Freedom, and its limitations

Pejman Yousefzadeh, writing in RedState, delivers a well-put rant targeting Messrs. Drum's and Sullivan's argument that (per Drum):

the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers [regarding the Koran-flushing story in Newsweek] is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.

This is an idiotic statement -- and it does not become less idiotic merely because it's being made by my "favorite liberal blogger."  As Pejman puts it:

I probably shouldn't even bother to write this because life is short, but it appears to be important to point out to Andrew Sullivan and his snide and newfound fan that in all likelihood, the reason "conservative bloggers" are upset and angry about the Newsweek screwup is that it cost lives in the Middle East and it could have cost a lot more lives as well. In addition--and this is a somewhat important point, so please pay attention Political Animals and New Republic senior editors--it harmed our country's prestige and standing on the basis of a story that was entirely false. It is the kind of story that can fan rather vicious flames, and if you want to fan flames, you damn well better make sure that you have your facts right. If you do, feel free to publish the story. If you don't and you publish the story anyway and people die as a result and your country ends up suffering diplomatically . . . well . . . it ain't a good day at the office, now is it?

.... And here's a news flash: I have this belief--call me naïve, but I hope that you would be wrong in doing so--that bloggers on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide have the exact same wish. That's difficult to do, of course, when a prime blogger on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide decides to put forth his own little spin hinting at dark and malevolent plans on the part of "conservative bloggers." Maybe, just maybe, we might actually have some noble and upstanding motives in expressing our concerns.

Pejman is, frankly, spot on.  But there's an important point that both sides in this "debate" seem to be losing sight of.  A poorly-sourced sentence in a paragraph-sized blurb in an American newsmagazine did not, in and by itself, cause this explosion of violence.  It was the match, to be sure.  But the powder was already present, prepared, and primed.   

The real story -- missed among the partisan bickering -- is the fact that there was so much powder lying around that a relatively small mistake could ignite it.  Indeed, what the jihadist explosions demonstrate more than anything is that we are not even close to winning in the war in Afghanistan (and let's not even begin with our putative allies, the alternatively fascist and jihadist Pakistanis).  One small slip (and it was small, despite the hype) is all that's needed to set the bomb off -- and maybe set us and our allies back on our heels.

Blast Newsweek, sure.  Blast Messrs. Drum and Sullivan for their conspiracy theories, absolutely.  But don't overstate the case, and don't take your eye off the ball.  Newsweek didn't kill anyone; the folks in Afghanistan and Pakistan did.  All Newsweek is guilty of is making the kind of mistake that can occur only where there is a free press and free society.  In fact, such mistakes will inevitably occur where people are free.  The central aim of a republic is not, contrary to popular belief, message control -- and that remains true even while we are at war.   

And that, from a certain way of thinking, is a good thing.

*Article also available in RedState.

Comments

[Dantheman]

"In addition--and this is a somewhat important point, so please pay attention Political Animals and New Republic senior editors--it harmed our country's prestige and standing on the basis of a story that was entirely false....

That's difficult to do, of course, when a prime blogger on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide decides to put forth his own little spin hinting at dark and malevolent plans on the part of "conservative bloggers." Maybe, just maybe, we might actually have some noble and upstanding motives in expressing our concerns."

Might I suggest to Pejman, and others too numerous to name, that the same holds true for the entire invasion of Iraq, and the vilification of anyone who opposes it.

[Jackmormon]

Was the story entirely false?

[lily]

It is really ironic that anyone would berate Newsweek for inciting violence based on false information but fail to direct wrath at the the Bush adminstration for causing violence on a much larger scale by the even wider disemnation of false information.
And, yes, the violence would not have flared up if the predisposition didn't exist. We, meaning all of us Americans, need to get over the idea that millions of Middle Easterners are out there waiting to be liberated by us so they can become part of our sphere of influence. Our prestige is at an all time low and our influence is more likely to be negative than positive. This is why the idea that we are promoting democracy is so naive; the pro-democracy forces in Middle Eastern countries don't want to be associated with us and, if countries like Jordan and Egypt suddenly became democratic, their foreign policy would be anti-American. Democracy promotion is a good thing, but the Bush administration, if one accepts their sincerity on this issue and I don't, has gone at it in a counterproductive way that is far more distructive of everyone's longterm interests than the Newsweek article.

