You really have to read to the end.

I am looking forward to his Screed-blog.

UPDATE! Marvin Olasky is On F'n Fire!

The head dude at the (evangelical Christian) World Magazine, has a spot-on column over at Townhall--the syndicated columns are just now working their way through the editing process tonight in the dinosaur media--which is good because it keeps the topic alive after the initial Immedia blitz. Coulter's is worth your time too.

Olasky's column is just a series of devastating rhetorical questions, of which this is my favorite:

-- If Newsweek journalists had been more knowledgeable about the likely reaction, would they still have run the story? The magazine on Oct. 21, 2002, ripped Jerry Falwell's riot-causing depiction of Muhammad as a "terrorist," since "Islamic fundamentalists are having a field day with these comments, which have been played and replayed throughout the Muslim world." Does Newsweek have a similar responsibility not to cry fire in a crowded theater?

Sauce for the goose, Newsweek. Sauce for the goose.

Posted by: seedubya at 01:11 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

1 -- If Newsweek journalists had been more knowledgeable about the likely reaction, would they still have run the story? The magazine on Oct. 21, 2002, ripped Jerry Falwell's riot-causing depiction of Muhammad as a "terrorist," since "Islamic fundamentalists are having a field day with these comments, which have been played and replayed throughout the Muslim world." Does Newsweek have a similar responsibility not to cry fire in a crowded theater? ~~~~~~ I don't get it. Jerry Falwell did something disrespectful towards Islam. (Muhammad as a terrorist) Newsweek reported on something that was disrespectful towards Islam. (Toilet & Quran) How is reporting on something that was disrespectful to Islam the same as doing something disrespectful towards Islam? The Newsweek story is simply an article that shows questionable practices are *still* being continued by US personnal in US Miltary prisons. Even after the scandal of Abu Ghraib. I see the Middle East protests over this indicident as the straw that broke the camel's back.

Posted by: puzzled at May 19, 2005 03:12 AM (moq9v)

2 puzzled, And I am puzzled too. How is blogging on something that is already reported the same as living real life. I don't know. And yet some of these people seem convinced that they are breathing life into stories. It all smacks of "creationism" if you ask me, and you know how some bloggers feel about that.

Posted by: Republican at May 19, 2005 09:40 AM (2jozM)

3 Creationism! Hahaha... Well, the world is flat too, and don't disagree with me or I'll burn a cross on your lawn. Pblththt. Long live the American Taliban!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 19, 2005 10:57 AM (WfZ6a)

4 When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?" Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration. Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.

Posted by: babler, inc. at May 19, 2005 11:25 AM (WfZ6a)

5 False claims babler. First of all, it remains true that Iraq did not account for all of its WMD programs as it was obligated to. The Iraq Survey Group did find a lot of undisclosed facilities, equipment, components and chemical weapons. Not to mention hundreds of tons of undisclosed uranium. The Iraq war was not justified solely on the issue of WMD's.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 19, 2005 12:21 PM (xauGB)

6 And how could we expect Newsweek to know that muslums in the middle east knew what a toilet was?

Posted by: MOG at May 19, 2005 12:32 PM (6FUZj)

7 False claims? Last time I checked the official verdict from our government was: NO WMD FOUND! CASE CLOSED! Then there was the very public joking Bush about the whole matter where he was mocking himself looking for them...I'm sure US soldiers appreciate that crap. As far as invading another country before it attacks us, wrong fucking country people! Maybe Bushie should have been obsessed with N. Korea who is about to start testing new nukes soon? Duuuuuuhbya. Oyster, I never use a real email address in here. Why? I don't like spam and value privacy. If anyone wants to pick a bone with me, do it in here bitches! My fingers aren't in my ears. I always read responses to what I write.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 19, 2005 12:53 PM (WfZ6a)

8 osamabeenvotin: There's a good round-up of the illegal things found, things not found, and holes in our current knowledge at this site: http://www.fishkite.com/notes/iraqiwmds.html Don't know how long it'll stay up. The keeper of that database might flush it with is next blog-restructuring. But it's still an interesting read.

Posted by: karrde at May 19, 2005 01:50 PM (60gek)

9 I'll check that link out. Thanks...

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at May 19, 2005 03:06 PM (WfZ6a)

10 Oyster: Anonymous speech is the cornerstone of free speech. Are you against free speech? Just because someone doesn't want to leave a valid email address doesn't means their comments are garbage. It is the contents of the comments that matter.

Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 03:30 AM (moq9v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment