Newsweek F*cks America...

[ExiledInIllinois]

You'll have to excuse me for not being able to read the cube in that magic 8 ball head of yours.  I'm not fluent in babbling dufus. 

340526[/snapback]

 

 

AD, I live for your comments like these!

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm not fluent in babbling dufus. 

340526[/snapback]

 

You do okay, though...

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way.  Buy a bumper sticker!  Step right up!

340531[/snapback]

 

 

Quite a conundrum that "supporting the troops" thingy is?

[ExiledInIllinois]

You do okay, though... 

340539[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, you are better! I see more common ground with you... What does that mean?

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Actually, you are better!  I see more common ground with you... What does that mean?

 

340541[/snapback]

 

Means you sit here and throw crap at everyone, just like me.

 

Personally, I wouldn't see that as necessarily flattering...

[ExiledInIllinois]

Means you sit here and throw crap at everyone, just like me. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't see that as necessarily flattering...

340549[/snapback]

 

But, YOU find it flattering?

 

You are still a "supercilious anal office!"

 

[IDBillzFan]

Follow with me class.

 

You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you.  It is called CREDIBILITY.  To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions.  Unfortunately, people aren't buying.  But, feel free to whine about Newsweek.  We made our bed a long time ago.  Seems we are being profiled?

 

Right now America's credibility is low.  Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place?

 

I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good!

 

Sign me up for some of that lemonade!  Talk about signing Kumbaya?

 

 

340398[/snapback]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

340577[/snapback]

 

Vexing questions no doubt LA!

 

We should ALL ask those questions.

[PastaJoe]

The Newsweek story was irresponsible journalism, by Newsweek's own admission. 

 

I can't believe so many people are willing to say "Well, that's okay, because they were reporting on something that's related to something else that's fundamentally !@#$ed up, anyway."  Is Newsweek REALLY that blameless for their own piss-poor reporting?

340495[/snapback]

 

Has anybody said they're blameless for not getting more than one source? I'm concerned about how it might have a chilling effect on future reporting. But it is nowhere near as irresponsible as the mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration that initiated the invasion of Iraq, and the handling of the occupation afterward.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Has anybody said they're blameless for not getting more than one source?  I'm concerned about how it might have a chilling effect on future reporting.  But it is nowhere near as irresponsible as the mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration that initiated the invasion of Iraq, and the handling of the occupation afterward.

340583[/snapback]

 

Aaaaa. No.

 

Shhhh, but don't make that known.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

...mistakes and misrepresentations made by the administration...and the handling of the occupation afterward.

340583[/snapback]

 

Oh, please share your wisdom...what mistakes would these be?

[Campy]

<snip> is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

340577[/snapback]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

 

 

 

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sorry to be jumping into this fray so late, but you seem to be saying our credibility is low and we need to account for ourselves, but Newsweek isn't the problem, even though Newsweek is directly responsible for the death of at least 15 people directly because they fumbled their credibility and ultimately refuse to account for themselves.

 

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

 

Do you always contradict yourself in your own statements, or did I just stumble into Schizophrenic Forest by mistake?

340577[/snapback]

What if two respected members of the military or Bush Administration had both said, in confidence, that the incident occured, and this wasn't at all sloppy journalism. Would Newsweek still be completely responsible for 15 people dying?

[Thurman's Helmet]

How about instead of jumping ugly on each other pointing fingers at either Newsweek or the Bush admin, we actually look at the real root cause of this, the fact that there are bloodthirsty thugs out there ready to take to the streets and riot at the mere mention of a holy book being desecrated ANYWHERE in the world.

 

Interesting Op-ed piece in the Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby

 

The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.

 

From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com, Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek] people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had no criticism at all for the marauders in the Muslim street.

 

Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture?

 

No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States."

 

[IDBillzFan]

What if two respected members of the military or Bush Administration had both said, in confidence, that the incident occured, and this wasn't at all sloppy journalism. Would Newsweek still be completely responsible for 15 people dying?

340669[/snapback]

We could spend all day discussing hypotheticals, and I don't care for hypotheticals because they are never indicative of reality. Your hypothetical assumes the event did happen. No evidence is there to suggest it DID happen, and Newsweek tripped over it's own irresponsibilities to report something that had no basis for truth. Even if we both believe it DID happen, the reality is there is still no basis for truth.

 

That said, if Newsweek quoted two respected members of the military or the Bush Administration and did the responsible thing by putting their names, titles, rank, etc. in their article, then it would be hard to fault Newsweek for the events.

 

But again, that is not what happened. We may as well discuss "if OJ was found at the scene of Nicole's dead body with her blood all over his shirt and a knife in his hand, would you say he was guilty?"

 

That's why hypotheticals are worthless to me unless you're in the planning stages of something. If you're looking backwards, what's the sense except to pass time?

 

At this juncture it doesn't really matter, anyway, because nothing will come of this except journalists everywhere now know they can report stories with no basis in fact, have that story be the direct cause of the death of 15 people, and have no repercussions whatsoever except to retract a story the American Idol crowd has already forgotten because it's not an interactive story that involves voting from their cellphone.

[Reuben Gant]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

340614[/snapback]

Or in this case: people who probably can't read Newsweek, kill people.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Interestingly, if you throw a few zeros onto the end of that number it sounds a lot like the United States' foreign policy.

Newsweek doesn't kill people, people kill people.

340614[/snapback]

 

Is there a telephone somewhere here?

 

[Chilly]

They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way.  Buy a bumper sticker!  Step right up!

340531[/snapback]

 

I'll buy one as long as I can remove it from my car and use it as a free "dodge the draft in Canada" pass across the border.

 

[UConn James]

The act of flushing the book didn't kill those people. The unsubstantiated, unproven, irresponsible Newsweek article is responsible for killing those people. But you seem to think it's okay if NEWSWEEK does this so long as no one else does it.

340577[/snapback]

 

Actually, it was the bullets and beatings delivered by fellow Afghanis/Uzbeks that is responsible for killing those people.

 

The photos of Saddam in his underwear published yesterday.... Pres. Bush said, "I don't think it's a photo that will cause people to murder."

 

Now, replace the word 'photo' in that sentence with 'word.' If that's the sense he was trying to get at, I wholly agree with him. But, either he's going counter to what Scott McClellan and the rest of the media/PR circus is spouting about, or it's another case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Yet another example of the foot-in-mouth disease that's spreading so rapidly.

[blzrul]

So, since a 10-line article in Newsweek (which elicited no comment from the White House at all until a couple of riots happened) is such a big deal, how about the photos of Saddam in his briefs? Way to go US military - take the photos if you must, but leaking them to the press doesn't do much for our image or credibility. Of the Sun's publishing them...well the Sun is a rag, what can I say. But I doubt the military leaked the photos believing they wouldn't appear in the media somewhere, somehow.