home

Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retraction

The media once again is falling prey to the demands of the White House. The issue is not whether Newsweek should issue a retraction. It is that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should appoint a special counsel to investigate detainee claims of torture and religious persecution. The Government cannot continue to investigate itself and proclaim its innocence.

The documents obtained by the ACLU through its Freedom of Information Act request, the lawsuits filed by detainees, the dozens of interviews and two years worth of mainstream media reports all make a compelling case that this kind of abuse occurred.

We must assure the Arab world that an independent and thorough investigation will occur, that the abuse, if confirmed, will stop and that those responsible will be held accountable.

The Arab world could care less about a retraction from Newsweek. It wants action by the U.S. Government. It deserves no less.

I expressed these views this morning -- as a blogger, not a defense lawyer-- on MSNBC's Connected Coast to Coast .

Here are our earlier posts on the Newsweek apology:

Update: Newsweek has now fully retracted its article. My comments for World News Tonight were rendered moot - and did not appear, so I deleted the reference to them. That's the breaking news biz.

< Sensenbrenner's Sntich-or-Go-to-Jail Bill | German Spam is Becoming Overwhelming >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Given the impact of its Periscope story, Newsweek's ethical breach if true is a serious one and, as the Pentagon charges, shockingly irresponsible. But the reaction and rhetoric of the Bush administration shows the sheer hypocrisy - and massive cajones - of a White House characterized by a morally casual attitude towards the truth... For the full story, see: "White House Irony Watch: Newsweek Edition"

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#2)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    TL, I couldn't agree with you more on the need for a full open and independent investigation of Guantanamo. If my friends on the right really believed that no abuse occurred at Guantanamo, they would also ask for an investigation. After all, why be against an investigation if the truth is supposedly on your side? However, I suspect that noone will because they suspect the Bush administration is guilty as hell.

    I too agree with Talkleft. unfortunately Newsweek has caved

    UPDATE: Newsweek has now retracted the story. Don't look for apologies or retractions from the White House for Iraq WMD, Iraq-9/11 link, Valerie Plame outing, rejection of science on global warming, claim that privatization would address Social Security financial longevity, fraud over Medicare budget, Jeff Gannon scandal, fake news, Mission Accomplished speech, or anything else. For the full story, see: White House Irony Watch: Newsweek Edition"

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Remember this 2-13-03????? "The US State Department called the accusations of torture "ridiculous", while the Pentagon said the reports were being investigated." It's all in how things are defined. The meaning of is, is.

    Rumsfeld said. "People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do."
    Wow...it's deja vu all over again.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Who do you trust to do an unbiased honest investigation and if the results don't coincide with what you believe, will you accept them?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#8)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Good god. i care nothing about some backward koran, so what? will the ACLU Ask to hand over Americans to some backward terrorists court? think people you are being used.

    Whitaker added that the magazine's original source later said he could not be sure he read about the alleged Quran incident in the report Newsweek cited, and that it might have been in another document. It's not about whether it happened but in which report the Army acknowledged it happened. And as TL pointed out -- others have reported on these abuses. Another successful Bushco assualt on the truth.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter.

    Patrick has it right. No matter what gets investigated, no matter by whom, and no matter what the results are, it'll never be enough as far as most who post here and many in the Middle East are concerned. So why bother?

    Good for you Jeralyn! So much for the liberal media conspiracy (tongue in cheek) This problem would be solved so easily if the White House was in charge of the media! Oh why are we so resistant to common sense?

    Patrick has it right. No matter what gets investigated, no matter by whom, and no matter what the results are...
    Well this brings us to the elephant in the room...namely the possibility that Israeli advisers assisted in the development of the techniques employed by the U.S. at its detention centers. I think we should have that issue looked at, don't you?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#14)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    For what it's worth, Think Progress has an interesting post dealing with whether Newsweek's reporting can really be called a sole proximate cause of the unrest in Afghanistan.

    TL Right on! except - why is this an either/or? Shouldn't Newsweek print a retraction on an article they now consider bogus - and there be a special prosecutor assigned to investigate reports of torture and religious persecution? Just to step back: Didn't most of our bad intelligence in Iraq turn out to be based on one or two very edgy sources? You would like that publicly retracted by President Bush personally if you could get it done. Correct?

