Speaking of Pravda...

The flushing story was vetted by the Pentagon. The Pentagon.

Before you start jumping up and down at another "victory" over the "liberal media", you need to acknowledge and investigate the truth. I don't really care what freewill propagandists like Glenn and Roger Simon (are you kidding? you don't really read him, do you?) think. Do they have reporters on the ground? All they can do is repeat things that they've read from Karl Rove-approved sources.

Dozens of news sources reported the same story. Why is Newsweek on the chopping block for this?

Newsweek, part of a giant media conglomerate (shareholders consist of wealthy Republicans) is partnered with MSNBC aka GE, the largest defense contractor in the world. I'd say they were the fall guy for more paranoia-inducing nonsense that the media is working against the war. It certainly worked on you, Eric.

Get off your high horse. Clearly you're wrong. Repeating the lies don't make them true.

BTW: The following individuals publish lies every day and are NEVER held accountable by the Righty blogosphere.: Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Simon (oops!), Glenn Reynolds, Joe Scarborough,etc., etc.

PS Did I mention that the Koran toilet story was vetted by the Pentagon?

Now who needs to make a retraction?

Certainly not your admirable defense of what you call the Pentagon's "vetting."

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=5959

Just like the Rathergate nonsense, the fact that this story is TRUE is being missed while y'all make it a story about the media:

"Contrary to White House spin, the allegations of religious desecration at Guantanamo published by Newsweek on May 9, 2005, are common among ex-prisoners and have been widely reported outside the United States. Several former detainees at the Guantanamo and Bagram prisons have reported instances of their handlers sitting or standing on the Koran, throwing or kicking it in toilets, and urinating on it. Prior to the Newsweek article, the New York Times reported a Guantanamo insider asserting that the commander of the facility was compelled by prisoner protests to address the problem and issue an apology.

One such incident (during which the Koran was allegedly thrown in a pile and stepped on) prompted a hunger strike among Guantanamo detainees in March 2002. Regarding this, the New York Times in a May 1, 2005, article interviewed a former detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, who said the protest ended with a senior officer delivering an apology to the entire camp. And the Times reports: "A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans." (Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt, "Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay," New York Times, May 1, 2005.)"

PS This is why Instapundit doesn't have comments. Any mistakes he publishes can go uncorrected and unaccountable for eternity. The meme multiplies and repeats itself and pretty much the lies become a "truth". Shudder to think he's "replace" the New York Times.

Congratulations on another Pravda victory.

I don't see any evidence that you read:
1 - The original Newsweek bit
2 - Newsweek's published response

It looks like you've read Instapundit and Roger Simon and simply fell in line with the Army of Brave, Brave Combat-Avoiding Chickenhawk Synchophants. What a man you are!

My manhood is open to question, but at least I'm brave enough to put my name in print.

....which makes me wrong and you right? What a man! What is this? The sandbox?

BTW, the "sources" above are apparently too laughable even for Newsweek's standards.

I do like the word "Synchophant," though.

This story has been in circulation since October 2004. Why the Newsweek retraction now? Because of the need for censorship, as endorsed by Glenn Reynolds. Read Arthur Silber today. Everything you need to know is there.

http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=511

Nothing but good news or else!

What I want to emphasize right now is the speed and ambitiousness of the propagandists’ game here. In less than a day, they have targeted all of these issues, using the Newsweek mistake (if indeed it was one) as their freshest ammunition:

—Minimizing to the point of non-existence all abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib

— Minimizing to the point of non-existence all abuse and torture at Guantanamo

— Reinforcing the idea that the mainstream media is not to be trusted on matters of national security, and that it is fundamentally anti-American

— Introducing the idea that “some people” think the media has finally gone “too far,” which carries the unavoidable implication that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

So what is the logical result of all this? There are at least two major results, and two major goals: first, strengthening the idea that, whatever the United States does, it is always right and anyone who questions our policies is wrong, and anti-American—and if we do make any mistakes, they are trivial and barely worth mentioning, thus trying yet again to shut down all debate; and second, if the Bush supporters and warhawks had their way, censorship.

I didn't raise the issue of manhood. No idea why you did.

Arthur, IS THAT REALLY YOU??? Why are you suddenly using the same IP numbers as blogesota?

Anyway, I don't think the idea that the American media has gone too far has been suddenly introduced; I've been hearing it for years.

I think accusing Glenn Reynolds of advocating censorship because he pointed out the obvious is unreasonable.

But really Arthur, I know you're more original than leaving your own post words as a comment.

Isn't reason a classical value? What is the "obvious" here? The government can't tolerate the truth being told about the war. Reynolds has advocated censorship in service to official government lies. I don't see anything unreasonable, unfair, or untrue about what I said.
Glenn Reynolds advocated official censosrhip. There is nothing ambiguous about that. Anyone who can read knows this. The accusation is based on truth. There is no "other side" to this argument.

I thinks its a funny coincidence that this Newsweek story is coming out just as the Smoking Gun (Bush and Blair both knew there were no WMD's and decided to invade long before they had a reason) story is heating up. It sure gives the corporate media a convenient distraction so that they don't have to report the truth. Instead, they get to report the Karl Rove official propaganda. Whew!

