Freedom of the press

[woodchip]

Well thanks to superp journalism by US NEWS & World, Riots in the Muslum world continue and many deaths from the rioting have occured. Why? Because news organs seem to have this unfettered view that they can report and print anything they deem newsworthy...all without any repurcussions against their sainted souls when they are wrong. Little transgression we can understand, ala Jason Blair, but to print a story about the Koran being toilet flushed? Did the editors not understand the consequences of their actions? Like CBS did they not bother to double and triple check their sources? In short why did it take until the aftermath of their story that they (editors) finally found out the story was not true. What kind of Cracker Jack Box journalism is this? And they wonder why print journalism is being usurped by the bloggers.

[Dedman]

As much as I agree with your sentiment there Chip, I heard it a different way. From what I have heard, it was NewsWeek and the editors are distancing themselves from the story but are not retracting it.

Either way, a newsie appears to have gotten it wrong again. Who says the 1st amendment can't be fun

[Gooberman]

I agree with woodchip up the point of the CBS comparison, they are completely different.

American jounalists have the right and should report on stories on both sides of the War effort.

However when reporting on something that may have this backlash, there really needs to be a whole playing field of different and higher standards to make sure what you are saying, is indeed acurate.

This may of cost peoples lives, the CBS thing, well, the only harm that did was help Bush get re-elected.

[CDN_Merlin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/newsweek_quran

[Flabby Chick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4551149.stm

I'm a bit knackered to say anything else...

[Will Robinson]

Whenever there is a chance to harm the Bush whitehouse all efforts must be made to get the story out as soon as possible. Corners may be cut, facts may go unchecked and witnesses may be an anonymous voice on the phone with no coroborating evidence to support their story or even a Baldwin brother.
These are desperate times people and we have a job to do that only we are smart enough to understand.

*this memo will self destruct in ten seconds (hopefully before someone copies it to Drudge)*

[Birdseye]

Right, let's blame the press and not the dumbass military. This is the type of stuff I sadly expected us to mess up on!

Step #1 in preventing war with muslim world:

Do not, under any circumstances desecrate their holy book, the Koran.

It's quite simple... but I don't expect you to ever to accept the US to have made a single mistake, wood. If it's true we flushed a Koran down the toilet, what did you expect? Less jihad? Heh.

[bash]

Remove the Korans from prison. Simple.

[Cuda68-2]

Remove the Korans from prison. Simple.

And put them in our civilian prison system and see how long they last.

[Lothar]

Step #1 in preventing war with muslim world:

Do not, under any circumstances desecrate their holy book, the Koran.

So, the question is, have we actually done it, or is Newsweek just plain wrong? My inclination is to say, the US military knows a lot better than you do that you don't desecrate the Koran. That's not the sort of thing they'd mess up.

Let's not forget the Al Qaeda Training manual's instructions (page 16 of part 4 -- lesson #18):

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brotherâ??s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brotherâ??s family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case,they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

Gee, look at that... AQ's very own training manual says to complain about torture and mistreatment, whether or not it's true. Would it surprise you if they made up fake stories about the Koran being desecrated?

By the way, I've heard of one credible story of Koran desecration: one of the prisoners tore up his own Koran and flushed the pages down the toilet as a protest.

(As an aside: Birds, how's the war going in comparison to your predictions?)

[Vander]

Wait, it's Newsweek's fault for the riot, yet nobody seems to be denying that the Good Book was flushed? I see a lot of 'it didn't happen the way Newseek says,' but not a whole lot of 'it didn't happen.'

It seems totally plausable to me that Koran desecration is an interrogation/punishment/torture method currently in use. I would be surprised if it wasn't. Hell, it obviously has an emotional effect, it leaves no scars, and the evidence is flushed!

People don't riot instantly for a single reason. It is always something that has been building beforehand. It's the opening of a wound that was already there. So I wouldn't be too quick to pin the cause of the riots solely on a magazine article, at least, if your motivation is really to understand why the riots happened.