    It's ironic to see the wingers turn on Spikey Isikoff. When he was giving them Monicagate, he was a hero.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    I would have no problem with an investigation into the treatment of those imprisoned at Gitmo. I'd also have no problem with an investigation to find out who the Pentagon "source" was and why did he pass on false information to the press. Perhaps call in the reporters that wrote this fiction and ask them to tell them who this source was under threat of Contempt. Both seem fair to me. As far as NEWSWEEK is concerned they will be dealt with in the marketplace for their sloppiness as most major newspapers and networks have been with a loss of credibility thus a loss of circulation/ratings I just find it curious that the Left has taken on the mantle of Joseph McCarthy whether it is M.Issakof or Sen Reid. The tenor has turned to the point that one can accuse someone of anything and force that person to dispprove that assertion whether it is made with merit or not. It is up to the accuser to make the case not for the accused to mount a defense. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. But of course this site is run by a defense att'y so everyone here knows that already. Right?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    J'accuse

    I think it is interesting looking at the links that Newsweek didn't print the retraction in their arabic language edition.

    Thanks to TalkLeft for reminding us that the issue is not "who told" but "what insults to the Koran took place" and "who should be held responsible." It is unfortunate that NEWSWEEK -- like CBS, when they reported on George W. Bush's absence from National Guard service -- had the story right, but did not have enough proof to satisfy. There have been rumors of the Koran in the toilet-bucket stories for some time from reliable sources. The only missing element appears to be a confirmation from a named Bush Administration official that it occurred. More important: What is missing is a reliable investigation of events at Guantanamo and in Iran, to show whether or not those insults (and other tortures) occurred -- and who instigated and encouraged those actions. NOTE: "McCarthyism" is not an accusation of wrongdoing (which is what was done in NEWSWEEK's story). McCarthyism is punishment without proof of the accused, including loss of employment and public shaming. NEWSWEEK and the current Administration are NOT accusing individuals without proof, nor ostracizing them. Quite the opposite.

    There have been rumors of the Koran in the toilet-bucket stories for some time from reliable sources.
    I think we have now gotten past the "reliable sources" stage in this one - since quite often they are not (Iraq a case in point). TL is right about an independent investigation - but Newsweek is still wrong here.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    et al - What we need is for everyone to take a very deep breath and say: America is not the enemy. Some radical Moslems are the enemy. We can't win by letting the radical Moslems dictate our respone, to anything. Newsweek made a big, big mistake. They have retracted the story. Some "journalists" should be fired, and forced into another line of work. They don't deserve pity or mercy. The root cause of this was a "my country is always wrong mentality" that many in the press have adopted. The secondary cause of this was a mind set that says sensational anything is better that calm, careful reporting. Shame on the people at Newsweek. Shame on the people of the Left who are trying to take advantage of this. To heck with the radical Moslems. And where are the moderate Moslems??

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    The term "McCarthyism" is generally assigned to those who accuse others of charges that can't necessarily be proven but the innuendo does the damage, think of Dickens' LaFarge sisters. The reputation of the US military, the Administration and in turn the people of the US has been impuned again by an unprovable assertion by a major media outlet. The idea that someone can accuse someone of something nefarious without proper proof and then expect the accused to prove a negative is "McCarthyism" in its purist form. It is no different then when the townsfolk accused a person of being a witch and putting them through the "tests" and if the accused died in the "tests" they were innocent but if they lived they were guilty and thus killed. Either way the accusal was a death sentence. The Inquisition, the King's Judges, Sen McCarthy and now Newsweek and its agreeable defenders are all guilty of this nonsense which is not only antithetical to American jurisprudence but also to the rule of law. Call it an inquisition, a witch trial, the Committee of Un-American Activities or what passes for journalism today. In any of these forms it is wrong, immoral and dangerous to an honest discourse. Unfortunatly this seems to be the way politics has been moving these days. Everything old is new again. J'accuse to all.