Shorter Juan Cole:

Newsweek stands by its story, even though a Pentagon source caved (after earlier vetting it).

Similar stories are well-documented.

People in Afghanastan have a million other reasons for rioting that have nothing to do with toilets and bibles.

Juan Cole himself!

Gee, I am so honored to have you as a visitor to my humble abode here at Classical Values. Is there anything I can do for you other than agree with you?

More on Newsweek

Howie reports : Whitaker said that a senior Pentagon official, for reasons that "are still a little mysterious to us," had declined to comment after Newsweek correspondent John Barry showed him a draft before the item was published and asked whether it was accurate, adding that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for a week after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting.

The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," he said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."

Why didn't the Pentagon raise a red flag? Why didn't they say hold on while we check those facts? Newsweek didn't blind side the Pentagon. They acted in good faith by giving the Pentagon access before they ran the story. The first reported incident made it seem like they printed the story with no notification. That's not the case. Didn't the "senior" Pentagon official have an idea what might happen? This doesn't excuse Newsweek, but the mayhem that ensued could have been averted.

Facts are stubborn things. They are not for you to agree or disagree with. They just are. For you to agree or disagree with a fact is to show that you are a fool.

Blaming Newsweek serves as a diversion from a more important question: why did the Pentagon refuse to comment on the allegation when it was first shown them? If it was false, they could have denied it; if it was true, they could have...denied it anyway.

Somewhere out there is a pooch that's been screwed by far more people than those at Newsweek. Let's quit pretending that everything would be fine were it not for those traitorous mainstream media meddlers.

Those who told so many ever-changing stories about why we absotively posolutely HAD to invade Iraq RIGHT AWAY are in no position to show any outrage about how "Newsweek lied, people died." And those of us who went along with the whole scheme won't fool anyone by pretending to go along with the manufactured outrage.

Fail you do, Eric. Please explain about how the media goes "too far" Instapundit-style. You've never done this. You simply assume that the Prez is telling us the truth and that the media should never, ever question it.

The sanctity of religious books remark came from Condi Rice. You can't even get the most rudimentary facts right, can you?

And why should you? No one ever holds you accountable.

While it's nice to have such famous commenters, it's remarkable that any serious reader of this blog would imagine that I had any duty whatsoever to discuss anything at all. I'm not running a forum, nor do I have to allow any comments (much less respond to them). The idea that I have a responsibility to participate in inane question and answer sessions, while not a new one, is something I always find hilarious.

This is a blog. If you want to continue debating yourself, go right ahead.

If it's "accountability" you want, you might try sending your comments to the New York Times. Be sure to tell them I sent you!

No one here disputes that this is your blog, and you can do whatever you bloody well want with it. But some of us do kinda wonder why you make a post, allow comments in response to same, join in the discussion that ensues, and then, at some arbitrary point in the discussion, pointedly assert your right NOT to participate in the discussion. It all seems kinda odd, but that's just me...

My responses are as optional as your comments. (Or for that matter, my posts.) If someone asks me something I consider reasonable, I might answer it, or I might not. If someone says something I think is funny, I might reciprocate. Or might not.

This all consumes time, and just as I have no right to your time, you have no right to mine. There is, I admit, nothing democratic or fair about comments, and I get thousands and thousands of SPAM comments as it is. Even though I use the MT blacklist software I am so tired of deleting them that I often consider turning off all comments just to get rid of them. I prefer allowing comments, but I don't see how that creates any obligation. If I thought it did, I'd just turn them off.

One last thing: I consider debating an utter waste of time, because no one ever wins. I've never known anyone to be persuaded by a debate, and I don't want to persuade anyone of anything anyway. I'm just sharing my thoughts and my writing; if people don't like it fine. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing.

It's a pity you've had such bad experiences with debate. My own experience is that debate can indeed change minds, including mine, or, more often, encourage and enable people to at least see other peoples' points of view, perhaps even to understand them, even if no one is actually "converted." That is, after all, why I look at liberal, conservative, libertarian, and "leftist" blogs, even though I do not expect always to agree with what I read in either.

It is true, of course, that many people use blogs, not to sample other points of view, but to shut them out or shout them down, protect their own points of view in a bubble of solipsism, and pretend that seeing their own POV echoed in someone else's blog makes it "right" or "equal" to widely reported objective facts. As Eric Clapton (?) said, "It's in the way that you use it."

If you've "never known anyone to be persuaded by a debate," perhaps you should re-evaluate your debating style, the position you're trying to defend, and/or the people with whom you're trying to debate.

The atheist God-hating Communists mock, blaspheme and desecrate the Holy Bible of the Jews and the Christians, the holy dogmas and holy sacraments of the Catholic Christians, the Christ and His Passion, His Most Holy Virgin Mother (the Queen of Heaven), all Gods and Goddesses. So, why do they like Islam and the Koran of Mohomet? A contradiction? No, for the Mohammedans have been enemies of the West ever since Charles Martel hammered back their invasion of France in 732 Anno Domini -- and the Communists always side with the enemies of the West, of the very civilization that nurtured them. As with Rome, Egypt, and every other great civilization, our enemies are within our own gates.