Fineman on Imus re: Koran story

[Coexist]

He was great - Altman sounded like an idiot - he came first. Then Fineman was on about 7:30. He explained that the reporter was seasoned, the source, a high-ranking administration official, had been used before. This info was to be released in a a new report on the prison - and it was run by TWO, count 'em TWO Pentagon people - one at SouthCom who had a "no comment" and another (sorry - I forget who) who commented on a different line in this short piece (which they changed after his comments) but no comment on the Koran sentence. Imus was, of course, his usual idiot self.

The typical "Why do you hate our country" "Why do you report the truth if it will get our soldiers killed" stuff. Fineman asked several times, "do you not want to know what happens at places like Abu Gharib other than what our government tells you?" Finally Imus admitted that it was important to know BUT STILL there should have been two sources. Fineman was very patient and tried to explain that two officials had read it and not said it was incorrect - that was a type of acknowledgment in and of itself.

So what I want to know is (my first attempt at framing, tell me how I'm doing!)
Why did the Pentagon TWICE encourage Newsweek to print something it knew to be untrue, something that would get our soldiers killed?

[shraby]

1. Two guesses.....

one, that it keeps the Downing Street memo out of the news or
two, that the story is true.

[liberal N proud]

3. Ding, ding ding ding, I believe we have a winner

You couldn't have hit the nail any harder if you tried.

Those are my thoughts exactly, diversion 101

[Mass]

2. Or is it the opposite story

They printed something that was true, but did not realize it was damaging, and were asked by the Pentagon to retract.

Since when do we believe what Newsweek says.

[Coexist]

4. Of course it was true - former detainees have already claimed that

check out this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1785994

I just don't want to see Newsweek turned into Dan Rather by the right. My hope is that they will fight back, win and show those who are villifying them for what they are. We can't keep letting them drown out the truth by killing the messenger. That tiny mention about what we are doing to their holy book has mobilized entire populations to say "enough is enough". That is important.

[Mass]

7. I am fraid you are expecting too much from them

They are part of the media taking orders from the WH, as Dan Rather was (volunteerly or not). This story was a major distraction during the campaign and it was stupid as Rather did not need the memos to say what he had to say (whether these memos are true or not is another question).

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. The story is true

but due to their cultural ignorance, they didn't realize the reaction that it would provoke. Now that the Afghans are threatening Holy War, everyone is back peddling as fast as they can. Oops, on no, we would never do a thing like that, it's those lying reporters, that's it blame it on the reporter...

[KharmaTrain]

5. Anus Retentive...Can't This Goon Figure Things Out?

I've read...(I rarely ever watch this goon and his hyenas anymore), he's turned against this invasion and has been outspoken about the carnage and waste of lives going on there. Doesn't this piece of crap connect that the lies and this story explain some of what's making this carnage happen? Doesn't he understand that it's creating even more anger and recruits that will fight against American troops? Who hates this country?

While Howard's a weasel, Fineman's one of the better eggs in a rotten bunch. He's not fully on the regime's payroll...and looks like he's in damage control mode for his magazine. Newsweek has been the more credible of the major American news mags (and that doesn't say much)...and I'm sure we're not done with all the finger pointing and blaming of this story.

Yes, it buys this regime more time as the corporate media will now be distracted in yet another round of self flagalation.

[Coexist]

6. "media will now be distracted in yet another round of self flagallation"

classic!

[grytpype]

8. Well that's what they get for believing an administration official !!!

They are all fucking liars apparently.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

14. No, reporters need to protect their sources.

However, they must be very sure to get the story right. And their editors need to stand by them when the government tries to suppress the truth.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Like all those stories out of the White House....

From "unnamed" administration sources?

[kcwayne]

10. If someone flushed a Bible down the toilet and the Talibagelicals

went ape shit about this "defamation" of their faith, would there be an uproar in support of the fundamentalists? I cannot lend outrage or indignation to the fundamentalist Islamics that behave as though this act of stupidity is significant.

Religious hypersensitivity is very tiresome, and in some corners dangerous, which is why destroying "magic" books is a dumb tactic. Whatever gain you get on the target of the action is obliterated in the groundswell of hostility that comes when the fervent masses want revenge for the insult to their precious sacred text. This is so obvious, one wonders what the hell the military is thinking. The answer is obviously they are not.

That being said, it would be refreshing to hear leaders on both sides say, "This was a dumb act, but it is meaningless. There are millions of copies of this book, losing one isn't relevant. Your beliefs and values are embodied by your thoughts and actions, not by ink on paper."

[TacticalPeek]

11. This echoes some Woodstein hiccups during Watergate.

At least, 'as depicted' afterward in the book/movie.

One was the time they ran something by a reluctant source on the phone for confirmation, and Bernstein phrased things so that if the source was silent (refused to dispute the allegation) then that would confirm the proposition, but the meanings got confused and Bernstein misinterpreted.

The other was when they both interviewed a source at CREEP (IIRC) who verified some fact as true, then Woodstein reported it when the guy testified before the grand jury, saying it was part of the testimony. The problem was, the prosecutors had not asked him about that fact during his testimony, hence he had not testified to it, yet it was true. I believe the first snafu with the silence on the phone was supposed to be the second source for this testimony, by Jeb McGruder I believe.

So despite the essential truth of the reporting on this, the Washington Post got egg on its face, and rightly so. Perhaps Newsweek has some egg on their face (perhaps), but the administration has blood on its hands. Given that, I'm sure Rove takes advantage where he can, but I hardly think he suckered Newsweek into this like he probably did with Rather.

The point here is to keep the focus on the unlawful abuse of prisoners in the care and custody of the US, sanctioned from the very top of the administration, which has resulted in prisoners being beaten to death, murdered by suffocation, etc., thus one could hardly put throwing a book in the toilet past them.

[bpilgrim]

13. because it's TRUE

and they thought it wasn't a big deal - like a FEW DU'ers - compared to the TORTURE, till the shit hit the fan and now they are back peddling like bush on a Thur. afternoon heading to the ice-cream stand.

peace

[cry baby]

16. Yesterday on "Late Edition" w/ voofie...

Hadley, Nat. Security Advisor, had this to say about the Newsweek article:

BLITZER: There has been an enormous amount of outrage in much of the Muslim world to this "Newsweek" magazine report from a week ago, that at the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where detainees are being held, they took the Koran, U.S. military personnel or others, and flushed it down a toilet or desecrated it.

And this is causing widespread unrest in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Have you looked into that "Newsweek" story to see if it was true?

HADLEY: It is being looked at right now. An investigation is ongoing.

If it turns out to be true -- we've heard these reports before -- if it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible.

Because the U.S. government's position is very clear: We are an advocate of freedom of religion. Any disrespect to the holy Koran or any other holy book is not our policy, hasn't in the past, isn't now, will not be in the future.

And in fact, people of Muslim faith in a place like Guantanamo are given a copy of the Koran. They're given prayer beads. They're given an opportunity to pray. There is a call to prayer.

We are doing everything we can actually to facilitate the exercise of religion, even for people who are in custody.

(Emphasis mine.)

[Coexist]

19. We've hear these reports before

duh.

[cry baby]

20. So my question immediately was:

So why didn't you checked this out before when you first heard of it? You freakin idiot!

[Catchawave]

18. It is a true story, but I think the fuss is

...more reasons to kill Americans. The guards were probably using the Koran as toilet paper in front of the detainees, but I think the sexual stuff, leashes and Lyndie England in pants pissed them off more.

I'm just not sure why Newsweek retracted the story :shrug: It's only bringing more media attention to it...more soldiers will die as a result. Poor troops :(