[freelunch]

It is frustrating to see designated White House BS Artist, Scott McClellan, make things up on the fly as he tries to defend his incomprehensible accusations, particularly when it appears to be an Administration-wide policy to falsely blame Newsweek for the riots.

First, the story was not entirely false. The source, apparently a reliable one in the past, when pressed (and possibly after the Administration got to him) said that he could not confirm that the document he had seen was an official investigative document. As I understand it, he has not backed away from the story completely. As for DOD claiming that it could not confirm the story, is it really in the interest of the military to admit that such behavior has occured at one of the most notorious prisons in the world?

Secondly, our behavior in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has set us up for these kinds of rumors. We have a president who tells us that we must fight a crusade, apparently without knowing what that particular word might mean, especially in the context of Islam. We have a military that has a habit of showing total disrespect for those they have kidnapped (it must be kidnapping, since these people have neither been arrested nor held as prisoners of war). We have generals who say shocking things without being admonished. We have a Secretary of Defense who acts as if he does not to care what happens to our prisoners or to civilians. We re-elected the architect of these imperial ambitions.

Finally, we have an administration that is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of many thousands, but refuses to take responsibility for those deaths, yet wants to blame a newsmagazine for a report that still might be true. What standards do they have?

We will have to fight in both countries until we leave, and we brought it on ourselves by our lack of respect for the citizens of those countries. No wonder the Afghanistanis and Iraqis don't believe us when we say that we are only there temporarily. No wonder we cannot get anyone to trust us.

[Scott]

The Newsweek story only caused the riots when claiming that is useful:

The U.S. Defense Department says an inquiry has so far not confirmed an incident reported by Newsweek magazine, in which an interrogator at the Guantanamo detention facility allegedly put a Koran into a toilet in order to upset some prisoners. The department also says demonstrations in Afghanistan Wednesday and Thursday that left eight people dead and have been widely attributed to anger over the alleged incident, were in fact not related to it.

...General Myers also told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, disagrees with the reports that protests in the city of Jalalabad were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident.

"It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," he explained....

[DaveC]

We, meaning all of us Americans, need to get over the idea that millions of Middle Easterners are out there waiting to be liberated by us so they can become part of our sphere of influence.

After problems a few weeks ago, the Kuwaiti parliament passed a law giving women full voting rights. I think people do yearn for freedom and I will not get over that idea.

[cleek]

the Kuwaiti parliament passed a law giving women full voting rights

IIRC, 'full' only applies to parliamentary elections. they still have restrictions with local elections.

[Bruce Baugh]

I feel this way like I do about so much of what's come up in this administration...it's not that I really disagree - or disagree even slightly - with the idea that claims that may provoke violence should be subject to careful scrutiny. It's the total detachment of this standard from much larger and more important cases, like going to war. As nearly as I can tell, this administration has no standards in the sense of measures to apply to all instances of a phenomenon, even when that's inconvenient, at all. Criteria are brought up when they're useful and set aside when they'd be a nuisance. Clinton and his crew proposed not to spend money and resources on everything they'd like for the sake of other priorities, like reducing the deficit; I see no sign that on any major issue the Bush administration has ever seriously considered saying "we might like that, but this other thing is a bigger priority" or "in some ways it'd be nice, but if we do it it'd be a terrible precedent in world affairs" or anything comparable at all.

So I'm not much inclined to be indulgent of anger over Newsweek, until and unless the criteria by which it's being judged become a lot more widely applied.

[Tad Brennan]

Drum says the conservative bloggers really care about crushing the liberal media. Yousefzadeh says that conservative bloggers are upset because people died.

But the second does not really speak against the first. Drum, too, would grant that what got everyone riled up is the riots and deaths.

Yes, conservative bloggers are upset because people died and America's prestige suffered--that's upsetting to all of us. But here's how we can tell what your real agenda is: What do you think is the most urgent thing to be done in response to the riots and the deaths?

a) prevent more desecrations of the Koran, more prisoner abuse, and more of the things that the rioters were protesting

b) prevent the press from covering and reporting these things.

Okay, next question: Who do you think is primarily responsible for the riots?

a) the guards who threw Korans into toilet-buckets, the Gitmo management that condoned such treatment of prisoners, the Pentagon that facilitated an entire regime of prisoner abuse and torture, and the Yoos, Bybees, Rumsfelds, and Bushes that ordered it.

b) Newsweek.

Sorry, but the fact that Yousefzadeh is upset about the riots in no way undermines the point that Drum and Sullivan are making.

As to your own point, von, that there was a lot of powder lying around: that's one of the main points that Sullivan was making! E.g. on the 17th :

"A simple question: after U.S. interrogators have tortured over two dozen detainees to death, after they have wrapped one in an Israeli flag, after they have smeared naked detainees with fake menstrual blood, after they have told one detainee to "Fuck Allah," after they have ordered detainees to pray to Allah in order to kick them from behind in the head, is it completely beyond credibility that they would also have desecrated the Koran?"

So it seems odd to phrase this as though he was one of the partisan bickerers who hadn't noticed how the new Koran desecration problem just fits into the larger picture.

[cleek]

Pejman is, frankly, spot on

the story wasn't entirely false. at this point, i think we don't even know if it was partially false.

Google "newsweek koran treason". you might reconsider just how "idiotic" Drum was being.

[Susan]

Screw-up, von? What screw up? The story was true. Koran desecration has been being reported for a couple years now at our little fun factory down in Cuba and elsewhere. Conservatives can rant all they want about Newsweek's "lies" but in fact this appears to have puffed up by the White House just in time to stop media inquiries about what President "My Pet Goat" was doing during the red alert last week, namely riding his bike while his Secret Service detail "neglected" to inform him.

[Phil]

I hate to be a bandwagoner, but I'm gonna need a lot more than Pejman's say-so that the story was "entirely false." He seems to be treading way out on an unsupportable limb, there.

And I've seen far too much talk already from different conservative blogs that Newsweek should not have printed the story even if it had been entirely confirmed, which is close enough to Drum's point to me to indicate that Pejman is 180 degrees away from being spot-on.

[Anderson]

Ditto the above, but let's also congratulate Von for acknowledging (1) that much remains to be done in Afghanistan and (2) that journalistic errors do not make some sort of case for the suspension of the First Amendment.

It never ceases to astonish me how many conservatives would apparently be quite happy living under an authoritarian dictatorship, provided that the dictator was George W. Bush or his anointed disciple. Not *most* conservatives, thank God, but *any* is too many.

[lily]

DaveC I didn't say people should get over trying to be free. I said that WE need to get over the idea that we are the ones bringing the freedom.. As you noted the Kuwaiti government passed a law--THEY passed it. Under pressure from THEIR citizens. In order to achieve THEIR goals and control THEIR future. Kuwait happens to be one of the more pro-American counties, in terms of the attitudes of the citizens, with more cultural cross-fertilation than as is the case in most Middle Eastern countries, but that doesn't undercut my point. If the long term goal is to reduce support for terrorism by promoting democracy than we have to do our democracy-supporting in sublle non-invasive ways so as to not offend people's cultural values or patriotism. We haven't done that. Quite the opposite.

[praktike]

I'm not sure the article was "entirely false," btw.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Pejman is not "spot on."

He is trying to slip one by when he says conservative bloggers are "upset and angry about the Newsweek screwup."

What they were upset about was the Newsweek story. Reynolds was complaining before any of the doubts emerged.

And anyone who wants to raise hell about this and ignore the context of torture and prisoner mistreatment is being completely dishonest. It is absolutely ridiculous for to criticize Newsweek for this and ignore, or make light of, much worse and verifiable actions, carried out with official approval.

Criticizing Newsweek, and letting Gonzales, Bybee, Yoo, Sanchez, etc. off the hook is slimy.

[Brian]

This Newsweek thing is pretty much wholly made up to distract us from Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea's nukes, Iran's Nukes, Bush's Bike Ride, Bolton, any number of things. Obviously it's working because what are we talking about?

Someone prove to me that 1) the Newsweek story is "entirely false" and 2) the Newsweek story "caused" the riots. I'm having trouble believing either.

[Tad Brennan]

'Someone prove to me that 1) the Newsweek story is "entirely false" and 2) the Newsweek story "caused" the riots. I'm having trouble believing either."

We already know that Gen. Myers did not believe 2).

[bob mcmanus]

"that we are not even close to winning in the war in Afghanistan"

An amazing statement.

Yes, this was the actually important story. What were the main causes of the riots...I read something about delisting, but not enough is being written or posted.

Sometimes I get depressed about how the administration is waging whatever wars(s) we are in; sometimes I get angry; sometimes I try to deduce real goals as against professed goals because I can't consider them this incompetent or careless. Mostly I am confused.

Liberals shouldn't argue the Newsweek story; just more politics of mass distraction.

[TommyC]

Lily,

"Bush adminstration for causing violence on a much larger scale by the even wider disemnation of false information."

Kuwiat would have not been able to have the vote at all if "WE" hadn't freed them Hussein in the early 90's. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Three cheers, for the Kuwaitis voting the way the did.

Three cheers, for the Americans who freed them from Hussein, which enabled them to even have a vote.

Let's try to be fair and balanced here.

[TommyC]

Lily,

Sorry, meant to quote this:

"I said that WE need to get over the idea that we are the ones bringing the freedom.."

Kuwiat would have not been able to have the vote at all if "WE" hadn't freed them Hussein in the early 90's. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Three cheers, for the Kuwaitis voting the way the did.

Three cheers, for the Americans who freed them from Hussein, which enabled them to even have a vote.

Let's try to be fair and balanced here.

[Charles Bird]

I didn't mean to overlap with my own Newsweek post, von.

[Jay C.]

Having read, and re-read Pejman Yousefzadeh's screed on RedState, I must say that it left me somewhat underwhelmed. His self-righteous indignation over Kevin Drum"s and Andrew Sullivan' opinions on the Newsweek/Koran-flushing brouhaha might be "spot on" to you, von; but as I read it, it simply reeked of touchy defensiveness about the whole issue of "war reporting", and, IMO, simply reinforced Andrew Sullivan's point, while all the time vigorously tyring to refute it.
Pejman's piece starts with a rant against Newsweek's sloppy journalism (quite rightly), but then goes off on the usual self-centered blogger's tangent: IOW, "I don't conduct a "jihad" against the "Mainstream Media",I have more important things to think and blog about" - and a sneer against those on the "other side of the partisan and ideological divide", who, presumably, don't.
Well, maybe Pejman ought to netsurf a bit more and check out how a few of the major bloggers on his side of the "divide" like this guy have dealt with the issue - which I noticed pretty jibes with Drum's and Sullivan's assessments.
There's really no excuse for sloppy journalism, and it should be roundly criticised whenever uncovered - but that is an entirely different issue - mabye bloggers like Pejman and Glenn Reynolds would be happier if all the "MSM" did nothing but mindlessly cheerlead for each and every action and policy of the Bush Adminstration; but there are a few of us out here who might want to hold the press to another, and stricter standard.

[felixrayman]

I didn't mean to overlap with my own Newsweek post, von.

You did manage to provide an unintended refutation of von's argument Charles, so it's not all bad.

[felixrayman]

Let's see, the government, when it was politically expedient, claimed that the story had nothing to do with the riots, then when it became politically expedient, claimed that the story caused the riots. And Newsweek accurately reported what a government official said was in a report, then accurately reported that the government official now says that what he saw was in some other document. And that makes the partisans mad at....Newsweek, of course!

About the only way you have an issue with Newsweek is if you don't think single source stories should be printed, in which case you would, if you were consistent, have a much bigger issue with the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq. Of course, it may be politically expedient to some to be inconsistent in such matters.

[hilzoy]

This whole episode is one more example of why it's a mistake to think that you have to take a 'side'. (Which is why I like von's post.) Without the need to align myself with any side, or to say that some people are completely right and others are wrong, I can just say:

Of course Newsweek should have sourced their story better, and they should be (and probably are) ashamed of themselves for not doing so. They were using a source who had previously been reliable, but they needed more corroboration than they seem to have gotten.

The claim that a Qur'an was flushed down the toilet, however, has not been disproven, or even fully retracted. Newsweek's source seems only to have said that he's not sure he read about this in the particular report mentioned.

This is not the first time that people have reported that Qur'ans were flushed down toilets. Nor is it the first time it has been reported that US government officials have said that guards at Guantanamo have tried to offend the religious sensibilities of detainees in interrogations.

On those earlier occasions, there were no riots. And General Myers and others have said that the riots were probably not caused by the Newsweek story.

I find the White House's calls for further retractions from Newsweek disturbing, for the same reasons as Josh Marshall.

And, like Marshall, when I hear Scott McClellan say:

""It's puzzling. While Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refuse to retract the story," said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met. In this instance it was not.

"This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made," McClellan added. "The report has had serious consequences. People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged. I just find it puzzling.""

-- I can't help thinking of the role of Curveball, and wondering when we are going to hear the White House apologize for that one.

Finally, I think that some bloggers on the right have been kind of appalling on this story, for basically the same reasons as the Poor Man, though I would modify his second to last paragraph. It's worth following this link, since he does an interesting job of putting some of the comments he discusses in context. His response to Hindrocket is both obvious and damning.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

the reason "conservative bloggers" are upset and angry about the Newsweek screwup is that it cost lives in the Middle East and it could have cost a lot more lives as well. In addition--and this is a somewhat important point, so please pay attention Political Animals and New Republic senior editors--it harmed our country's prestige and standing on the basis of a story that was entirely false.

I stopped reading there. They're upset about costing lives in the Middle East and screwing up the country's reputation when it's Newsweek, but when Bush sends the military into Iraq with crap intelligence, no uproar there!

(If the article went on to say something respectable, well, I guess I'll never know.)

[von]

I didn't mean to overlap with my own Newsweek post, von.

Hey, no problem. It's a pretty big story.

I'm afraid I'm out of timek, and can't respond to the rest. Sorry for the cop out; I'll check back later in the day.

[lily]

TommyC, Actually I thought I did (I said that Kuwait was one of the most pro-American countries on the assumption that people would link that to our support of their independence in the first Iraq war.) But I wasn't clear. I also referenced cross-fertilzation. many, many Kuwaitis come to the US for their education and are exposed to our cultural norms. Partly influenced by exposure through education and other routes, Kuwaiti women have been getting increasingly impatient with the old restrictions and rules. And, yes, I agree, I am glad they are getting the vote. But this situation in no way justifies our invasion of Iraq or mitigates the amount of suspicion and hostility engendered in other countries by the invasion. Obviously every Middle Eastern country is different and has its own internal dynamics. I supported the first Iraq war and the invasion of Afganistan. Those wars had clear, reasonable objectives. This war doesn't.

[Barry]

I think that this is also a final nail in the coffin of RedState's credibility, or perhaps the thousandth.

[Kevin]

The people at Redstate howl about the main stream media's persecution of Republicans every day.

You can't discuss the conservative jihad against the liberal media by looking at 'flushgate' alone.

Do a Redstate Google search about the 'fake' Schiavo memo, the msm's 'misreporting' of the Social Security debate, etc. etc. Krempasky actually has a story on the front page of Redstate right now entitled 'From the media wing of the Democratic Party'. Doverspa has a story on the front page of Redstate entitled 'Media Bias and Social Security'.

It isn't too difficult for anyone to get upset about Newsweek's crappy reporting. They really screwed up and people died because of it.

Having said that, I believe conservative bloggers can be disgusted about the newsweek strory and at the same time use it in their jihad against the media.

[Tad Brennan]

What more will we eventually learn about the treatment of the Koran at Gitmo?

Well, one small point that is worth keeping in mind is that the "flushing" part of the story may turn out to be false, without the "toilet" part of the story being false, for the simple reason that some of the prisoners may have toilets that don't flush.

Remember, some of the reports have involved guards throwing Korans into a bucket (e.g. the Human Rights Watch report). Since it is a bucket given to the inmates for use as a toilet, it is perfectly accurate for the inmates to claim that the Koran was thrown into a toilet, if it was thrown into a bucket that they routinely use as a toilet.

I know this is a small and almost comical point, but I think it is important to set the bar for eventual verification: if we find out there was no "flushing" involved, that will not in itself constitute a falsification of the stories that Korans were thrown into toilets.

[Barry]

"It isn't too difficult for anyone to get upset about Newsweek's crappy reporting. They really screwed up and people died because of it.

Having said that, I believe conservative bloggers can be disgusted about the newsweek strory and at the same time use it in their jihad against the media."

Posted by: Kevin

Kevin, such reasons as stated would make them very, very, very,very mad at the Bush administration. If this Newsweek story set them off, then the last four years should have put them into early graves from apoplexy.

But we don't see that.

[Anarch]

Hey, no problem. It's a pretty big story.

It isn't, though. The flap over Newsweek's possible error is a stupid little story -- by the (indirect) acknowledgement of General Myers himself -- that's being made big to advance an agenda irrespective of the underlying facts. Newsweek hasn't exactly retracted and the Pentagon hasn't exactly denied; what more is there to say at the moment?

Now, the question of whether desecration of the Quran has happened, or worse been an ongoing practice, at Guantanamo... that's a big question and big potential story, but that's not what's being discussed either in the OP or in the media. If even half the time spent wanking to the media's narcissism and the warblogger's visceral antipathy towards the media was being spent on discovering the truth behind these allegations, the world would be a much better place and we would be much better served.

[votermom]

The newsweek story is just another well-timed distraction -- from the "smoking gun" memo and the nuke-the-filibuster debate.

[Charles Bird]

You did manage to provide an unintended refutation of von's argument Charles, so it's not all bad.

False, felix. Look again at the quote in von's post:

the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers [regarding the Koran-flushing story in Newsweek] is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.

Yes, I did criticize Newsweek. Does criticizing Newsweek mean that the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers is a "continuing jihad"? Of course not. Does criticizing Newsweek mean that "all else is subordinate"? Of course not. Note that, along with von, I cast blame on the enemies who caused the riots and used the false report for propaganda purposes, and made a few other observations.

[Anarch]

Note that, along with von, I cast blame on the enemies who caused the riots and used the false report for propaganda purposes...

Except for the part where, yet again, you failed to note that the release of the report had -- at General Myers' declaration -- nothing to do with the riots. If you're trying to back your claim down from its original position to the more tenable claim that the report will simply be used for propaganda purposes, irrespective of its veracity -- and I'll note again that Newsweek didn't exactly retract, nor did the Pentagon exactly deny, so its veracity is still open to question -- could you at least do us the courtesy of acknowledging this?

[Charles Bird]

and I'll note again that Newsweek didn't exactly retract, nor did the Pentagon exactly deny, so its veracity is still open to question -- could you at least do us the courtesy of acknowledging this?

Anarch, read the bottom of Newsweek's own link:

Editor's Note: On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

Sure sounds like a retraction to me. Also in the same Newsweek link:

The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible."

Sure sounds like a denial to me. What exactly do I have to acknowledge? The retraction came directly from the horse's mouth.

I understand General Myers said what he said about the Koran flushing not causing the riots, but because he says something means it's true? I don't think so. Not when the preponderance of press reports on the riots explicitly state that they were precipitated by the Periscope piece. Not when the Secretary of State contradicts Myers' assessment. Also, according to the WA Post, it is untrue that Myers said the Newsweek report had "nothing to do with the riots":

The protests were sparked by a May 9 report in Newsweek magazine that interrogators at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had placed copies of the Koran in bathrooms and flushed one text down a toilet.

Many of the detainees at Guantanamo are Afghans, and stories of American interrogators desecrating the Koran to extract confessions have circulated since at least early 2003, when some released prisoners returned to Afghanistan. But the Newsweek report has gained currency here since being fueled by broadcasts on Taliban radio and stoked by clerics who used Friday prayer sessions to call the demonstrations justified.

Some U.S. officials and analysts said the report, which appeared as a small item in Newsweek, was being manipulated as a way to inflame passions and undercut Karzai's authority ahead of his U.S. trip.

At the Pentagon, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan could be related to domestic Afghan politics. A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the demonstrations in Pakistan were being manipulated by al Qaeda supporters in retaliation for the arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, identified as a senior al Qaeda leader, along with 10 other suspected terrorists.

That's a far cry from saying the Newsweek piece had nothing to do with riots.

[Anarch]

Sure sounds like a retraction to me.

Read the fine print: they're "retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay." That's literally true, yes; the question is, what does it mean?

To be really blunt about it, they are not retracting what most people are citing as the story -- i.e. that there was Quran abuse at Guantanamo -- but rather they're retracting the fact that an internal military investigation had uncovered this. That's not exactly a retraction, or at least not exactly the retraction that's being portrayed; no position whatsoever is taken on the question of whether the alleged abuse was true, and I cannot help but conclude that this is deliberate.

As to the Pentagon, again, read the fine print: they dispute that the internal military investigation said what Newsweek claimed -- specifically, IIRC, they claimed in the original denial that the internal report cited by Newsweek's source could not have contained the alleged material -- and it also claims that "other desecration charges" had been found not credible. Not all, not most, just "other", and this despite the numerous charges extending back to early 2004. Again, no position on the broader question has been taken.

[The Pentagon's credibility on matters of internal investigation is also at an all-time low for me, so I'm additionally unwilling to give them much credence here. The number of independent allegations of this kind of abuse, whether or not they featured in this particular report, suggests to me that the Pentagon is not being completely forthcoming with either the scope or the nature of the investigations. See, e.g., the 2003 (?) memo on Quran abuse at Guantanamo.]

It's true that this could just be incredibly sloppy writing on the part of Newsweek and, proximately, the Pentagon -- lord knows it wouldn't be the first time -- but what they're actually saying isn't what's being repeated. I'd recommend keeping a very close ear to what's being said and what's not being said, especially when the US military establishment is involved; they are past masters of bureaucratic BS and careless listening will almost certainly lead to a false impression.

I understand General Myers said what he said about the Koran flushing not causing the riots, but because he says something means it's true? I don't think so.

Does this skepticism extend to all members of the political and military establishment? If so, would you mind evincing it from now on?

Also, according to the WA Post, it is untrue that Myers said the Newsweek report had "nothing to do with the riots"...

What? That's not what he's saying at all. Read the following again:

At the Pentagon, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan could be related to domestic Afghan politics. A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the demonstrations in Pakistan were being manipulated by al Qaeda supporters in retaliation for the arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, identified as a senior al Qaeda leader, along with 10 other suspected terrorists.

Domestic Afghan politics has what to do with Quran desecration in Guantanamo? The arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi has what to do with Guantanamo? And lest you've forgotten -- or, more likely, haven't clicked the links and didn't read this very same graf that I cited on the previous thread -- here's General Myers from the previous day:

The U.S. Defense Department says an inquiry has so far not confirmed an incident reported by Newsweek magazine, in which an interrogator at the Guantanamo detention facility allegedly put a Koran into a toilet in order to upset some prisoners. The department also says demonstrations in Afghanistan Wednesday and Thursday that left eight people dead and have been widely attributed to anger over the alleged incident, were in fact not related to it.

Further details may emerge, but I fully expect the Pentagon to go into CYA mode at any moment, if it hasn't already done so, and blame the riots on those nasty journalists &c, so I'm none too confident. We'll just get lots of "Well, it could be..." and "I'm sure it was..." and "Maybe...". Barring any tangible revelations, I'm not sure how much clearer it can get that your allegations are unsupported.

[felixrayman]

False, felix. Look again at the quote in von's post

I stand by what I said. Look at the focus of your piece and then read von's post again. You managed to make his argument look silly as hell. Congratulations. Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles: I didn't mean to overlap with my own Newsweek post, von.

I didn't see any overlap at all between your post and Von's, Charles: I wouldn't worry about that.

[Anarch]

From CNS, dated May 13th:

Referring to the rioting in Jalalabad, Myers said the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry, had called into question a link between the violence and the Koran issue, saying it seemed to be related to that country's political process and "not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

Ironically, from the same article:

Pakistani media quoted MMA [Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal] leaders as saying the Newsweek report had sent a wave of anger across the Islamic world, and demanding that President Bush apologize to the world's Muslims.

So YMMV.

However, here's another strand no-one in the SCLM (let alone the warblogosphere) has picked up on, also from the same article:

Public opinion in Pakistan has already been stirred up in recent days by the publication in the Washington Times of an editorial cartoon depicting a U.S. soldier patting a dog labeled "Pakistan," and saying: "Good boy ... now let's go find bin Laden."

More details on the WashTimes cartoon here.