|
|
May 16, 2005Network Journo and Anchoress talk NewsweekI have a friend, a very good friend, who is a well-respected member of a network news team. He’s got the awards and accolades. More importantly, he has the high regard of all who know him. I have known him for years and can personally attest to the fact that while he is a bit left-of-center in some cases, and can sometimes get as caught up in things as the rest of us, he is quite one of the fairest people I’ve come across in my traveled life. He was horrified by Rathergate. The excesses of the press sometimes get his gut, but at other times he staunchly defends his profession against the all-too-easy extreme characterizations we bloggers (myself included, sometimes) make of journalists in general and mainstream powernewsbrokers in particular. He and I were talking Newsweek today, naturally, shooting emails back and forth, and I am always happy to do this with him, because sometimes, in the shout and fury of a blogswarm regatta, one can see things begin to list a bit off kilter, but the need to “ride the blogwind” trumps the ability to exhale and think things through a little further. My friend’s kneejerk instinct to consider all angles always helps me to get back on an even keel. With his permission, I am reprinting some of our exchange, because I thought it might be helpful for the blogosphere to know how this is all playing with successful and influential members of the profession, and because I think both of us make some sane points that might keep the story from blowing off course. WARNING: Some salty language. Do not read if you can’t handle it. He IS a newsman, after all! Network Guy: The whole Newsweek thing is making me ill. All I could think when I read it this morning was “Thank God, at least when WE f*cked up, people didn’t die. There but for the grace of God…” But I don’t have much patience for some bloggers who argue that Newsweek, or the “MSM” are blatantly anti-American and conspiring to do us in. What piffle. They f*cked up. It’s that simple. I find it shocking that Newsweek hasn’t– in addition to confessing its sins — retracted the story. But then, as we know, it’s out of character for the media to admit a mistake, especially something that sparked something this heinous and, in fact, frightening. Maybe they are worried for their own safety, and are expecting people with Anchoress: I have to admit, I am not comfortable with some of the more extreme, “let’s destroy Newsweek” talk I am reading on the ‘net. I believe that in the end Newsweek adn the rest will do themselves in quite nicely without our help. But I do think this very odd new standard of journalism, ie, “well, it might not be true, after all, but it MIGHT still be true,” is a very low sort of standard, and not a good place for journalism to descend to. It is interesting to me that you note the media will not admit a mistake. I have heard some apologists on the radio saying how “upright” Newsweek has been in admitting its error (9 days later), but really, they’ve admitted nothing - any admission of error is obliterated by the sly “but we don’t really think we err’ed” tone. It seems to me that it is the Isikoffs and the Thomases who are routinely castigating the WH for “not admitting mistakes” and apologizing. Yet their own ability to admit to a mistake and apologize has shown itself to be rather half-assed. NG: …Whitaker, the editor, his reaction to the whole imbroglio was — how shall I put this? — cool to the touch. He said that they couldn’t verify that anything like that had happened, or hadn’t, yet not accepting any real responsibility for the tragedies that resulted from their reporting (or mis-reporting) the story. It was much too grudging, as if to say, “Well, it COULDA happened, ya know. I mean, maybe not the way we said, but, it COULDA.” The fact is: if Newsweek REALLY wanted to make a big f*cking deal out of this, and exploit it, they would have done a complete story on it, and not buried it in the Periscope section, which is comprised of a lot of gossip and inside-the-beltway hearsay to begin with. They exercised bad judgment in going with a juicy tidbit that couldn’t be independently verified — and I honestly believe they were profoundly ignorant of the impact the story would have. (For that matter, so, perhaps, was the WH … which didn’t raise any objections about the report until several days after it was published and the rioting broke out.) A: You know what I think? I think we’ve been hearing these unsubstantiated charges made by Al Q prisoners for three years now, and it’s kind of like the “Bush/TANG/AWOL” story, just something that gets picked at and never proved, and the American public AND the WH finally just roll their eyes about it, because it’s been such a steady drumbeat of accusations. And I even think Newsweek didn’t think clearly about it, for this reason: They didn’t see a story in a Bible being used as toilet paper. They didn’t see a story in a crucifix being covered in urine. They didn’t see a story NG: You may be right. They have little sensitivity when it comes to matters of religion, and no idea how deeply disturbing that kind of desecration is to people of faith, any faith.
A: Hmmm…kinda like Tina Brown having no idea who incredibly insulting her post-conclave piece on Benedict XVI was to the Catholics? Forget it, don’t even bother answering that! NG: Nah, not in my experience. I seriously doubt it. It’s more likely that a SOURCE with an agenda found a gullible accomplice in Newsweek. That the SOURCE wanted to unleash that poison and see what would happen. Who knows? I might have been someone at DOD who doesn’t like the way things are going. Or it might have been someone trying to intentionally put another stake through the heart of the media. But it’s entirely possible, whoever is behind it, didn’t realize they were opening a Pandora’s box. As someone said this morning on one of the chat shows (mixing my fantastic allegories) “There is real concern in Washington that the Islamic world will not believe Washington’s apology and explanation — and they won’t be able to get the genie back in the bottle.” A: Wait, do you mean “Washington’s” apology or “Newsweek’s”? NG: Yeah. Thanks for clarifying that. I think it was Russert. He was saying that he was hearing that folks in the ME thought the Newsweek “apology” was orchestrated by the WH, and they weren’t buying it. A: don’t know if I agree with your theory that the press is more distrustful because of the WMD intel problem. They seemed pretty darned distrustful from the get-go, to me. Wasn’t it Newsweek, if I remember, who - the week after 9/11 ran the cover story with : WHY DO THEY HATE US, which more or less assumed that we’d done something to deserve the attack? NG: Maybe. But I’m reminded of something a journalism prof told me in college: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” In other words: don’t believe it just because someone says it is so. (Of course, perhaps the Newsweek crowd should have paid more attention to that when someone started spewing the scoop on the Koran…) A: Now, I’d like your opinion. It’s not my question, but it’s a good one, by Roger Kimball: Why is it that all the stories you read in Time-Newsweek-The New York Times-The Washington Post-Etc. or see on CNN-The BBC-CBS-NBC-Etc., why is it that all their stories about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, etc., why is it that the presumption, the prejudice, the predisposition never goes the other way? Why is it that their reporters always assume the worst: that we’re doing dirty at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and are primed to pick up and believe any rumor damaging to the United States? Shakespeare knew that rumor was a “pipe/blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures,” not to be trusted. So why do these journalists, trained to sift evidence, to probe sources, to listen beyond the static of rumor: why do they only do so in one direction, so to speak? Yes, I know that’s a self-answering question, at least in part, but it is worth pondering nonetheless. Austin Bay calls the incident at Newsweek “The Press’ Abu Ghraib.” What do you think of that question, and do you think this is, in fact, the press’ Abu Ghraib? NG: I think the media’s instinct is to mistrust the Official Story — to suspect ulterior motives and discern an alternative reality that may not be as rosy as the authorities tell us. It has nothing to do with being anti-American, but has everything to do with being anti-manipulation. This White House — and others — have proven to be masters at using the media to their own advantage, which is something the media doesn’t particularly like, no matter what one’s political leanings might be. If the government tells you it’s running a thoroughbred in the Kentucky Derby, and you notice that this horse’s ears are unusually large, there is a natural inclination to wonder if it is, in fact, a mule. You can’t help but start checking its teeth. I think the whole WMD thing got the press looking a lot more closely at ears, and teeth, and various other anatomical anomolies… A: Hmmmm…I’m highly dissatisfied. You didn’t actually answer if this was the press’ Abu Ghraib, but I’ll let you off the hook because I likes ya. I have to admit, I’m mad, and I’m really tired of the press I grew up admiring repeatedly letting us down like this - by us, I mean we consumers of news. That said, I also am a little leery of calling Newsweek “Anti-American,” for several reasons. First, I believe if they’re anti-anything, they are Anti-Bush, and any damage they might have wanted to inflict would have been damage in that direction, and not to innocent people, our troops, or even our foreign policy. Remember, they want a Democrat president in the WH in three years, and that president is not going to want to have to deal with this crap. Afghanistan should be “no” story by ‘08 except a successful one that helps America in the long run and doesn’t bring more problems to a new president’s plate. I do not think Newsweek anticipated all this. NG: I don’t know how much of what we’re witnessing is because of hubris, how much is competitive pressure, how much is ignorance, how much is arrogance… or how much is a combination of all of the above. But I don’t think it has much, if anything, to do with anti-American bias in the press. America has been very good to the press — too good, perhaps? — and there is nothing to gain from shitting where you eat, so to speak. A: So…bottom line…no, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle, the poison can’t be uninjected, and we’ll have to work very hard to regain the trust of these people who were beginning to trust us, to stabalize their government, etc, etc, all because a big-time, modern day newsman ran with a story that needed more checking, and relied upon the new “prove me wrong - but you really can’t” standard of journalism to get him by. Egad. We’re in trouble. NG: Yep. Pathetic. Anchoress note: Maybe more than merely pathetic. Here’s the latest: Muslims in Afghanistan were skeptical about the turnaround on Monday. “We will not be deceived by this,” Islamic cleric Mullah Sadullah Abu Aman told Reuters. “It comes because of American pressure.” Aman was the leader of a group of clerics who vowed to call for a holy war against the United States.” I cannot help but be angry, very angry, still. WELCOME: Captain’s Corner readers, please look around. The Newsweek fiasco has dominated the blog today, but I think I came to understand why so many American journalists count themselves as Journalists first and Americans second, here. We’re also talking about how the rest of Europe seems to hate France, we are looking into new PC language reforms and we have a little fun at Newsweek’s expense. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/05/16/network-journo-and-anchoress-talk-newsweek/trackback/ 30 Responses to “Network Journo and Anchoress talk Newsweek” |
May 16th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
I’m angry, too. While I agreed with probably 90 percent of what your friend had to say, I can’t agree that bias had little to do with this story.
He said: “I think the media’s instinct is to mistrust the Official Story — to suspect ulterior motives and discern an alternative reality that may not be as rosy as the authorities tell us. It has nothing to do with being anti-American, but has everything to do with being anti-manipulation. ”
I also would not say that Newsweek and others are anti-American, but it’s just not credible that they are not simply anti-manipulation. If it was simply a reaction to their dislike of manipulation and natural suspicion, they wouldn’t have been so easily suckered by RatherGate, and so happy to ignore the fact that Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia, never released his military records, and they would not have reported a memo given to them by a Democrat as a memo given only to Republicans.
They’d be giving Dean’s ugly remark about using the Schiavo story as a political pawn in the next election *at least* as much time as they gave that memo.
For people who supposedly hate manipulation so much, they sure lend themselves to it on behalf of one and only side of the political spectrum.
May 16th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Anchoress, I wonder, if the subject comes up again, if you would get his opinion on something from me. I trust him because I trust you, so I’d be very interested in what he thinks.
What incenses me the most about the Newsweek story was its stunning ignorance of the propaganda value of the story. I think that’s a theme that’s been running through a lot of blogs the last couple of days. We are in the middle of a war involving these Muslim extremists, which is something they ought to at least be passingly familiar with since they print the stories and run the pictures about it every week. We know that they have prety darned good propagandists and that they’re looking for ways to rile up the “mainstream” Muslims against us.
The magazine’s an international publication, so it’s not like it’s only goig to be read here. So how did it never occur to them that some enterprising jihadist was going to see this story and run with it? Are they honestly that ignorant? Did they forget we are fighting a war? Did the thought never pass their minds?
A lot of folks believe that Isikoff and Whitaker could not possibly be that ignorant. They conclude that if the average blogger could figure this out, even before the riots, that veteran journalists had to know. That leads to the “they’re on the other side” meme that’s spreding out there. Add to that the very distinct perception that Newsweek is pretty hostile toward the Administration (I’m remembering Evan Thomas’ comment that the MSM would deliver 15 points to John Kerry in the coming election) and that meme gets stronger.
Of course, you’d have to phrase that in your own fine fashion, but I’m curious about his thoughts on it.
May 16th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Even if the story had been true, Newsweek should not have reported it.
What does it really say about anything or any country, if some soldier somewhere dumps a copy of a holy book down a stinky hole? Nothing. It’s not intrinsically newsworthy.
If the MSM can refuse to show pictures of leapers from the burning WTC lest it inflame Americans, then they can refrain from reporting a story like this at all. Its ONLY value and meaning is propagandistic, inflaming a religion, putting at greater risk our soldiers, our democratization campaign, and our anti-terrorist war.
