Newsweek Lied And People Died

By now everyone has heard that Newsweek lied in its reporting and some Afghani people killed each other in protest. Now I know there are those of you out there who will say I am off the mark saying that Newsweek lied. You will side with them and say that they made a mistake. Mistakes happen and you will remind me that they relied on information that they got and it turned out that the information was wrong.

I would remind you that this is the same scenario with regard to the war in Iraq. I remember that the MSM and almost all the libs out there have been clamoring about Bush and his lies to get us to war. There are people who look at British memos and tell us that the fix was in and Bush lied, people died. Never mind the fact that every reputable intelligence agency in the world told us that the WMD were still there, Bush lied and people died. This was a war for oil and our nasty military killed a bunch of people because Bush lied and people died. Well if Bush is a liar for relying on information that turned out wrong then Newsweek is a liar because they did the same thing. Newsweek lied and people died.

Interestingly enough, the rest of the MSM is going to bat for Newsweek. As Surfside pointed out yesterday, the MSM is minimizing this issue. They are making light of the fact that a major news publication lied and it caused the deaths of people. Now I do not hold Newsweek entirely responsible because the people who killed each other were radicals who kill for the hell of it anyway. But, Newsweek threw the fuel on the fire and sparked the riot. At the White House press briefing today one of the reporters got snippy with Scott McClellan. Here is part of the exchange involving some intellectual named Elisabeth:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not telling them. I’m saying that we would encourage them to help —

Q You’re pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I’m saying that we would encourage them —

Q It’s not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that’s all I’m saying. But, no, you’re absolutely right, it’s not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report….

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you’re saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military —

Q You’ve already said what you’re — I know what — how it ends.

Who made you editor of Newsweek? Well Elisabeth, let me ask you this. Who made you and the rest of the MSM President of the United States. Ever since Bush has been in office you and your toadies have been telling him how to run the country, how to do his job and exactly why he is not smart enough to do it on his own. You have discussed every little detail as if you and only you had the answers. You and your little Perrier drinking sycophants have proceeded to tell the American public just how the President is not doing a good job and how (fill in the blank) could do it better. Well, Lis, it is time that the folks at Newsweek took some of their own medicine. They obviously do not know how to verify a story and they sparked a riot that killed people. When there were no WMD found you sure had a field day.

Lis, I would also like to know how it is that when a few American Soldiers kill people who are being hostile, such as the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist, you folks in the MSM jump all over that. This Marine was a bad guy. He killed some wounded “insurgent” and he should go to jail. Oh how terrible that a man in a combat zone killed a wounded terrorist, boo, hoo. Well, Lis baby, the folks at Newsweek killed 17 times more unarmed people than the Marine did and only one of the two subjects was in danger. You see Lis baby, when they said the pen is mightier than the sword they were not kidding. With a few strokes an author extinguished 17 lives. You folks at the MSM and the liberal left like to cry about your rights and freedoms all the time. Well let me say this about that Lissy, with the freedom of the press comes an awful responsibility to choose your words wisely, to report accurately, and to verify everything that is written. With that freedom comes an awesome responsibility to exercise caution and to realize that what you write can have serious repercussions. You folks have yet to learn that lesson. I would have thought that Dan Rather would have taught you folks something. Then again, I guess he did.

Newsweek lied and people died.

Related Links: Common Folk Using Common Sense

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

26 Responses to “Newsweek Lied And People Died”

  1. “Newsweek lied in its reporting and some Afghani people killed each other in protest”

    Both points are incorrect, naturally.

    “Newsweek lied”: Newsweek reported what was told to them. They did not fabricate it out of whole cloth. Furthermore, they did not retract what was said, they only retracted the “official confirmation” part. There have been several other reports of Koran desecration in the past from other sources.

    “Afghani people killed each other in protest”: The Pentagon has denied this is the case. In fact reports of the Afghan riots began before the Newsweek story was published. Additionally, what makes you think this story could have had more impact than, say, they “menstral blood” episodes or the fact that Rumsfeld himself authorized “clothing removal” and “hair removal” (both Islamic no-no’s) as legitimate interregation techniques?

    News agencies did not actually do these things, mind you, only reported them. Who is more to blame?

    I never heard you condemn those tactics on humanitarian grounds before. Where was your concern for Afghani or Iraqi protesters (otherwise known as “insurgents”) when Abu Ghraib broke, hmm?

  2. Big Dog says:

    Newsweek reported what was told to them by a source that later backed out of his story. You guys were all hot to jump on Bush by saying he took the word of some drunk about WMD. Newsweek did not verify the story and people died.
    Newsweek retracted the source but not the Koran part?? Have you been there and seen the Koran destroyed? Of course not but you will believe anyone who tells you something bad about the Military or the US.
    I do not actually have much interest in what happens to terrorists. I think we should treat the prisoners with dignity and if I were in charge there I would not have let those things happen. The problem is you guys keep acting like these terrorists are saints. They were being held in prison and a few bad soldiers did bad things. You never praise the hundreds of thousands that do a great job every day. You are part of the hate America first crowd.
    How about we condem the ones who cut off heads and commit other terrible crimes. Oh yeah, they are justified in your eyes.
    The Koran story added fuel to an already hot situation. Newsweek was responsible. You can’t have it both ways though I know you will try.
    BTW, thanks for coming by and commenting. I appreciate the input whether I agree or not.

  3. “Newsweek reported what was told to them by a source that later backed out of his story”

    And just how is this lying? Besides, that isn’t what happened anyway. The “senior official” who “verified” the story (not the source) later said he didn’t see the Koran part when presented it by Newsweek and said he would not now back it up. Regardless, not lying.

    “you will believe anyone who tells you something bad about the Military or the US . . . You are part of the hate America first crowd”

    Pardon my language here, but horseshit. If you actually appreciate my input you will never again explicitly or implicitly imply that I want to see harm come to my country or it’s military. You will never again suggest that I am anything less than a true American. Understand?

    I want nothing but the best, and if you cannot wrap your head around that, and still understand that I may have a different opinion about what the best may constitute, then you can go swing for all I care.

    You know what? Better yet? If you would spend more than half your time just saying what you instead telling me what I think, we’d all be a little better off, yes?

    Try to re-read your last comment from my perspective. Ask yourself if you are doing that in order to actually tell me what is in my heart and head (which of course, I would already know and you would have no way to fathom) or because it makes it easier for you to “debate” my motives . . . not my actual motives, mind you, but the ones you made up
    . . . than it is for you to debate my points.


  4. And yes, I know “implicitly imply” is redundant. Whatever.

  5. Surfside says:

    Any news source knows they should have 2 sources to confirm anything that may prove to be incendiary. It a simply tenent of journalism. Ignoring this rule will only get news outlets in trouble. CBS knows that; and, now Newsweek knows that.

  6. Surfside says:

    Also, PW, I think you move from the rank of “protestor” to the rank of terrorist/insurgent when you start bombing innocent men, women and children on purpose.

    BTW, I’m glad to know how you feel about the military and the US. Some of your posts really do seem to embrace the opposite view. We live in a country where we can openly disagree and not kill each other. Ain’t it grand?

  7. “Any news source knows they should have 2 sources”

    Yes, and in this case, they thought they did. They had the source that said it and the source that vetted it. The latter is the one who, after publication, stated he did not recall the Koran part and would not now back it up. They did not ignore “the rules”, one of their sources pulled the rug out, and they retracted. Fine. Perhaps they should have been more diligent and I do not deny they made mistakes, but the fact that this kind of stuff (including at least a half-dozen reports of Koran desecration), and much, much worse, has been reported many, many times elsewhere makes this a real non-issue in my book. Outside of the right’s need to demonize any media that doesn’t toe the GOP line, that is.

    “I think you move from the rank of ‘protestor’ to the rank of terrorist/insurgent when you start bombing innocent men, women and children on purpose”

    Well . . . yeah! What makes you think I don’t think the same thing?

    “Some of your posts really do seem to embrace the opposite view”

    Not in my mind. I think the crap that went on at Abu Ghraib and may still be going on at Gitmo as well as many foreign countries we fly prisoners into (you know, where the rules are bent more) is in fact endangering our troops in the field by undercutting the whole hearts and minds thing, and putting the mission itself at risk. THIS is why I criticise these tactics.

    NOT because I am rooting for “the terrorists” (I use quotes there because I am FAR from convinced that EVERY SINGLE victim of these tactics is one) or because I hate my country. Quite the opposite.

  8. Surfside says:

    Not that I would excuse behavior concerning the Koran story (if it had any basis in truth), but the terrorists in Iraq have actually targeted mosques filled with worshippers. Where is the moral condemnation of those acts in our media and the Islamic world? I’ve read (but have no definitive proof) that these same terrorists have used the Koran to clandestinely house bombs.

    About the “protestor”/terrorist issue, I was only making a point of my own — not condemning one of yours.

    The Abu Ghraib situation was very un-American; and, embarrassing for the country and the military. I agree with you that it may have helped undercut our purpose. For that very same reason, I believe it is highly unlikely that some of these Gitmo stories are true. You must agree that some of those released from Gitmo may have a vested interest in “telling tales” — whether it be to incite their Islamic brothers, defer suspicion or pecuniary in nature. My problem is the media and much of the world is ready to believe any negative story about the military and these facilities at the drop of a hat. Everyone is so quick to believe that bad acts occurred and they were in some way sanctioned. As a guess, I would say 99% of our military acts in a professional and exemplary manner. It’s a shame they are judged according to the 1% that does not.

    Investigate, find the facts. If true, expose them. Punish those responsible. I’m all for that. The media must learn to be more responsible with their reporting. It wouldn’t have hurt Newsweek to wait another week and entirely confirm the story.

  9. Surfside says:

    We are demoting, imprisoning and removing benefits from soldiers over the Abu Ghraib incident. And, rightly so. But, we are supposed to let the media off without an outcry when they fudge the 2 source rule to get to press fast. That story did more damage than the Abu Ghraib debacle — and, had more impact on our “winning hearts and minds.”

  10. Big Dog says:

    PW, I don’t think anything I said was a direct attack on you personally. I said you guys and the truth is the left is full of people who want to believe every bad story about our military. The you and your were references to you guys. I agree with Surfside that some of the posts and comments that you have made indicate something different than what you said here.
    I do not think we all have to agree with whether we should be at war or who was to blame for what. As free people we have the right to disagree. No matter what people think about the war there should never be contempt for the wonderful men and women who are waging it. I have been the first to condem those who broke the law. Look at the posts and you will see where I stand on any soldier who dishonors his profession. I will however, take issue with anyone who attacks those who honorably defend our freedom.

    As for Newsweek. They confirmed part of the story. The Pentagon refused to comment on the Koran part and they took that to mean it was accurate based on the other source who later recanted. They could have waited to make sure.

    I can not read your mind. I can only go by what you write. When you attack me, though it is a game to you, it negates most of your argument and quite frankly some of your posts seem to be knocks against the military.

  11. “The you and your were references to you guys”

    From now on, “you guys” means “PW”. Like it or not, I will claim to speak for the left, and anything that is directed at “the left”, I will claim as directed at me. Just the way I will conduct myself, so ‘ya know. I am so tired of wingers at my site that will say something outrageous and then excuse themselves with “except you, PW”. I don’t accept that anymore. If you think the left is the “Blame America First Crowd” then you think that of me. Do you?

    “No matter what people think about the war there should never be contempt for the wonderful men and women who are waging it”

    You won’t (and have never) read any such assertion from me.

    “The Pentagon refused to comment on the Koran part”

    Again, no. The Pentagon wes presented with the story, objected to another part of it (not the Koran part), and that part was cut. Then the rest of the story was published. Yes, they could have waited and fleshed it out better. They could have sourced it with the six or seven other similar stories out there, for that matter. I wish they had, instead of rolling over with their tail between their legs when the White House yelled “boo”, but there you go.

    Again . . . FAR from lying. FAR from “fabricating”. And, from the Pentagon again, NOT the cause of riots in Afghanistan (although admittedly used by the instigators . . . later . . . as justification).

    And again I say, Rumsfeld is on record, in writing, OK’ing other anti-Islamic “techniques” that I do not hear you criticising because of what effect it may have on the general population. How many have “protested” (by perhaps blowing up an Army convoy?) because of those acts? Why is it only when “MSM” Newsweek reports on (note: not “authorizes”) an action that criticism becomes necessary?

    Newsweek deserves utmost scorn (“People Died!”), but the admin deserves utmost praise.

    Is that really what you want me to believe? Is that really where you stand, Big Dog?

  12. Surfside says:

    Got to disagree with you PW. You can’t stand for the left, it’s too diverse. So, is the right. With varying degrees and nuances on policy issues, you’d be contradicting yourself. Even if you take just the abortion issue, each side of the aisle has pro and anti. (Somehow that doesn’t sound right, but you get my drift.) Bush obviously doesn’t speak for the entire Republican party. It’s a nice thought, for you to be defender of the “faith,” but it’s really not practical.

    Besides, your much more fun when espousing and defending your own views. Who wants talking points from either party? I think we can all think for ourselves.

  13. Big Dog says:

    If you guys means PW then when PW talks he speaks for all the you guys out there and when they speak they are speaking for PW. Therefore any liberal stuff that is spoken by any of the guys can be attributed to PW. Just a logical progression based upon your guidelines.

    Now, I merely pointed out that when NW had bad info or problemds with the info or whaterver you want to call it then it was excused. When The Bush administration had infor believed to be credible and it turned out wrong then they lied.

    I have commented in the past that i am opposed to anything that violates the Geneva Convention with regard to treatment of people protected by the Convention. I never see anyone in the MSM condemn the terrorists who are beheading people. There are never pleas to bring them to justice for violation of the Convention. The MSM can never quite figure out who the convention covers. If it is someone we are holding they are poor, unfortunate people who are entitled to protection. When it is a bunch of thugs the MSM describes them as insurgents, who are not part of a uniformed service, and therefore not technically entitled to protection. As soon as we catch them they are protected. It is a game that always paints us as the bad guy.

    I really stand here. If you take a decision then you have to stand by it and accept the consequences. Newsweek took a decision and they have to suffer whatever backlash comes. Bush’s administration took decisions and the American people reelected him. Therefore he did not suffer the backlash that the electorate can bestow upon those with whom they are displeased. I point his out because you, and I mean you thi stime, always criticize Bush and his administartion and praise anything that opposes him.

    So Bush is Always wrong and all that oppose him are Always right.

    Is that really what you want me to believe? Is that really where you stand, PW?

  14. Adam says:

    Hold up here, y’all.

    First of all, “Newsweek lied and people died.” is no where near the same as saying “Bush lied and people died.” I have accused Bush of lieing to start a war. He then sent troops to fight in that war. Newsweek didn’t try to start a war, and certianly didn’t send people to die in it. What these fanatics did is their doing. The “MSM” cannot be to blame for the actions of crazies. I won’t even argue the technical details of this situation further because the entire entry is a homespun mess of bullshit.

    Furthermore, I have never seen PW make any reference, post, or comment that made me believe he hated troops, or wanted harm to come to Americans. I will however join him in taking offense to being grouped into a “blame America first crowd”. Yes, I believe the roots of terrorism come from our foreign policy. Does this mean I “blame America first”? Sometimes, yes. All the time though? Of course not. But if there is one thing you love to do Big Dog, it’s paint the left as steadfast traitors. It IS horseshit.

    The basic operation status of the right these days is to paint the left a supportive of Americas enemies. It’s a flat lie. Do I disagree with war? Yes I do. That doesn’t mean I want to see our side hurt. Get over that idea. I do not hate Republicans to hate Republicans. I do not hate America to hate America. I hate our actions abroad, the arrogant attitude of our citizines in line with our foreign policy. I hate many things. I do not however want harm to come to any living creature, anywhere.

  15. Surfside says:

    For the record, Adam. Once again, America did not start WWI or either theaters of WWII — not did we start the Vietnam War. We were requested to participate by those who felt could not defend themsleves. This is also true of the first Gulf War.

    Whether you like it or not, both Bush and the Congress believed that Saddam was a threat to the world. We can argue the WMD issue for the 1 millionth time, but it wouldn’t help. Saddam was a cruel dictator and killed more of his own people than the war did (or, the insurgents for that matter). Where was your moral indignation then?

  16. Surfside says:

    You have no facts to support that Bush lied. He had the same intelligence the British and Congress had. Get over it. Bush does not have the power to go to war unilaterally.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Both of you miss the point that in both cases each entity was given information that turned out to be inaccurate. Bush used his information and we went to war. Newsweek used its information and people got mad and killed each other. Because of Newsweek it got a lot more dangerous for Americans overseas.
    Adam, if the MSM can not be to blame for the actions of crazies how is it that you can claim Bush is responsible for those who are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people? Obviously, anyone who straps on bombs and blows himself up fits the definition of crazy.
    You see, you are saying that the actions of one organization are not responsible for the results but the actions of another are responsible. This is another example of trying to have it both ways.
    I do like it when you and PW call it BS or HS. That means that you can not argue the point so you attempt to minimize or trivialize it so as to make it less important. Once again, the report is right because it damns our troops and the administration. If Newsweek had printed a story that our troops were giving out Korans on Bush’s orders and it caused riots in America causing a retraction, then you would be taking the completely opposite view.
    No sane person wants to see anyone get hurt. However, since we do not live in Eutopia, there will always be people hell bent on hurting someone. I say that if it comes down to us or them I am happy when it is them.

  18. Surfside says:

    Actually, I didn’t miss the point. Just went tangentially off on Adam’s “Bush lied” mantra.

    The reality is that Bush had quite a few sources, homegrown and foreign. He had info from all our intelligence agencies — as well as British, Russian and German intelligence. I could be wrong, but I believe the Saudis also provide a few bits of info.

    On the other hand, Newsweek didn’t subscribe to the tried-an-true “two source rule” of journalism, which was established in the profession specifically to deter these kinds of horrific errors. Actually, they have a much bigger burden of “guilt” to carry than the GWB.

  19. Big Dog says:

    Both of PW and Adam

  20. Surfside says:

    Sorry, my mistake . . . .

  21. Adam says:

    Big Dog:

    I’m not trying to have it both ways. Let’s look at it a different way.

    You are arguing that a newspaper article made people mad and they killed people, so it’s the articles fault.

    I’m saying Bush is responsible for deaths because his wars destroyed what stability there was left in Iraq and Afghanistan allowing terrorists and drug lords to take over.

    I’m also saying that our cold war policies in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the roots of terrorism itself, not some fanatical hate of freedom. Hate is unnatural, and people don’t hate except for a good reason. They hate America and our allies because we have used the Middle East for three decades without stopping to consider the ramifications.

    Blowback is not a liberal talking point. It is a CIA term they had to invent because they realized that our actions in the world do have negative results.


    What does WW I, II, and Vietnam have to do with my argument?

  22. Surfside says:

    Your rhetoric was bleeding over from comments at your site. Thought I’d head it off at the pass. It seemed we were headed down the “foreigners dying for American freedom” path:

    I hate our actions abroad, the arrogant attitude of our citizines in line with our foreign policy. I hate many things.

  23. Adam says:


    Oh, in that case let me remind you that you can also get Iron from grains, if you aren’t eating meat. Way to cut my quote off right where it makes me look bad.

  24. Yeah, OK, I’m out now.

    Trouble with long threads. There’s just too much to debate with at once. I’m an objectivist, you see. A really logical kind of person. I can not begin or uphold any argument that allows this many layers of objection in.

    In other words, I cannot simultaneous argue 25 different points. Who could?

    In other, other words, I cannot answer one point only to be rebutted regarding something completely different.

    In other, other, other words, I cannot talk about the specific thing Newsweek may or may not have said about what may or may not have happened, and parlay that into a “Lib? Traitor or Not? ” philisophical debate.

    Long story short, I’m out. Catchya on the next one.

  25. Surfside says:

    Then, Adam, we’ve had a lesson on exactly how the media can manipulate news stories — and that manipulation usually benefits the Libs/Dems.

    Seriously though, I do believe the following of you:

    I do not however want harm to come to any living creature, anywhere.

  26. Big Dog says:

    PW, I certainly understand your point. Once we get to so many comments it kind of veers off course but it leads to interesting discussion.

    As for who could argue 25 different points at one time. John Kerry