Actually this is being hinted at in a few different places, but let's make it explicit:
Newsweek ran a story based on mistaken information about flushing a Koran. As a result of their mistake, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.
George Bush invaded Iraq based (in part) on mistaken information about WMD's. As a result of his invasion, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.
Of course, Iraq did have WMD production capabilities, they did sponsor terrorism, they did violate UN resolutions and international law, they did prosecute a genocide against the Kurds and killed thousands upon thousands in a nightmarish totalitarian state. And Iraq now has a fledgling democracy. And America clearly demonstrated its resolve to avenge the attacks of 9/11. But all that's not important right now.
What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well?
1
You pawn. The fact is that every US home (almost) has a flushable toilet. The production capability was there, and right-wing US bloggers
regularly sponsor extremist right-wing behaviour - noting Blog-ads to left; "Victor Davis Hanson at his best", "Politically Incorrect - The Coolest Right Wing Shirts", "Military News and Discussion" (echo chamber) glorification of dark side etc.
Newsweek pre-emptively broke a headline that was waiting to happen. Newsweek are committed in their foresight and commited in alerting their audience to risk.
Anyway, if you still think "the left" read Newsweek you probably need re-educative instruction. The left read and write everything. Including rightwing spoofs like this sit...woops, cat got out of bag again.
Posted by: Republican at May 16, 2005 07:29 AM (zPCEz)
2
Newsweak lied, people died.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 08:55 AM (8e/V4)
3
"What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well"
And can the right attack newsweek without implicitly attacking bush as well?
Paralyzed we are.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 09:14 AM (Ygl+x)
4
actus,
a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. In other words, Bush would have made a better journalist than Michael Izikoff.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 09:18 AM (8e/V4)
5
"a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. "
Then rusty's analogy also fails. I'm assuming it doesn't.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:01 AM (Ygl+x)
6
actus,
relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 10:49 AM (8e/V4)
7
"relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources."
and going to war and killing lots of people and using billions of dollars is a lot different than printing words on paper. but we can still use analogies.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Ygl+x)
8
actus,
but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 11:26 AM (8e/V4)
9
"but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush."
The analogies rise and fall together, as they are mirrors of each other.
Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:30 AM (Ygl+x)
10
Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable?
actus,
I would consider Newsweek morally culpable for reporting it even if it were true, because they reported it based on either A) malice against Bush, regardless of the consequences, or B) without malice, but with reckless ignorance of the consequences. That kind of ignorance is culpable.
Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences. And anybody that ignorant should not be reporting world news. I find it hard to believe Izikoff is that naive.
But given that the accusations aren't true, Newsweeak is double and triple culpable.
The interrogator, on the other hand, is not morally culpable because A) flushing Koran pages down a toilet isn't immoral, anymore than some Liberal atheist flushing pages of the Bible is immoral. It was merely an interrogation technique not consisting of torture, and not meant for publication by ignorant malicious journalists.
Or the interrogator not culpable because B) he never did flush Koran pages down a toilet.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 12:14 PM (8e/V4)
11
"Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences."
What if they knew the consequences? How do you get malice? how can this be pinned on bush?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 12:22 PM (Ygl+x)
12
This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 01:48 PM (xauGB)
13
"This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories."
Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 06:21 PM (Ygl+x)
14
"Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?"
I couldn't care less if it does happen. Bibles and buddhist statues are desecrated 24/7 by these muslim sub-humans, and we don't fucking riot and kill people over it. If someone riots because of a desecrated Koran he should be shot like a mad dog.
Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (8e/V4)
15
Actus-
Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. I think anyone who did so would face severe discipline. For very good reasons, as the recent riots have demonstrated.
I expect that, in line with the "fake menstrual blood" incident, it would be within the rules of engagement to desecrate a fake Koran. I have no knowledge of that, of course, and whether it would be effective I am quite doubtful.
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (KO8iS)
16
"Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. "
Woah.
Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:35 PM (Ygl+x)
17
Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?
Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 11:19 PM (qf8md)
18
"Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?"
I'm assuming our troops act a lot like prison guards -- which aren't nice people. I don't think that mishandling a Koran is that big of a deal -- in the humane treatement sense -- and I'm assuming that our troops don't either. Not the kind of thing I would do, but I've never had to run a prison/ detention system.
I'm also going by the fact that before this there have been other reports of desecrations, and other religious offenses being used.
Are you really surprised to find out that, in a prison, jailers act like prison guards?
Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 01:47 AM (Ygl+x)
19
"by these muslim sub-humans"--Carlos
Carlos shows us his true colors. He believes one fifth of the world is comprised of sub-humans. He probably thinks the same of Africans and Orientals. Carlos is a racist. This is a racist war.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)
20
greg,
it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism. And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians.
(and I don't care if you're not a Leftist-- given your views, you might as well be.)
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:15 PM (8e/V4)
21
and ps., greg, YOU are the racist for holding Arabs to such low expectations of their behaviour. You think it's fine when they act like savages because after all they're only Arabs-- the little brown people (said with an Irish brogue). YOU are the racist for always giving the little savages a pass, while holding christians, Israelis, Americans, westerners to unrealistic standards of perfection.
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:32 PM (8e/V4)
22
"it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism."-Carlos
It is racism and furthermore you insult God by saying so. These are the sons and daughters of Abraham.
"And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians."-Carlos
I am a Christian. You're talking out your ass.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 01:27 PM (/+dAV)
23
greg,
do you believe in the divinity of Christ, and his claim that there is no way to the Father but through him (Jesus)?
Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 02:27 PM (8e/V4)
24
Yes, as a matter of fact I do.
Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)
25
well good for you greg. You've just risen a few notches in my estimattion of you. But your Leftist buddies can still suck eggs.
Posted by: Carlos at May 18, 2005 12:53 AM (8e/V4)
26
Carlos,
You insult God by calling His creations sub-human. I don't think you can receive salvation unless you rid yourself of this sickness.
Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 08:33 AM (/+dAV)
27
Greg
I am serioulsy getting fed up with all the crap about religion.
It is not a Religious war The terrorist may like to think it s a religious war but its not. The Coalition forces are not fighting a religion they are fighting idiotic brainwashed fools who ought to know better. thats all folks........
Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 01:27 PM (F1nba)
28
Sparky,
Take a deep breath, now exhale. That's it, inhale, exhale.
Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 01:30 PM (/+dAV)
29
PHeeeewwwwww
Thats better
PMT!
Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 07:50 PM (F1nba)
Posted by: casinos in linea at July 01, 2005 09:41 PM (MHDX6)
31
all of u dumb ass u cant blame bush for all of this he just did what he that was right and could help and protect our country. If Keery would have done somthing like this u would have been for him so shut up. But hey Kerry Isnt president so u cant say ne thing.
Posted by: adam at November 03, 2005 08:27 PM (xBEg9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
