stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Hmm. A news magazine prints an article that contains erroneous information from a government official who now states (according to this morning's radio news) that he can't remember where he heard the information. A riot ensures, and people die. A bunch of government agencies produce a bunch of documents that contain erroneous information. Based on that, an invasion occurs, 1600+ American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis die. What's the difference? We hold news magazines to a higher standard than the government of the most powerful country on earth? Wow. So, you're right, where IS the outrage? 337573[/snapback] Well, in 1998 Clinton sought and obtained permission form Congress to wage war on Saddam if necessary. Certainly you are familiar with the many statements by Kerry, Gore, Kennedy etc. about the presence of WMD in Iraq after 9/11. All predicated by the analysis performed by the eight years of the Clinton administration. Are you telling me that the Bush adm., Kerry et al were the victim of faulty information provided by the Clinton administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Look, during WWII tha American Government censored to press to ensure it wasn't aiding and abetting the enemy. If youa sk me, that was the government's one huge mistake in the Vietnam Era and it's being repeated today. They should have taken the Gulf War or WWII approach to the media this time around. Controlled access. 338385[/snapback] I think we are probably, as Darin has suggested before, less able to deal with the day-to-day struggles of war, where you win some and you lose some but you keep slogging on, because it surrounds us in a way via the media in a way it didn't in 1943. By the same token, our lives are not much different than they were even before 9/11 (marginally so, but not on a daily basis for most of us). The idea of sacrifice is non-existent. The thing is that we are not dealing with 3 networks and radio here. It's infinitely different than 1991 even. The overexposure is limitless, because the possibilities of making money via this overexposure are limitless. Information will get out there, if only because someone with the money and the story to tell is going to tell it. Controlled access is out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 The source may be responsible, but if he did lie, it was the Newsweek editorial staff's job to catch the lie before it made it to press. 338400[/snapback] So then, of what benefit was it to him to lie in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 So then, of what benefit was it to him to lie in the first place? 338408[/snapback] Perhaps he had an axe to grind. Maybe it was a woman and it was "that time of the month." I don't know. Some people just like to stir up sh--. Whatever the reason, Newsweek should have caught it and either didn't care or didn't want to believe their source could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government? Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it? 338360[/snapback] One more time: Whether it was true, or not...a lot of people, especially the left aisle, want a "Hearts and Minds" campaign run. "Change the reasons people become terrorists" "Kumbaya", etc. Little incidents such as this set back any progress that was made almost to sqaure one, or worse. Media HAS to be sensitive to these things. How many of any of you give a rat's ass about a Qeran being flushed? Is this important news that will affect your life? Well, Abdhul the goat farmer has an entirely different concept. I can only imagine what CENTCOM's information operations people are thinking right now. I can pretty well guarantee it's not about re-newing their NEWSWEEK subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Many tens of thousands of Americans were involved in the Manhatten Project during WWII. Construction folks. Equipment operators. Cafeteria workers...and so on. Yet no leaks. They understood that there was a terrible enemy afoot. Oh, I forgot - this is the Age of the Worth of the Individual, superior in every respect to those anachronistic fools. - my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Perhaps he had an axe to grind. Maybe it was a woman and it was "that time of the month." I don't know. 338420[/snapback] Precisely, you don't know. None of us know if it's possible this was true. What you're offering up are some pretty lame reasons. I'm just suspicious someone would concoct this story for no good reason. Whether it was true, or not...a lot of people, especially the left aisle, want a "Hearts and Minds" campaign run. "Change the reasons people become terrorists" "Kumbaya", etc. Little incidents such as this set back any progress that was made almost to sqaure one, or worse. Media HAS to be sensitive to these things. How many of any of you give a rat's ass about a Qeran being flushed? Is this important news that will affect your life? Well, Abdhul the goat farmer has an entirely different concept. I can only imagine what CENTCOM's information operations people are thinking right now. I can pretty well guarantee it's not about re-newing their NEWSWEEK subscriptions. 338442[/snapback] I think the president has been one of the people running the "hearts and minds" campaign so I fail to see your point there. Your misguided attempts to discuss "real" Muslims like "Abdhul the goat farmer," who reads the "Queran," are as indicative of our media-influenced (lack of) understanding of the culture and religion as this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Many tens of thousands of Americans were involved in the Manhatten Project during WWII. Construction folks. Equipment operators. Cafeteria workers...and so on. Yet no leaks. They understood that there was a terrible enemy afoot. Oh, I forgot - this is the Age of the Worth of the Individual, superior in every respect to those anachronistic fools. - my bad. 338452[/snapback] I don't think we have a lot more access to behind-the-scenes weapons manufacture than we did back then. Maybe I'm just not searching for it. But what has this to do with the way the government deals, or doesn't, with its detainees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Many tens of thousands of Americans were involved in the Manhatten Project during WWII. Construction folks. Equipment operators. Cafeteria workers...and so on. Yet no leaks. 