim-Christian concord, and bloody riots followed. Falwell had provoked the riots, the media piously reported even as they happily stoked them.

The oh-so-irenic media seem to delight in inflaming Muslims by letting them know what America has said or done that should inflame them. The media express anger that George Bush has "alienated" the Muslim world while they simultaneously distort what Bush has done in the war on terrorism so as to guarantee that alienation.

This is a very cynical game, and it has caught up with at least one publication now, Newsweek. Its editors, expecting to spend this week castigating the Bush administration for causing discord in the Muslim world by permitting anti-Islamic abuse at its Guantanamo Bay detention facilities, had to admit that their false report about U.S. military interrogators' desecration of the Koran sparked rioting across the Middle East. But like Dan Rather, Newsweek is allowing itself an array of defenses it would never extend to the conservatives it covers.

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, in his post-mortem on the debacle this week, "How a Fire Broke Out," dusts off a defense Dan Rather tried, which we can call the-subject-whom-we-were-smearing-didn't-correct-us defense. Remember Rather's crack research team assumed that the Bush White House's mute response to its preview of the forged National Guard documents was confirmation of their validity. Evan Thomas, using this new species of journalistic accuracy testing, writes a bit peevishly that Newsweek had "provided a draft of the NEWSWEEK PERISCOPE item to a Senior Defense official, asking, 'Is this accurate or not?'" Thomas writes that the official was "silent" on the portion of the item alleging that Guantanamo Bay interrogators had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. This is Newsweek's way of saying: hey, don't get mad at us, we showed due diligence.

See, this too can be blamed on the Bush administration. It turns out that the Bush administration does a very sloppy job of editing smear jobs of it that the media generously allow it to examine before publication. The Bush administration could have saved Rather from himself by saying, "Dan, you are going forward with a forgery." But it just callously let him use it. And now that the administration didn't save Newsweek from itself by editing its previewed Periscope item about how their interrogators flush the Koran down toilets at Guantanamo Bay it looks like this callousness has hardened into habit.


EVAN THOMAS ROLLS OUT another defense, one often seen after a publication has been caught out in a disastrous story that it first tried to present as an exclusive, and that is the we-didn't-publish-this-false-story-first defense. Journalistic scoops that turn out badly suddenly aren't scoops anymore but just previously reported information. Here's Thomas: "Newsweek was not the first to report allegations of desecrating the Qur'an. As early as last spring and summer, similar reports from released detainees started surfacing in British and Russian news reports, and in the Arab news agency Al-Jazeera; claims by other released detainees have been covered in other media since then."

In other words, the Muslims should have rioted earlier? Or maybe Newsweek is saying that last week's rioting was opportunistic, the work of fanatical Muslims eagerly looking for Western offenses as a pretext for violence? The latter explanation would bring Newsweek dangerously close to a position its multicultural sensitivities forbid: a refusal to excuse Islamic violence as a legitimate reaction to Western criticism or practice.

That's not a position the media allow just anyone to take. If Jerry Falwell says that Islam contains an element of violence in it and Muslims validate that critique by rioting, the media blame the riots on Falwell and absolve the rioters of responsibility. But if an obviously enlightened person like Salman Rushdie or publication like Newsweek are the provokers, the media don't show quite the same level of sympathy for Muslim rioters.

Evan Thomas, signaling that Newsweek (despite its editor's mea culpa) considers the riots an inexcusable, irrational response to its report, writes that "extremist agitators are at least partly to blame." So don't expect next week on Newsweek 's who's up, who's down Periscope chart, an up arrow for militant Islam.


George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8174

[host]

Originally Posted by stevo

I've got an article too. maybe you've read it.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8174

stevo, I have not read the article you submitted above without any accompanying comment, but I have read the following two articles penned by the same author, George Neumayr, and I've posted links to better familiarize other members regarding his contributions to mainstream American political discourse. Other members here can read my post, with my intended point, supported by comments posted on the Bush government's own websites, in two it's designated speakers' (State Dept.'s Dr. Rice and DOD's Mr. Di Rita) own public statements, that illustrate that the two government branches cannot even publicly project a coherent, non-contradictory account of the Bush government's response to the now two year old allegations that U.S. Gitmo prison and military prison guards "flushed the Koran", yet the Bush government and it's chorus want us to believe that this is a new, Newsweek generated, baseless accusation.........and, in comparison, other TFP members can draw their own conclusion as to the weight and the relevance of the content of your posted article and the bias of it's author.

<a href="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7893">LAWLESS JUDGES By George Neumayr 3/16/2005</a>
<a href="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7841">CONSTITUTION KILLERS By George Neumayr 3/3/2005</a>
<a href="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_brass.asp">George Neumayr is the EXECUTIVE EDITOR of the American Spectator</a>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Spectator
The American Spectator is a conservative-leaning American monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and published by the non-profit American Alternative Foundation. From its founding in the late 1960s until the late 1980s, the small-circulation magazine featured the writings of authors such as Thomas Sowell, Tom Wolfe, P.J. O'Rourke, George F. Will, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Malcolm Muggeridge, <h4>although today the magazine is best known for its attacks in the 1990s on Bill Clinton and its "Arkansas Project" to discredit the president, funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and the Bradley Foundation.</h4>

stevo, I have more Bush spokeperson "blather" for you to consider, and more commentary from less biased sources than your George Neumayr/American Spectator. The press is apparently wising up to the "set up" and the "knock down" that the government treated Newsweek to, via it's frequently employed policy of issuing statements that may only be attributed to "unnamed government sources" as they pass of these communiques as "disclosure".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050517-2.html
Office of the Press Secretary
May 17, 2005
.....Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

***
Q: In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q: Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I know that there is an issue when it comes to the media in terms of the use of anonymous sources, but the issue is not related to background briefings. But I do believe that we should work to move away from those kind of background briefings. ...

But there is a credibility problem in the media regarding the use of anonymous sources, but it's because of fabricated stories, and it's because of situations like this one over the weekend. It's not because of the background briefings that you may be referring to.

Q: What prevents this administration from just saying from this point forward, you will identify who it is that's talking to us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of background briefings, if that's what you're asking about, which I assume it is, let me point out that what I'm talking about there are officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others. ... And as I said, one of the concerns is that some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks.

Q: But to our readers, viewers and listeners, I think it's all the same.

MR. McCLELLAN: And then you have a situation -- you have a situation where we found out later that quotes were attributed to people that they didn't make. Or you have a situation where you now learn that a single source was used for verifying this allegation -- and that source, himself, said he could not personally verify the accuracy of the report. ...

Q: With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are OK and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that. ...

Q We also have incidents, like most recently with the energy speech, where it was before the president made his comments, it was all we had -- and we had to make the decision of whether to report this from anonymous sources who, frankly, in that case, we didn't even know who they were.

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of that one, I mean, that was simply done because the president was making the announcement the next day. But, anyway, we've taken steps to address that matter..........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240
• May 16, 2005 | 9:45 p.m. ET

The resignation of Scott McClellan (Keith Olbermann)

SECAUCUS — I smell something — and it ain’t a copy of the Qu’ran sopping wet from being stuck in a toilet in Guantanamo Bay. It’s the ink drying on Scott McClellan’s resignation, and in an only partly imperfect world, it would be drifting out over Washington, and imminently..........

......................Firstly, the principal reporter on the Gitmo story was Michael Isikoff — “Spikey” in a different lifetime; Linda Tripp’s favorite journalist, and one of the ten people most responsible (intentionally or otherwise) for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Spikey isn’t just a hero to the Right — the Right owes him.

And larger still, in terms of politics, this isn't well-defined, is it? I mean Conservatives might parrot McClellan and say ‘Newsweek put this country in a bad light.’ But they could just as easily thump their chests and say ‘See, this is what we do to those prisoners at Gitmo! You guys better watch your asses!’

Ultimately, though, the administration may have effected its biggest mistake over this saga, in making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs look like a liar or naïf, just to draw a little blood out of Newsweek’s hide. Either way — and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep — Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer...ve_anyone.html
.....................Let me get this straight. Newsweek ran an allegation that the Pentagon had uncovered evidence supporting earlier allegations by detainees that Korans had been desecrated. It turns out that this specific allegation could not be stood up. So US officials cannot, after all, confirm that Korans were desecrated by other US officials in Guantanamo Bay.

The Pentagon however is quite prepared to accept that Korans were damaged in Guantanamo Bay, but suggests that the detainees themselves may have been tearing out pages for some unknown reason. This is what Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Lawrence Di Rita said in a briefing yesterday:

And as I said, the chairman has talked about instances here and there, about -- where there may have been the detainees themselves -- we've found several instances in logs -- again, these are not corroborated, either -- in detainee logs that suggest that detainees have, for whatever reason, torn pages from the Koran, et cetera.

And again, later in the same briefing.

We've found nothing that would substantiate precisely -- anything that you just said about the treatment of a Koran. We have -- other than what we've seen, that it's possible detainees themselves have done with pages of the Koran -- and I don't want to overstate that either because it's based on log entries that have to be corroborated.

Are we to suppose that the detainees also subject themselves to beatings, deprive themselves of sleep and force themselves to stand or kneel in sensory deprivation for hours on end?......................