Newsweek delenda est.
May 16th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Toiletgate: New thoughts
I have a copy of the Koran on my bookshelf. I don’t quite remember how I got it and frankly the spine is unbroken, but as I looked at it, it occured to me, “How the hell would you flush…
May 16th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
A Journalist Speaks!
The Anchoress has performed an ACt of Journalism this evening and had an e-mail conversation with a friend of hers who is a respected journalist. The conversation was about the “flushed Koran” story and what he has to say is very interesting. She des…
May 16th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Sometimes journalists seem to forget about the moral dimensions of what they do. Lying, slander, calumny–these sins are something that journalists can by especially exposed to. By that I don’t wish to accuse anyone of a sin, but just to say that there’s a moral dimension that can be forgotten. In this case, the lapse has led to people losing their lives.
May 16th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Very good point, sister. Throw a pebble into the water, and the ripples may move far from where you stand, but you are still responsible for them in the first place, even if it seems “the sin touches me not.”
May 16th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Let me also point out that Evan Thomas proceeded to compound the supposed “mistake” by mentioning other such cases or multiple versions of the same case or who knows.
What was the intrinsic news value of any of it? Nothing!
May 16th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
If NEWSWEaK has, as your Network Guy alleges, become more skeptical of any government pronouncement since the WMD deception (and when I use that term, I use it to mean the government was among the deceived, not the deceiver), and is not really biased, then wouldn’t they check their facts even more carefully, not less carefully?
Anyone with one eye and a 50% hearing loss who ingests the Main Stream Media can tell you it is biased Left – and often far left. Look at what they report. Look at the tone of what they report. My question would be, why did they want to report this story in the first place? It was inflammatory, uncorroborated, and in its substance not very newsworthy to American readers; but a real poke in the eye to our military and a real sure-fire gut gooser to the Muslim world.
NEWSWEaK is not anti-American by your Netwrok Guy’s index, maybe because he is a Network Guy. All of these folks think Americanism as they understand it was invented between 1966 and 1975. The rest of us think it was invented between 1776 and 1789. That’s the difference. They hate this country as it is and as it had always been before the 1960’s – their Americanism is for America as they judge it “should be.” Like the good old days Howard Dean waxed nostalgic for. I wondered what the hell he was talking about, until it became clear he was talking about the America of the Weathermen and the Black Panthers and the VVAW; the days of WAPO and Woodstein tearing down a right wing warrior President, and soon thereafter dumping an “unworthy” ally (South Vietnam) into the pit of Red Death – an ally we had invested dozen of years and thousands of lives in trying to save. The Triumph of Liberalism in te Sixties, which to most sane and reawakened Americans now looks more and more like a deliberately contrived tragedy. Somehow the MSM have morphed from being a watchdog of government on behalf of the people, to being warriors fon behalf of whoever is trying to bust the government. They forget that We The People are the government. So, whose side are they on?
May 16th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Thanks for sharing your news reporter friend’s views. However, I would like to point out some inconsistencies in his reasoning.
“I think the media’s instinct is to mistrust the Official Story — to suspect ulterior motives and discern an alternative reality that may not be as rosy as the authorities tell us…”
In regards to the Newsweek debacle, wasn’t the ‘unnamed source’ part of the military (the Pentagon)? Doesn’t that source fall under ‘the authorities’ that journalists find so suspect? If the media resents manipulation, as in the analogy of the long-eared racehorse, then why didn’t they fact check this story? Or could it be that this story fit an agenda and so the long ears could be overlooked?
“You may be right. They have little sensitivity when it comes to matters of religion, and no idea how deeply disturbing that kind of desecration is to people of faith, any faith.”
In my reading experience, the American media is extremely sensitive to matters of faith when it pertains to non-western faiths or trendy new faith fashions. However, this is not even the point. One does not need to be a cutting-edge, savvy political pundit or journalist to know the consequences of certain types of stories. If you claim that Hindus have been systematically exposed to meat products, there will be a backlash. If you claim that the Dalai Lama is a charlatan, there will be a backlash. If you claim desecration of Islamic holy writings or holy sites,there will be a backlash. This doesn’t have, necessarily, anything to do with religious sensitivity in the media so much as it has to do with an understanding of media’s impact in various cultures. To claim that the media has no idea of the power of its stories, even on a secular level, is disingenuous at best.
May 16th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Newsweek Retracts Story
Give Newsweek a small modicum of credit — they learned a lesson from the CBS debacle over the Killian memos that the Tiffany Network itself still hasn’t bothered to figure out. A couple of hours ago, Newsweek retracted its false…
May 16th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
I’m a bit more sanguine about this whole thing, though I’m certainly not going to make excuses for Newsweek, but lets not make this into something it isn’t.
That said, the hypocrisy of the Islamic world must be addressed.
Churches-filled with worshippers- are shot up, blown and torched in Palistan, with nary a voice of concern from any Muslim authority. The remnants of the Jewsih community in the middle east has been virtually eradicated, with nary a word.
The much hated crusades were the result of the Islamic invasion of Europe, that resulted in the desecration of churches throught southern Europe- and would hav econtinued had they not been stopped at the gates of Vienna.
The real outrage wasn’t the Newsweek story or what may or may not have happened at Gitmo. The real outrage is the silence of the Muslim clergy and the Muslim world as they watch these riots.
May 16th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
I appreciate your efforts in this matter. Newsweek can apologize until hell freezes over and it will not bring back 19 dead people (Reuter’s). I maintain that the editor has a responsibility to carefully consider the likely consequences of publishing a story that hasn’t been fully vetted. In this case, a delay in the story until sources checked out would have been to run the risk of erring on the side of caution. My own sense of this is that an apology isn’t good enough.
May 16th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
The shame of what results from their bias seems to have no effect on changing the actions of the MSM. They just persist in their overall manipulation of gotcha news stories to supposedly embarrass the Bush administration. And most often, it blows up in their face and embarrasses themselves. But, why then, do they persist in play Wiley Coyote to Bush’s Roadrunner. Can they not even fathom that everytime a story like this blows up in their face, Bush becomes that much more of a hero. Short of that, even common sense, or Journalism 101 should have taught them that one anonymous source does not a story make. I shake my head in disbelief. And for the 16, 17, or 19 (Reuters figure) dead , what are we to say about them. Sorry, pals, Newsweek decided to light the explosion that did you in.
May 16th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
I have a suggestion for the MSM. Put in a policy that you will protect the identity of sources as long as the information passed on is TRUE. If it proves to be false, then immediately publish the name, organization, etc of the source. Consequences? The MSM would not be placed in a position of covering their backs ala CBS, and leakers would be put on notice that they are responsible for the information they put out. Pass this on to your friend.
Lou in Okinawa
May 16th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
I had a ringside seat to what happened at the World Trade Center on 9-11. I saw bodies cartwheeling down from the 95th or 100th or whatever floor. I can’t remember the last time I saw a picture of the burning WTC on network news or in the NY Times, but by golly, whenever there is a mention of Abu Gharib, no matter how tenuous to the subject under discussion (on local TV news, too, not just the networks)the pictures are put on the screen — not flashed, but left there, so you can get a good look — or are published prominently. I disagree with your network friend–the MSM are not tone deaf at all. They are irretrevably biased. If a story hurts Bush, they’ll revell in it, no matter what damage it may inflict on the nation, or our servicemen who are in harm’s way. Let me just say, I grew up in a newspaper family. My father was a New York newspaperman for 43 years, and a good one. As a kid, I read the 4 or 5 newspapers that he brought home from the office each day. The proofs of the next day’s editorial page were a special treat. I followed his footsteps and worked in print for pubs at 3 major chains over a period of 21 years. What I have seen and read over the past few years makes me want to vomit. (And it’s getting worse).
May 17th, 2005 at 12:39 am
If NEWSWEaK has, as your Network Guy alleges, become more skeptical of any government pronouncement since the WMD deception (and when I use that term, I use it to mean the government was among the deceived, not the deceiver), and is not really biased, then wouldn’t they check their facts even more carefully, not less carefully?
What he said. Network Guy’s explanation doesn’t fit the facts on hand.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Hmmmm.
So far only Afghans have died. But you can bet that Coalition soldiers, and most likely American soldiers, will die because of this. If this unrest calms down quickly, then the damage done will be severe but not totally insurmountable. But if it continues then Newsweeks is guilty of a crime. The exact crime might need to be determined but there’s no question that Newsweek has seriously damaged America and the GWOT.
And for that Newsweek must be destroyed completely. Every corporation needs a license to operate. And, at a minimum, Newsweek’s license must be revoked permanently.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Hmmm.
It’s been said before by other, and probably better, people.
It’s passing strange that the MSM never makes a mistake in America’s favor.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:59 am
*I think the whole WMD thing got the press looking a lot more closely at ears, and teeth, and various other anatomical anomolies…*
Yeah, and Rathergate and the missing weapons “story” and Abu Graihb (sp?) and Kevin Sites have SHOWN us the ears and various other anatomical anomalies of the press.
And this whole thread is based on the thoughts of yet another anonymous source? Please.
May 17th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Yeah, the press was soooo skeptical of everything that Clinton or the Democrats ever say. They would never run a DNC press release, for example, or fail to fawn over whatever Clinton’s “Daily Face” incessant pronouncements were. Nope, they were on those like white on rice. I remember fondly how they skewered every word that Clinton uttered, never marveling at the skill with which he dissembled constantly.
Your NG has an extrememly short memory. His insights into the media are self-serving. Ask him how much hostility to Bush he’s personally SEEN, and how much skepticism of Clinton’s works that he’s ever SEEN. That would be your answer right there. Ask him that.
May 17th, 2005 at 11:14 am
The comments by “FORNOW” (that the story shouldn’t have been published in the first place) clearly demonstrates an understanding of the more fundamental question at issue. While the public has the “right to know,” the media has an obligation to understand the ramifications inherent in the information it presents to the world at large. For Newsweek to reluctantly admit to an error in judgment belies their undeniable complicity in disseminating blatantly anti-American propaganda. The extent of the damage done to this country’s reputation is sever.
It is NOT credible to continually deny the obvious anti-American, self-loathing
one finds in a majority of the main stream media. It is consistently demonstrated by the never ending stream of misrepresentations, half-truths and out right falsehoods that appear in print on a daily basis.
And, by the way, why would anyone accept a “newsperson’s” evaluation of fairness and unbiased reporting? It seems to me that, for the most part, they consistently fall over backwards trying to pat each other on the back. I’m astounded by their absolute arrogance.
May 17th, 2005 at 11:28 am
I don’t get it. A few years ago the very same publcation SPIKED a story by the very same writer, claiming that the Lewinsky story lacked sufficient confirmation, and didn’t serve the public good.
This one did, in their eyes?
May 17th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Do media folks like your friend ever, EVER ask themselves the simple question: “Will the publication of this story hurt my country?”
My suspicion is that the answer to the question is no…certainly no as long as this president they so despise is in office.
Their status of journalist does not somehow trump their status as citizens. Newsweek and the whole MSM have functioned as nothing more than propagandists for those who wish to hurt the country they inhabit.
And that is the very definition of being un-American.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Derby Metaphor
The recent Kentucky Derby has everyone writing metaphorically:…
May 17th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
What makes you people believe that there was one source for this story, instead of none?
May 17th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Yeah, I don’t buy the “anti-manipulation” line either. First of all, it dodges (and even begs) the question–which was why the press so consistently errs in one direction. If this excuse were true, then the entire premise of the question would have no basis in fact, a basis your correspondent did not dispute. There is also the conspicuous matter that this was a bald instance of the press being gleefully, willingly manipulated in order to tarnish the image of our war effort. How a person can read this any differently is just beyond me.
May 18th, 2005 at 10:56 am
[...] d Medicine, the failed experiment Krugman loves Newsweek RETRACTS but the damage is done Network Journ [...]
May 19th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
I have to ask someone a serious question; If we know that Saddam used WMD’s on his own people, then how has anyone lied or been deciveid about him having them just to go to war with Iraq? MY GOD has everyone lost all their marbles. If HE USED THEM ONCE BEFORE, HE HAD THEM….period. How hard is that to understand?
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:47 pm
[...] I have mentioned this person from time to time and once I even posted a transcript of an email exchange between the two of us on the issue of Newsweek an [...]