And to the people that think the press shouldn't report this kind of stuff, in factually correct reports, because of what the outcome might be - a self censoring press is a greater danger to our country than any external force. We need an unfiltered look at the situation to make good judgements. If we're torturing our prisoners, we should know about it and accept it or we should stop torturing our prisoners. Worrying about the effects our press has on external events is justified, but it is the price inherent in our form of governement, and we need to accept that. There are, undoubtedly, stories that probably shouldn't be published, but I would rather have that judgement made by a press that erred on the side of reporting the story.

[Pebkac]

Right, let's blame the press and not the dumbass military. This is the type of stuff I sadly expected us to mess up on!

I find it curious that even after Newsweek accepts responsibility for their screwup and apologizes, you still want to defend them and lay blame at the feet of the military. What's that about?

Why shouldn't Newsweek be blamed for this one? We know for sure that they fucked up. They said so themselves. The accusations they printed cannot be verified. Given that Newsweek's editors had to know what kind of reaction this would stir up in the land of jihad, shouldn't they have been a bit more diligent in confirming the story as accurate before printing? Is that really too much to ask with so many lives on the line? Perhaps their hardons for a possible Abu Ghraib II clouded their judgement.

At the end of the day, many are dead and many more will die because one American interrigator alledgedly flushed a book down a toilet. No biggie though, there was a scoop to be had.

[bash]

Jeff, no one needs to accept shoddy reportage. The problem I see is allowing the use of too many anonymous sources. That is a phenomenon that's been growing steadily and dangerously since the days of Watergate. Editors have to start demanding more on-the-record attribution, especially when peoples lives may be placed in jeopardy. Journalists would do well to place themselves under the same rules that our courts demand of lawyers (i.e. hearsay is not admissable and every defendant has the right to know and face their accuser) if they wish to reclaim their flagging credibility.

[woodchip]

And to the people that think the press shouldn't report this kind of stuff, in factually correct reports, because of what the outcome might be - a self censoring press is a greater danger to our country than any external force.

Where was the press when (the original) JFK was running all the woman through the white house? Vander, for your idealised version of how the press should operate to be vindicated, all stories must be written...no matter whom may be hurt in the process. After all if it is news, it must be reported...right? Even if the "news" cannot be substantiated, print it anyway and there is a good chance the story might not be able to be disproved.
While I believe a free press is vital to the welfare of our nation, I think it is high time reporters and news outlets be held liable for damage caused by un-verifiable stories gotten by third party "sources".

[Lothar]

nobody seems to be denying that the Good Book was flushed?

The denials are all over the place. I mean, granted, nobody is saying "we're 100% sure this has never been done" -- but they're saying "we've investigated and there aren't any credible accusations so far."

It seems totally plausable to me that Koran desecration is an interrogation/punishment/torture method currently in use. I would be surprised if it wasn't. Hell, it obviously has an emotional effect, it leaves no scars, and the evidence is flushed!

In this case, we're down to one of those "believe what you want to believe" situations -- because you can't prove a negative ("nobody has flushed any Korans") and we're talking about something that maybe the military could be doing without getting caught, people will just believe what they want to.

I wouldn't be too quick to pin the cause of the riots solely on a magazine article, at least, if your motivation is really to understand why the riots happened.

When there's a forest fire, you often blame the lightning strike or the discarded cigarette that lit things up. There had to be burnable material -- but what set it off?

In this case, we already know why people are so quick to riot. We all already know about Islamic fundamentalism, how they think American culture is an affront to them, how they think we're the "great Satan", how they hate us for supporting Israel, etc. We know about various US policies that piss certain people off; we know about Abu Ghraib. None of this is news. Why do you expect us to go over that yet again?

The simple fact is, all that crap is in the background, and Newsweek published a story that was the "spark" certain fundamentalists have used to drum up dissent and violence, and the story itself wasn't credible.

to the people that think the press shouldn't report this kind of stuff, in factually correct reports....

Who's said that?

If it's factually correct, publish it -- but in a story this dangerous, make really sure it's factually correct! Newsweek failed to do that.

[woodchip]

As an aside...how do you flush a book down the toilet?
Shred it first?

[Birdseye]

i'm not defending newsweek at all. When I posted I hadn't seen anything about whether or not it was true (just woodchip's claim, hardly a reliable source) - that's why I said if it is true, it's stupid of the military. I really hope it is not true. If they did publish something that wasn't verified properly, then they will soon join the depths of Dan Rather

the war? Like I said after the elections, things are going better than I expected and I honestly hope we prevail in the objective. Unfortunately it will take decades to really decide whether or not it was a good endeavor. Does the country succeed when we leave? Does a civil war ensue? Did we cause recruitment for Al Qaeda greater than it ever would have been if there had not been a war in Iraq? Would have spending billions on tracking down Al Qaeda specifically rather than rebuilding Iraq and caught those who planned 9-11 been more effective? We won't even get a hint of the answers for years. The violence doesn't seem to be subsiding and Iraqis are far from being self-sufficient. Meanwhile bin laden is running around still and I don't think we've done much in terms of protecting America from terrorism. In fact in terms of keeping America safer I think we've done the opposite. In terms of a democratic Iraq, it's doing better than I expected.

Let's hope they can take over, run the country, and not fall into a civil war or dictatorship.

[Vander]

Jeff, no one needs to accept shoddy reportage.

I agree. If Newsweek got it wrong, they should've waited until they got it right.

Where was the press when (the original) JFK was running all the woman through the white house?"

Where was the press when (the original) WJC was running all the woman through the white house? Heh.

[quote="Woodchip]I think it is high time reporters and news outlets be held liable for damage caused by un-verifiable stories gotten by third party "sources".[/quote]

Yeah, I'm still holding my breath for the NYT to fire Judith Miller over her Iraq WMD reporting.

When there's a forest fire, you often blame the lightning strike or the discarded cigarette

That's kind of a flawed metaphor. With a group of kids playing with matches in the forest, do you blame just the one that actually started the fire? It's like blaming the Rodney King verdict for the LA riots a decade ago.

and the story itself wasn't credible.

What if it was? What if Newsweek put out a factual report. Do you still blame them for the riot?

Who's said that?

Nobody in this thread, I guess. Perhaps I should've said "might think." But there are definitely people who do believe certain things shouldn't be reported. Things like pictures of caskets, and skeptical/negative reporting on Iraq in general.

Anyways, I just wanted to spew some rhetoric. Mission Accomplished, I guess.

[Birdseye]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=763759

Here it is... shame on Newsweek. Rather-city for them.

[woodchip]

and the story itself wasn't credible.

What if it was? What if Newsweek put out a factual report. Do you still blame them for the riot?

As a matter of fact...yes. The editors knew (or should have) full well what the reaction to their story would be. It would be akin to someone smelling smoke in a theater and screaming fire. In this case the releatives of the deceased have grounds to sue Newsweek and I'm not sure but crimminal charges should not be brought against those who wrote and those who approved the story.

(just woodchip's claim, hardly a reliable source) -

So there is a lot of erronious posts that I make (other than I got the wrong name of the mag. on this one)? I don't think it is necessary to post links for stories that have been reported on for days at a time. I suggest you listen to "wassup" at least once a day.

[Vander]

"The editors knew (or should have) full well what the reaction to their story would be."

Did they? There have been past reports of Koran desecration and there weren't riots.

"It would be akin to someone smelling smoke in a theater and screaming fire."

If you're in a theater and you smell smoke, do you just leave without warning anyone? Is that action somehow moral? The press is supposedly in the business of warning people about the fire. Do you really want to hold them liable for how people react?

Ack. I hate getting bogged down with metaphors and analogies because real life issues always have more nuance and depth than a simple metaphor or analogy can represent.

[woodchip]

"The editors knew (or should have) full well what the reaction to their story would be."

Did they? There have been past reports of Koran desecration and there weren't riots.

Yeah? Where?

If you're in a theater and you smell smoke, do you just leave without warning anyone? Is that action somehow moral? The press is supposedly in the business of warning people about the fire. Do you really want to hold them liable for how people react?

If I smelled smoke I would first tell the ushers and try to find the severity of the situation. Then if the situation warranted it, I would have someone go to each exit door and open them. Them I would calmly inform everyone there was a problem and could one and all walk to the nearest exit and leave until the problem is resolved. Never would I yell fire.
So you See Vander, there are ways to report a situation...using a screaming voice is not one of them. How people react can be controlled in the presentation of the report.

[Vander]

Yeah? Where?

October 2004:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm

Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion. For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans. They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards â??would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.â?

[woodchip]

Actually Vander, Newsweek didn't follow my first step. they didn't verify the source (as I understand it the source was only one person) and double check the veracity. Newsweek "screamed" the story instead of reporting the possibilty that the "source" might be in error, have political reasons for saying such a thing and that they (newsweek) had no first person report on Korans going down the tubes. There are a lot of caveats that could have been presented to more calmly report the story. Then again if Newsweek were truely a responsible organisation they would fire those involved with the release of the story. Perhaps this is what Bush means by taking stronger action (by Newsweek)

[woodchip]

Oh and to being held liable...I'm evidently not the only one:

"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's government said Tuesday that Newsweek should be held responsible for damages caused by deadly anti-American demonstrations after the magazine alleged U.S. desecration of the Quran, and it suggested that foreign forces may have helped turn protests violent.

"Pakistan joined the international criticism of the magazine's article and said Newsweek's apology and retraction were "not enough."

"But at the same time, we feel angered at the way this story has been handled," Ludin told a news conference Tuesday. "It's only fair to say at this stage that Newsweek can be held responsible for the damages caused by their story."

"Pakistani officials also expressed anger that the magazine got its story wrong."

"Just an apology is not enough. They should think 101 times before publishing news that hurts hearts," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said in Islamabad."



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050517/D8A51JAO0.html

[Gooberman]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157177,00.html

the president downplayed the importance of the photos in stirring up the Iraqi insurgency.

"I think the insurgency is inspired by their desire to stop the march of freedom," Bush said.

Bush said he did not think photos of would incite further anti-American sentiment in Iraq. "I don't think a photo inspires murderers," the president said.

So if newsweek says that Korans were flushed down the toilet, then they bear the responsibilty of X many deaths (I don't remember the number conservatives finally agreed on).

But if pictures of one of their leaders in his undies are "leaked", well then the insurgencies are inspired by their desire to stop freedom.

How come the 'newsweek riots' weren't inspired by thier desire to stop freedom?

pots and kettles all over the place here.

[bash]

um, no. If the insurgency began after the Saddam photos were published, you might have a point. Since it didn't, there is no cause and effect as there was when Newsweek published it's desecration claim. The two incidents bear no resemblance to each other and trying to draw a parallel between them in order to find some sort of hypocricy is silly.

[Lothar]

I partly agree -- if the undie pictures turn out to be significant in terms of increasing violence, then whoever leaked them, as well as whoever published them, is at least partly responsible. (And if it turns out they're photochops, we'd have a nice parallel to the Newsweek story.)

But, on the other hand, Saddam undie photos are pretty much only going to infuriate those already in the insurgency -- people who are already motivated against freedom. I just can't see average Muslims getting that worked up over it. But Koran desecration accusations are going to infuriate normal, sane Muslims who aren't already anti-freedom or whatever. The situations are not quite equivalent -- one pisses off the "enemy" while the other pisses off the "neutrals"...

[woodchip]

What is totally curious here is al Brazeera is not going to show uncle saddie in his gropeware as it might be against the Geneva Accord. Funny how that never stopped them when an american solder was beheaded and video taped.

[Gooberman]

The two incidents bear no resemblance to each other and trying to draw a parallel between them in order to find some sort of hypocricy is silly.

The reactions of the white house is a direct hypocracy. For them to shrug off that a photo wont inspirer a murderer, (since he does it because he hates freedom), while just a week ago claiming that a sentence in a news magazine did, is hypocritical.

One media came from a private organization, the other was leaked by the government. If there is no parallel, it is only because the former should be taken alot less seriously.

Have it one way, you can't take both roads.

Media either inspires them to commit murder, or it doesn't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

[Lothar]

Have it one way, you can't take both roads.

Media either inspires them to commit murder, or it doesn't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

You can take both roads, just as I said in my post.

If you're talking about people who are already inspired to commit murder, pics of Saddam in his undies might make them madder, but they're *already* insurgents so it's no big deal.

On the other hand, if you're talking about normal people, flushing a Koran down a toilet might inspire them to commit murder even though they wouldn't have before.

It's legit to say the Newsweek report inspired violence, because people who were not violent before it was published got violent after. But (at least so far) we have no indication that people who were not violent pre-Saddam's-undies have become violent now that those pics have been published.

If people are already violent, you can't blame something just released for their violence. But if they were not violent and then became violent, you can blame something as a trigger.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be mad about the Saddam pics except those already in the insurgency.

[Gooberman]

If you're talking about people who are

No, as stated, I'm talking about the reaction of the white house. If the white house was going for consistancy they should of come down on the leak like a ton of bricks because of any danger that it could put the troops in. Concluding that there would be no increased danger because media can't inspire them to murder, (since they are allready inspired by their hate of freedom), is completely hypocritical.

Lothar your entire post is speculation. You suspect the average person wouldn't be upset that we were perading him in his underware. You have no evidence of this. You may be right, but you can't be certain. Several average Arabs may simply take this as us parading our "catch," or as an extention of showing a lack of respect for their beliefs on not showing the body exposed, or them after years of being told Sadamn is near Godlike, still believing it, or just not like Bush shruging it off, etc, etc. (such actions are a violation of the Geneva Convention for a reason).

And it is entirely because of this uncertainty that makes this a hypocracy.

Media either can inspire them to commit murder, or it can't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

The white house can't take both roads, and they tried (did?).

[Lothar]

If the white house was going for consistancy they should of come down on the leak like a ton of bricks because of any danger that it could put the troops in.

They didn't come down on Newsweek until *after* the reaction to the story *actually* led to people being in danger and killed... and part of that was because Newsweek didn't check their facts, so it was a bogus story anyway. (Also recall that Muslims view the Koran as far more sacred than Christians view the Bible; it's doubtful they view Saddam as anything close to that.)

You complain that my post is speculation -- yet you say the White House should come down on the leak because of speculation that it *might* cause problems in the future. You also criticize Bush for speculating that the photos would incite further anti-American sentiment. If you're going for consistancy... Make up your mind, is speculation good or bad?

Now, I totally agree they should come down on the leak like a ton of bricks, because it violates at least one of the Geneva conventions and because it's just plain wrong. But they're completely entitled to speculate that it won't increase anti-American sentiment. They might be wrong, but they're entitled to speculate until such time as they have evidence to the contrary. You're jumping the gun with your accusations of hypocrisy -- if a new wave of violence is kicked off by this picture, and they still stand by the same line, maybe then you can make your accusation.

Media either can inspire them to commit murder, or it can't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

Like I said, you can have this both ways. A sufficiently inflammatory media story can inspire normal people to commit murder... BUT some people are already out committing murder because they hate freedom, and they won't be inspired by a mere picture.

(Really, Goob, this is the sloppiest reasoning I've seen from you in a long time... you're losing sight of important distinctions all over the place.)

[woodchip]

The White house is taking the pics seriously, as is the military. The pics were taken off a security camera and a full investigation is underway. When the culprit is caught if he/she is in our military I'm sure a court martial will ensue. Now...what investigation is going on at Newsweek? Who was the leak? And will there be crimminal charges?

[DCrazy]

I think they're also a bit concerned with someone leaking any videos/stillframes from security tapes. That's not the best way to operate a military...

[Gooberman]

(Really, Goob, this is the sloppiest reasoning I've seen from you in a long time... you're losing sight of important distinctions all over the place.)

1. Your hitting reply before reading the post. I'll show you below.

2. Thats nice that you partly agree with the sloppiest reasoning you've seen in a long time.

yet you say the White House should come down on the leak because of speculation that it *might* cause problems in the future.

Good. might causing our troops harm is something to be concerned with. Might not, isn't.

You also criticize Bush for speculating that the photos would incite further anti-American sentiment.

Your clearly not reading lothar. Bush did not speculate that the photos would incite further anti-american sentiment (if he did, you would be right!). He speculated that it would not, because media doesn't inspire them to murder. The reason they murder, according to Bush, is because they hate freedom. (Unless, there is a news week story, then we forget the hate of freedom and run with and blame that)

Now perhaps it all makes sence?

Media either can inspire them to commit murder, or it can't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

Bush said media doesn't inspire murderers, while last week the white house said it did.

(we are talking about general media. Bush said "a picture" not "this picture." He made a general statement about the reasons they do what they do, and the irrelaventness of the media, that is completely contradictory to the reasons the white house gave last week on why they do what they do, which included the importance of the media with no hate of freedom reference)

[Lothar]

(Really, Goob, this is the sloppiest reasoning I've seen from you in a long time... you're losing sight of important distinctions all over the place.)

1. Your hitting reply before reading the post. I'll show you below.

2. Thats nice that you partly agree with the sloppiest reasoning you've seen in a long time.

2. I partly agree with the conclusions, but the reasoning you use to get to them sucks. I've found recently that you're far too quick to call people liars and hypocrites, you're far too quick to speculate about people's motives, and you're far too quick to accuse others of not reading. I used to respect you quite a bit, but in the past year or so you've started to sound like a cross between Zuruck and Rican. If you're listening to others or giving any consideration to others' arguments, you're not giving any indication of it. You play word games and you change definitions in order to force people into the conclusions you want, and while that might win you a debate, it's never going to actually persuade anyone.

1. I read your post, I just think you're wrong at a fundamental level, and that you're doing extremely intellectually dishonest things in order to keep yourself convinced.

Bush did not speculate that the photos would incite further anti-american sentiment (if he did, you would be right!). He speculated that it would not, because media* doesn't inspire them to murder.

Right. He speculated. That's the point. He didn't set a policy, he didn't make a law, he simply speculated about what he thinks is going to happen (or not happen). There's nothing wrong with that.

* but he didn't say "media"...

The reason they murder, according to Bush, is because they hate freedom. (Unless, there is a news week story, then we forget the hate of freedom and run with and blame that)

It's a different "they"... The reason "they" (the insurgency) murders is because "they" (the insurgency) hate freedom. "They" (the insurgency) probably won't be particularly inspired by a photo. On the other hand, "they" (average Muslims) get pretty pissed off when "they" (average Muslims) hear that their holy book is being desecrated. "They" (average Muslims) are very much incited to anger by the FALSE story printed by Newsweek.

Media either can inspire them to commit murder, or it can't because they do it out of hate for freedom.

Different "them". Different "media".

Bush said "a picture" not "this picture."

Misunderestimate. Resignate. Where wings take dream. It's not the way America is all about. Subliminabable. Exemplarary. We cannot let terriers and rogue nations hold this nation hostile. A leadership is someone who brings people together. Get to the bottom of the answer. Pontificate. Strategery.

And you're going to put a lot of weight on whether Bush said "a picture" or "this picture"? Heh.

[Gooberman]

I'm saying you arn't reading because you arn't. Let me break it down.

You also criticize Bush for speculating that the photos would incite further anti-American sentiment.

Bush did not say this. Bush said that they would NOT incite further anti-American sentiment.

I criticized bush for saying it would NOT incite further anti-American sentiment.

Drop your ego, drop the accusations and read it, read it again. If you dont see where you are wrong, read it again. Keep doing this until you see that what you posted is the exact opposite of what Bush said, and what I said he said.

[TheCope]

One of you just passed out from consuming too much 90 'proof' Internet forum debating.

Gooberman, you must know by now that the right side of the single party system will wiggle for weeks to make sure they are 'right'. Even if it means pulling out all the stops that donâ??t pertain to the subject at hand.

Welcome to my non-contribution.

[Lothar]

I'm saying you arn't reading because you arn't.

You also criticize Bush for speculating that the photos would incite further anti-American sentiment.

Bush did not say this. Bush said that they would NOT incite further anti-American sentiment.

Whoops, my apologies. I intended to say "NOT" as well. That was a typo (not a failure to read) on my part. (I'm also incredibly confused that you didn't pick up on that being a typo -- since everything else I've said has been entirely in line with Bush speculating "would not"...)