    PPJ...the tactics applied by Israel and the U.S. can only breed more people trying to kill you and me because they equate us with those who tortured their brethren. I disavow myself of all people who use torture, why don't you?

    jimcee...the army investigated itself via the Taguba Report for Abu Ghraib. Is there a Gitmo equivalent of this? Where? All we are seeing now is a show trial of Newsweek Magazine, in order to dodge the real issue.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Ernesto - Define torture and we can talk. Until then, how about you telling me why it was okay for the terrorists to attack us, on 9/11 and in the previous 22 years or so... without a qualifier. And the real issue is why Newsweek would print a story like this without proper vetting. It is damnable and disgraceful. Heads should roll. jimcee - One small difference. There actually were communist spies and fellow travelers in the DOS and other government organizations.

    PPJ...I thought we settled that 9/11 issue for good yesterday. What is it with you...early Alzheimers? BTW...I didn't provide the qualifier, my government did, without my knowledge but with my tax dollars. Here's the definition you asked for...it is treatment that you would not want THEM to do to US. So this definition includes what happened at Abu Ghraib and most probably what has and may still be going on at Gitmo. Will we ever know the details? That's a legitimate question that we all should be asking instead of playing along with the latest White House diversionary tactics.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Ernesto - The fact that we provided them weapons has nothing to do with whether or not it was okay for them to attack us. You keep trying to use that as a qualifier. It won't work.

    I never said that us funding and arming and organizing them made it OK for them to attack us, I just said that it made it possible. Kapeesh? Can we move on now?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Ernesto - Then why bring it up? And actually, the weapons used on 9/11 were box cutters and airplanes. I don't think they qualify as a dual use technology transfer. No, you brought it up to use as an excuse for them attacking us, so you could in turn blame the Repubs. Ernesto, you are as transparent as a sheet of glass.

    Ernesto - Then why bring it up?
    That's what I was wanting to ask you since you were the one who brought it up in this thread. Which seemed especially strange to me since yesterday we both agreed it was stupid policy. And it isn't really a partisan issue as US foreign policy in the region wasn't much different under Carter than it was under Reagan, which we also discussed before. You feeling OK?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#32)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Ernesto - Still trying to avoid it, eh?

    Posted by Jim:"America is not the enemy." When did unelected George Bush, the LIAR and fomenter of unnecessary, illegal war against innocent people, become 'America'? Because George Bush is certainly the enemy -- of the Constitution, which is a lot more America than his band of rightwing yes-men racists. "Some radical Moslems are the enemy." ANY Moslem, and just about any liberal religious person of any faith, finds the acts at Guantanamo and elsewhere REPUGNANT. Radicalism has nothing to do with that. During the US invasion, someone burned the Koran-Torah Repository, full of priceless, irreplaceable historical and religious documents and sacred books, to the ground. There isn't a single Muslim on this earth, radical or not, who would have done that. It was George Bush's CIA who did that, and it is part of what is in fact GENOCIDE. 1. Scores of thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers murdered in full violation of Geneva treaties in 1991. 2. Over a million persons dead from results of US destruction of civilian infrastructure in the Gulf War (another violation of Geneva treaties). 3) 500,000 children dead as a result of the cruel sanctions regime, enacted by the US (and Clinton and Albright were OK with that). 4) Lies and conspiracy, now PROVEN, leading to the illegal Iraq invasion (which violated the UN treaty, and the Geneva treaties). Aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, the British Dossier, the mushroom cloud threats, drones, supposed links to Al Qaeda -- ALL PROVEN LIES. 5) 100,000s of civilians killed in Iraq, and Henry F* Kissinger admits that Iraq is to be dismantled, leaving behind three territories and 15 new US airbases. That dismantlement is GENOCIDE under the Genocide treaties. The process is a major violation of the Geneva treaties, and is accompaniied by a range of outright warcrimes, such as the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations, DU, cluster bombs, weapons experimentation on civilians, etc. Bush is the enemy, not America. And he is shattering our military, and making illicit deals with dicatators around the world who are our enemies. Take a deep breath and smell the BS coming out with Bush's every wasted, traitorous breath.

    I can't believe how many people lose all faith in the newsweek article because the White House of all places starts a firestorm about it and all the supposedly "liberal media" outlets suddenly have a front page headline. Ok hello the freakin white house is not the purveyor of news, they are the purveyors of BS. Why anyone would blame newsweek for what is obviously a true story, which has been reported before, multiple times, and which is even less severe than what happened at Abu Grhaib is beyond me. Escpecially considering the troops at Gitmo got a document outlining how much respect they were to use in handling the Koran. Wow, this book must be important, maybe we can make them talk by flushing it. Of course it happened, to deny it is just ludicrous and to play into the "bad newsweek" distraction is just asinine. The real question is when are all those people being held illegally at gitmo going to be released back to their families? what a disgrace, to harbor a concentration camp in this day and age.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#35)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    The sheer volume of these reports and the number of different sources reporting similar incidents leave no doubt that the desecration of the Koran described by Newsweek took place. Moreover, the fact that precisely the same kind of abuse was witnessed at different US detention facilities in both Afghanistan and Cuba makes clear that this was not a matter of unauthorized brutality by individual soldiers. Rather, senior officials in US military intelligence and in the Pentagon leadership devised and ordered a tactic of religious-based abuse aimed at destroying the will of the detainees. ... Newsweek’s capitulation in the face of White House pressure is one more confirmation that there exists no significant constituency for democratic rights or institutions within the US ruling elite. The days when the mission of the press was seen as that of “Fourth Estate,” acting as an independent power whose purpose was to scrutinize, expose and criticize the actions of the state, are over. Now, what is acceptable as news is to be determined by state policy. The outcome of this latest affair is to conceal the criminal actions of the US government. What the Newsweek episode makes clear is that the job of the major news outlets—all owned by giant conglomerates—is not to inform the people, but to defend corporate and state interests by suppressing inconvenient information and promoting government-sponsored lies.
    Media bows to US torture regime Newsweek retracts Guantánamo abuse story By Bill Van Auken, 17 May 2005

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#36)
    by Lora on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Here's a likely scenario, imho. Enormous pressure was placed on the trusted government source to change his/her story. Probably several trusted government sources were pressured, to be sure they got the right one. The Bush Administration could then jump all over Newsweek for false reporting, not of the story itself, but of the document from which the story came. Gee this sounds SO familiar. The big mistake Newsweek made was trying to report this administration's dirty secrets. Look out for firings, bogus investigations, backtracking and general grovelling. I just hope we do not end up with another journalist suicide a few months or years down the road.

    A Newsweek journalist familiar with the reporting on the article agreed with his editor's regrets Monday, but said it appeared the administration was seizing on the error to minimize the abuse allegations. "The issue of how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo has not gone away," said the journalist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now they want to deflect that by talking about how irresponsible Newsweek magazine was." And this morning JD Haworth, the stomach stapled loser from Az, said this points to the need for greater restraint by the media on printin stories that are harmful to the US - even if it were substantiated it shouldn't be printed...so two issues in play -the failure of the magazine to get an on the record source and the right of the media to print stories even if they have a bad impact on the image of the US --according to the formerly fatassed loser -the need to protect our image is the most important role of the journalist.

    good points lora. this administration can not expect the Arab world to simply dismiss the report. because we failed to blame those responsible for a number of abuses our credibility is zero. essentially it doesnt even matter if the allegations are true, it is another incident in a long list of many perceived abuses. so stop blaming the damn media, this administration brought these protests on long before this story was released. come clean admit some wrong doing, fire some people and stop acting as if the US is infallible.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    The Fox (pun intended) indignation is oozing out of every floorboard at the White House today.

    Frankly, the Islamic world does a better job of flushing its holy book down the toilet every day than any guards could. The arab world is owed an explanation? For what? Its inability to advance past the 6th century.

    FoxNews is talking about the admninstration's statment that Newsweek must make a "sustained and aggressive" effort to reach out to the Muslim world to try to undo "the extensive damage" done to America's image over the story... Is anyone else smelling wacky-tabacky smoke coming from the White House? Or is this the newest "liberal media" attack from the 'cons? So, waging a phony war against Muslims wasn't a big deal, stripping them naked and torturing and beating them to death...yawn, no big deal...but a story about a FLUSHED KORAN...now, THERE'S the reason Muslims hate America!!! Comment: Muslims must also be psychic, since they were hatin' on Bush looooong before this story....