338452[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 Precisely, you don't know. None of us know if it's possible this was true. What you're offering up are some pretty lame reasons. I'm just suspicious someone would concoct this story for no good reason. 338457[/snapback] I'd say that since Newsweek is dropping their source like a hot potato and the source itself came out and saud it was misquoted that we can assume it was concocted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I think the president has been one of the people running the "hearts and minds" campaign so I fail to see your point there. Your misguided attempts to discuss "real" Muslims like "Abdhul the goat farmer," who reads the "Queran," are as indicative of our media-influenced (lack of) understanding of the culture and religion as this story. As someone who has spent a lot of time eating goat with Abdul in Afghanistan, I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I know about these people or the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 . As someone who has spent a lot of time eating goat with Abdul in Afghanistan, I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I know about these people or the situation. 338485[/snapback] You're probably right about that. But then you also know that life for a Muslim who is a goat farmer in Afghanistan can be incredibly different from life for many other Muslims. My point is the generalization does nothing for the big picture, especially for people who have a pretty singular impression of a vast and diverse region and people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiew Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Maybe it was a woman and it was "that time of the month." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Isikoff is a slimy but pretty decent reporter, as far as investigative reporters go. Hardly a liberal shill, he broke and practically spearheaded the Monica Lewinsky story against Clinton (thanks, Mike) as well as broke the Paula Jones story (or one of the first). Also, he said the Pentagon saw and approved the Qu'ran article before it was printed and it was 11 days before they said anything about it. There seems to be a lot of blame to go around and it is not all the liberal media. From all I have read, here is what I think likely happened: 1. The incident happened (a big mistake). It's true. 2. The anonymous source mentioned it to Isikoff (a big mistake). 3. Isikoff didn't bother worrying about the aftermath (a big mistake) 4. Isikoff's editors at Newsweek didn't bother worrying about the aftermath (a big mistake) 5. The Pentagon read the article and didn't worry about the aftermath and allows it to be printed by not putting up a fuss (a big mistake) 6. The story is printed ( a big mistake) and all hell breaks loose and 16 or so people die (a big unnecessary tragedy) 7. The Government and Press and Public are outraged at the outrage by the Muslims and demand to know who the hell put that story out. 8. The anonymous source realizes he !@#$ed up and backtracks, not wanting to expose himself but never outright denies it. 9. Isikoff realizes he !@#$ed up and backtracks but never outright denies it's true. 10. Newsweek realizes it !@#$ed up and backtracks but never outright denies it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 You're probably right about that. But then you also know that life for a Muslim who is a goat farmer in Afghanistan can be incredibly different from life for many other Muslims. My point is the generalization does nothing for the big picture, especially for people who have a pretty singular impression of a vast and diverse region and people. 338489[/snapback] I was referring to that particular area. You handle Islam different in Indonesia that you do in Iran. Just as some places are more "Protestant" than others. Islam resembles to me, in that regard the Protestant faith. Just how many denominations are there? As for Muslims, there are probably 10 different levels of Sunni, or more. The damn wahabbi think part of the wahhabi is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 338491[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 The source may be responsible, but if he did lie, it was the Newsweek editorial staff's job to catch the lie before it made it to press. 338400[/snapback] This is gonna sound crazy... What if the story was planted by the administration or pro-administration? Why? To make the press look worse and push through pro-censorship ideas. I do admit, this would be out of AD "black helicopter" type scenarios... Yet, in politics, would be an easy play. Plant something that you know is untrue, so you can later debunk it. Sure fits the way some do business? Anyway... Exactly how do you flush such a large document down the toilet without it jamming up? I have no doubt that some form of abuse took place. It is their burden to prove otherwise because of such dubious credibilty (because of tactics used in the past). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 338469[/snapback] It's encouraging to see that a fellow dressed in motley has graced this forum. Don't be a stranger!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 It's encouraging to see that a fellow dressed in motley has graced this forum. Don't be a stranger!!! 338531[/snapback] Two words: Klaus Fuchs. Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than Truman did. But hey..."no leaks"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 anyone else find it ironic that this week as Newsweek goes through the battles of this story they chose to place George Washington on the current cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts