Newsweek Pulls A Rather!

[Nickdfresh]

Would you have busted my chops if it were James Karvill or Tukar Karlsun?

Is that show even on as an independent program anymore?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Thanks for pointing out how I misspelled his name, I didn't have time to google him. And I don't watch Crossfire much anymore.

C'mon man, I'm just having a little fun. If I can't bust your chops, who can? No harm intended.

[Nickdfresh]

Thanks for pointing out how I misspelled his name, I didn't have time to google him. And I don't watch Crossfire much anymore.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think you guys are way overstating the partisanship issue.

Michael Isikoff is universally reviled by a lot of Democrats for his exposes' of the CLINTON White House. On CNN, Liberal Paul Begaulia denounced him as scum of scum. Oh yeah, Begaulia worked in the CLINTON White House!

I'm not aware of any Paul Begaulia working for Clinton. :D

I am aware of this fellow working for Clinton, however. He now works for CNN on Crossfire.

Paul Begala
Paul Begala is co-host of Crossfire, CNN's political debate program. Begala and co-host James Carville provide insight and commentary "from the left," as they square off against conservatives Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. Crossfire's co-hosts debate the hottest issues of the day with the nation's top newsmakers and political figures. The show airs live from George Washington University's Jack Morton Auditorium in Washington, D.C.


Begala first entered the national political scene after his consulting firm, Carville & Begala, helped elect President Bill Clinton in 1992. Serving in the Clinton administration as counselor to the president, he helped define and defend the administration's agenda and served as the principal public spokesman.


Carville & Begala's other well-known electoral successes include the 1991 Senate victory of Harris Wofford in Pennsylvania, the 1990 gubernatorial victories of Georgia's Zell Miller and Pennsylvania's Robert P. Casey and the 1998 re-election of Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.


Previously, Begala co-hosted with Oliver North MSNBC's political talk show, Equal Time. Author of the best-selling book Is Our Children Learning?: The Case Against George W. Bush, he also recently co-authored the current best-seller Buck Up, Suck Up and Come Back When You Foul Up with Carville. Begala helped John F. Kennedy, Jr. launch George magazine, where he served as a contributing editor and wrote the Capital Hillbilly column. He has also written numerous articles and op-eds for numerous publications.


A native of Texas, Begala earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Texas, where he taught before his work at the White House. After leaving the Clinton administration, Begala joined Georgetown University's staff as a research professor of government and public policy.

[Nickdfresh]

You guys are right! That lousy bastard Michael Isikoff is a lying Anti-American bastard!

Look at the lies he spouted about patriots Michael Moore and Bill Clinton! Cunt!

More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET June 30, 2004

June 30 - In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”

More at:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

And these lies about CLINTON are outrageous!!

Meet Newsweek

Michael Isikoff, Investigative Correspondent

Michael Isikoff joined Newsweek as an investigative correspondent in June 1994. He has covered the Whitewater scandal, the Oklahoma City bombing, campaign finance abuses, presidential politics and other national issues. He has been a news analyst for MSNBC and a frequent guest on NBC's "Meet the Press," PBS's "Charlie Rose," and nationally-syndicated radio talk shows.

Isikoff's exclusive reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal gained him national attention in 1998, including profiles in The New York Times and The Washington Post and a guest appearance on "Late Show with David Letterman." His coverage of the events that lead to President Clinton's impeachment earned Newsweek the prestigious National Magazine Award in the Reporting category in 1999. Isikoff's reporting also won the National Headliner Award, the Edgar A. Poe Award presented by the White House Correspondents Association and the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Reporting on the Presidency.

Isikoff is the author of "Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story," a book that chronicled his own reporting of the Lewinsky story and was hailed by a critic for The Washington Post-Los Angeles Times news service as "the absolutely essential narrative of the scandal with revelations that no one would have thought possible." The book was an instant New York Times bestseller.

http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/nwinfo_isikoff.asp

Lying anti-American traitor! Rot in hell you bastard Isikoff! I hate you!


BTW, does anyone have NEWSWEEK, can we get the actual article?

[Nickdfresh]

I think you guys are way overstating the partisanship issue.

Michael Isikoff is universally reviled by a lot of Democrats for his exposes' of the CLINTON White House. On CNN, Liberal Paul Begaulia denounced him as scum of scum. Oh yeah, Begaulia worked in the CLINTON White House!

[BigBadBrian]

There you have it.

[DrMaddVibe]

By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

May 30 issue - What really happened at Guantanamo? Last week, amid the heat of the controversy over NEWSWEEK's retracted story, new details about the issue of alleged mistreatment of the Qur'an emerged.

The International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had provided the Pentagon with confidential reports about U.S. personnel disrespecting or mishandling Qur'ans at Gitmo in 2002 and 2003. Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman, said the Red Cross had provided "several" instances that it believed were "credible." The ICRC report included three specific allegations of offensive treatment of the Qur'an by guards. Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita would not comment on these allegations except to say that the Gitmo commanders routinely followed up ICRC reports, including these, and could not substantiate them. He then gave what is from the Defense Department point of view more context and important new information.

It is clear that in 2002, military investigators became frustrated by the unresponsiveness of some high-profile terror suspects, including one who had close contact with the 9/11 hijackers. At the time, fears of another attack from Al Qaeda were running high, and the Pentagon was determined to make the terror suspects talk. The interrogators asked for, and received, Pentagon permission to use tactics like isolation and sleep deprivation. Less clear, however, is what happened to more run-of-the-mill detainees among the 800 or so housed at Guantanamo at the time.

According to Di Rita, when the first prisons were built for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo in early 2002, prison guards were instructed to respect the detainees' religious rituals. The prisoners were given Qur'ans, which they hung from the walls of their cells in cotton surgical masks provided by the prison. Log entries by the guards indicate that in about a dozen cases, the detainees themselves somehow damaged their Qur'ans. In one case a prisoner allegedly ripped up a Qur'an; in another a prisoner tore the cover off his Qur'an. In three cases, detainees tried to stuff pages from their Qur'ans down their toilets, according to the Defense Department's account of what is in the guards' reports. (NEWSWEEK was not permitted to see the log items.) The log entries do not indicate why the detainees might have done this, said Di Rita, and prison commanders concluded that certain hard-core prisoners would try to agitate the other detainees by alleging disrespect for Muslim articles of faith.

In light of the controversy, one of these incidents bears special notice. Last week, NEWSWEEK interviewed Command Sgt. John VanNatta, who served as the prison's warden from October 2002 to the fall of 2003. VanNatta recounted that in 2002, the inmates suddenly started yelling that the guards had thrown a Qur'an on or near an Asian-style squat toilet. The guards found an inmate who admitted that he had dropped his Qur'an near his toilet. According to VanNatta, the inmate then was taken cell to cell to explain this to other detainees to quell the unrest. But the incident could partly account for the multiple allegations among detainees, including one by a released British detainee in a lawsuit that claims that guards flushed Qur'ans down toilets.

In fewer than a dozen log entries from the 31,000 documents reviewed so far, said Di Rita, there is a mention of detainees' complaining that guards or interrogators mishandled their Qur'ans. In one case, a female guard allegedly knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the detainee's bed. In another alleged case, said Di Rita, detainees became upset after two MPs, looking for contraband, felt the pouch containing a prisoner's Qur'an. While questioning a detainee, an interrogator allegedly put a Qur'an on top of a TV set, took it off when the detainee complained, then put it back on. In another alleged instance, guards somehow sprayed water on a detainee's Qur'an. This handful of alleged cases came out of thousands of daily interactions between guards and prisoners, said Di Rita. None has been substantiated yet, he said.

In December 2002, a guard inadvertently knocked a Qur'an from its pouch onto the floor of a detainee's cell, Di Rita said. A number of detainees protested. That January, partly in response to the incident and partly to provide precise guidelines for new guards and interrogators, the Guantanamo commanders issued precise rules to respect the "cultural dignity of the Koran thereby reducing the friction over the searching of the Korans." Only chaplains or Muslim interpreters were allowed to inspect detainees' Qur'ans. "Two hands will be used at all times when handling Korans in a manner signaling respect and reverence," the rules state. "Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas..."

Di Rita said that the Pentagon may look further into the reports found in the logs. The Pentagon is not ruling out the possibility of finding credible reports of Qur'an desecration. But so far, said Di Rita, it has not found any.

With Michael Hirsh in Washington
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[DrMaddVibe]

BAWHAHAHAHAHA!

:D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I wonder how many Americans this liberal rag is going to kill because of this inaccurate, American-bashing story.

Probably 1,600 fewer than Bush

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
You can say Newsweek started the casba rocking but hey, those Muslims were just looking for an excuse to do what they wanted to do to begin with. If a little news snippet in one magazine can make that many people go completely ape shit then you know they were primed and ready before they hear what Newsweek had to say.

This is very true. And has anyone asked exactly WHO died in this carnage? Cause if they were just going apeshit and stampeding each other, then I for one don't even give a shit.

[aesop]

Originally posted by Jérôme Frenchise
I used to be a Newsweek subscriber back when I was a student in the end of the 80s, beginning of the 90s. I liked reading their columns.

Sure it's a huge, serious mistake they've made. But I'd blame the whole media for that (Newsweek on top, OK). What wouldn't they ALL do so as to boost sales?
Facts show that professional ethics are but a doormat many journalists "dutifully" sweep their feet on...

You should read a REAL mag like "US News and World Report". They still beleive there's some rules for Professional Journalism.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It doesn't surprise me whose word you would take.

Anyway, I wonder how the Bible is treated in Iran?

Gas up the bombers, baby!

I think I've heard that Iranian Christians are a protected minority, though they do face discrimination. Before the Crusades, it was customary for Mulims to protect Christians & Jews in the Holyland.

Gas up which bombers? The car bombers?

[DrMaddVibe]

By Ann Coulter Wed May 18, 7:01 PM ET

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.
ADVERTISEMENT

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of
Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate -- and interesting! -- than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking -- before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press -- "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered -- al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in
Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because -- wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation -- though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

# A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

# The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

# "We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

# Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

# Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

# Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

# Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."