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    what insults to the Koran took place
    Who cares? Books don't have rights, people do. Worrying if the US interrogators got a book wet is lunacy. In fact, if the worst they are doing is flushing books, I'm relieved. Are they torturing people? Are innocent men being detained without just cause? This is what should matter, not how bound pieces of paper are being treated. And frankly, I'm puzzled by the Islamic reaction. We torture at Abu Gharib, and the response is subdued...we allegedly flush a book, and they riot? More proof to me that the overly religous are insane.

    As Blagh says, you can't desecrate a book because only an idolator would hold a man-made object to be holy...that goes for Bibles, Torahs, prayer beads, crucifixes (watch out, Exorcist, you're looking for an indecency fine)... Any disagreements?

    And kdog, General Myers said days ago that the story wasn't the reason the Afhans really rioted...it's because of Bush and Karzai in bed trying to keep them from experiencing real democracy...but you won't hear FoxSpews talking about THAT...

    And frankly, I'm puzzled by the Islamic reaction. We torture at Abu Gharib, and the response is subdued...we allegedly flush a book, and they riot? More proof to me that the overly religous are insane.
    What happened to that libertarian/liberal respect for other cultures and views? Christians treat the Bible with respect; but some Muslim's take it more seriously. Defiling the Koran in Afganistan carries the death penalty. You may think that crazy; but isn't some knowledge of the views of others some part of a valid foreign policy. Isn't some training in this necessary for those guarding Afgan's at Gitmo? Shouldn't news agencys before writing stuff so inflammatory double and triple check their stories? Perhaps religious views do not measure up to your standard for "respect of culture" and "honoring diversity"; but since 1.3 Billion people in the world consider themselves Muslim; while only 850 million label themselves outside of religion - maybe you should work on that.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    jhc..I defend anyones right to worship anything, I do not condone rioting over the mis-treatment of a book, or my govt. mandating how books are treated. If that means I lack a respect for diversity, well so be it. ITS A BOOK!

    A couple of points: 1. We can say what we like about the fact that the Koran is "just a book". To a significant portion of the world's people, it is supremely sacred. It is the Word of God made tangible. That places it above mere literature, above its simple material existence as a book. You may not agree with this belief, you may think it foolish, or irrational, but you cannot ignore it or dismiss it, and we should, for humanity's sake, respect it. Symbolism is a powerful thing. Even the most rational secularist might be offended if I wiped my behind on a photo of their dead mother, even though the act involves no physical violence. To desecrate that which people hold most dear is to deliberately attack these people using the most powerful weapon available. The interrogators who threw the Koran into a toilet bucket (not down a toilet as previously assumed - Gitmo prisoners don't get en-suite bathrooms) knew perfectly well what the effect of their actions would be. That's why they did it. Same with the menstrual blood story. Both of these fall into in the same armory of psychological weapons as, for example, threatening to rape the prisoner's sister. All are contemptible. There are plenty of Christians (George W Bush, amongst others) who believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God. I disagree with them, and I disagree with the Muslims (they can't both be right after all) but I do respect their belief and their right to hold it. It may be irrational, it may be primitive, but to belittle these beliefs is to belittle those who hold them. Religion is not a rational belief system. We are not always rational creatures. 2. In response to the question "where are the moderate muslims", I would answer this: The moderates are being pushed away from their moderate stance (and towards extremism) every time the US shows its contempt for Islam by, for example, throwing the Koran into toilet buckets. It is pretty hard for moderate leaders to claim that the US is not at war with the religion of Islam when it's representatives are willing to desecrate that which these moderates and their supporters hold most sacred. Would those who claim that Muslims are overreacting to this also agree that Jews have no right to be outraged when neo-Nazis smear faeces and spray swastikas on their holocaust memorials? Symbolism is a powerful thing.

    Kdog, et al If a demonstration against government policy in the US turned into a riot - wouldn't y'all think police/military reaction had something to do with it? Not to say it did (or that I agree with your view here) - but none of those governments particularly condone demonstration - peaceful or otherwise.

    Good post Ian. "You may not agree with this belief, you may think it foolish, or irrational, but you cannot ignore it or dismiss it, and we should, for humanity's sake, respect it." Respecting their belief in the sacredness of the Koran is one thing, respecting their belief in murdering those who desecrate the Koran is quite another. "The moderates are being pushed away from their moderate stance (and towards extremism) every time the US shows its contempt for Islam" What you're missing here is that the alleged Koran incident is, generally, irrelevant. That many, perhaps most, aspects of the US/western civilization show it's contempt for Islam. And, in general, the more fervent a muslim you are, the greater the contempt western civ shows. So, what are you going to do, convert? "Would those who claim that Muslims are overreacting to this also agree that Jews have no right to be outraged when neo-Nazis smear faeces and spray swastikas on their holocaust memorials?" Again, that's the point. Outrage, yes. Jihad, no.

    Sorry but the evidence of moderate muslims being pushed to extremism is nil. No one wants to say the truth-these folks are irrational and demented. When I read about Tibetans blowing up innocents, I might change my opinion.

    "Ernesto - Still trying to avoid it, eh? " PPJ...Actually I addressed that issue at least 3 times so far. Here's a list: Arming and funding the Afghan mujahadeen was a bad idea Arming and funding the Afghan mujahadeen by the U.S. did not make it OK for the Afghan mujahadeen to subsequently attack the US and other countries, but it did pave the way for the attacks to happen This is a non-partisan issue since both Reps and Dems conspired in the mess I was amazed that you actually have come to agree with the first item above. You have definitely made some progress here, although paradoxically, the last I read, you still think that arming Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was part of a brilliant strategy.

    Sorry but the evidence of moderate muslims being pushed to extremism is nil. No one wants to say the truth-these folks are irrational and demented.
    Ed, I will agree with you and I will add that any Christian that supports the Iraq invasion is just as irrational and demented. Can we agree on that?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#56)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    DA - Actually, anytime I see us getting two of our enemies fighting each other I will call it a good deal. Do you not agree? Ernesto - I gave you the point based on 20-20 hindsight. At that time it was a very good deal. BTW - Can you tell us why the terrorists have been attacking us for 25.5 years?

    "Ernesto - I gave you the point based on 20-20 hindsight. At that time it was a very good deal. " So it was a good deal up until 9/11? "BTW - Can you tell us why the terrorists have been attacking us for 25.5 years?" The Shah of Iran comes to mind along with his lil network of peacekeepers that we installed. Does that ring a bell?

    sorry. no meeting of the minds. world w/o SH a net positive for the world.

    Oops, I forgot to ask...Ed are you a Christian?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#60)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    Ernesto - In the mid 50's we wouldn't go along with England and France when they wanted to retake Egypt because Nasser had nationalized the Suez Cannal. This assured the survival of the first modern Moslem state. Does that count? Did our intervening in Kosovo to protect Moslems from being killed count? Did our intervening when Iraq invaded Kuwait count? As for, "CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry..." Well, there you go again. The issue wasn't oil, particularly in 1953 when we had a glut. The issue was denying the Soviets a warm water port. Which, BTW was the reason the Soviets got involved in Afghanistan. They thought if they had Afghanistan they could pressure Iran into giving them access. Read some history. Education never hurt anyone.

    Read some history. Education never hurt anyone.
    PPJ...yes indeed and since you posed the question of why were attacked by these radicals I showed you a link that described SAVAK. Do you know what SAVAK was? Do you know what they did? Do you know who set them up? Read some history and get back to me.

    Jim: "This assured the survival of the first modern Moslem state." Which wasn't the reason why we did it. It had nothing to do with saving Egypt or Nasser (especially after Nasser's famous "'(the US should) Drop dead of your fury" speech)-- it had to do with the clear danger of Soviet entering the fray and opening another front in the Cold War. The US didn't care much about the canal itself -- it was the British and French who mainly used it. Nonetheless, it was the US which set off the crisis, by reneging on funding for the Aswan Dam (which was eventually paid for by the Soviets, increasing their sphere of influence). "Did our intervening in Kosovo to protect Moslems from being killed count?" You have OPPOSED that policy of Clinton's rather vigorously, if memory serves. And it was NATO that intervened, technically. "Did our intervening when Iraq invaded Kuwait count?" After the Bush 1 admin rep told Hussein it was fine with them. After Bush lied to the country about the incubators and about SH's intent to invade SA. And nevermind the scores of thousands of retreating soldiers who the US slaughtered, or the illegal destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure. That and the sanctions REALLY got Muslims to love us. A half-million dead babies, over a million dead adults, mostly from lack of clean water, and malnutrition. Way to win friends! "Well, there you go again. The issue wasn't oil, particularly in 1953 when we had a glut. The issue was denying the Soviets a warm water port." Oil was the reason; oil is ALWAYS the reason. But this time it wasn't US oil interests, particularly. Once M. nationalized the oil, the British planned on invading (NOTHING TO DO WITH BLOCKING SOVIET ACCESS); it is well known that the plan to topple M. was of British origin. Truman said he would not support an invasion (which he might have if a Soviet port was at issue); the British boycotted Iranian oil; the Iranian economy tanked; the CIA and MI6 set up Mossadegh, and put the Shah back in power; and the bloody mess that resulted is history. "Read some history." Understand some history.

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#64)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    Ernesto - You ask about SAVAK after I quote from the article? That's funny. My point was that it is important to understand why certain things were done. The modern Left likes to tie everything to oil, which is not true, and demonstrates a very shallow understanding and knowledge of history. Again, with 20-20 hindsight.... You are truly one of the best Monday morning QB's I have seen. PIL writes - " The US didn't care much about the canal itself -- " Wrong. The canal allowed the US to quickly add resources from the Atlantic/Med to the far east and vice versa. Given the state of our fleet, I suppose you don't remember the post WWII build down, that was extremely important. And no, Clinton entered unilaterally and NATO then came along, as did the UN. I was against it yes, I though Europe should do it, as they should have. But after our troops became involved I shut and supported them. You might try doing that. But, since Clinton did it, aren't we supposed to receive any reward for our tax dollars??

    Jim: "The canal allowed the US to quickly add resources from the Atlantic/Med to the far east and vice versa." If that was the case, then the US would have supported removing Nasser and 're-internationalizing' the Canal. They did not. Your claim that it was to protect Egypt and Nasser is so ahistorical as to be RIDICULOUS. The whole reason why Nasser nationalized the Canal was in reaction to the US withdrawing promised funding for Aswan Dam. He gave a hotly hostile, very popular, anti-US speech on the day he nationalized it (I quoted his famous words). "And no, Clinton entered unilaterally and NATO then came along, as did the UN." There were no US actions before coming in as NATO. As for the UN, the UN took over the peacekeeping, and was not involved in the fighting. "I was against it yes, I though Europe should do it, as they should have. But after our troops became involved I shut and supported them. You might try doing that." Under a legally-elected leader, I might. But Bush is a vote-fraud. He has no right to my support or my consent. Beyond that, I have been supporting the troops actively since BEFORE they were wasted in this illegal conspiracy. But the Centcom brass should have their stars ripped off their epaulets, and their swords snapped over some sargeant's knee. "But, since Clinton did it, aren't we supposed to receive any reward for our tax dollars??" Since Bush is busily bankrupting the country, that is another of your weird comments. HOW ABOUT OUR $500 BILLION IN TAX DOLLARS ON SEPT. 11? Why didn't we get any 'reward' for our investment on that day, and how come NO ONE resigned or was fired? It's not my job to protect the US from air attack. I think that's why the Pentagon sits there like a scar on the earth. Why did Donald Rumsfeld change NORAD's rules in July 2001? And deny it for two years? Why did he say that the Iraq engagement would last six months, tops? Why did he say they would throw flowers at us? Why did he say that Iraqi oil would pay our costs? Since he said those LIES, why does he still have a job? Don't we deserve better from our tax dollars, Jim?

    Re: Newsweek: Investigation Is Needed, Not Retract (none / 0) (#66)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    PIL - You should remember that sometimes happiness is wanting what you get. As for your comment about Egypt, it again demonstrates your basic lack of knowledge of history. As for Kosovo, the US dragged NATO in by their noses. Of course if you are as young as mfox indicated you are, you probably were too busy doing other things to pay attention to the finer points.