sources tell NEWSWEEK
We Can't Trust Newsweek
Blogs for Bush
We've only hit the tip of the iceberg on this Newsweek phony story... There are many questions that need to be answered, and of course, we still have questions to be asked...
Was this mere incompetence, or anti-Bush/anti-military bias?
Newsweek is now claiming that their information came from a single source:
<<<
"Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source...
...we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence.
...
Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts.
>>>
Evan Thomas also repeats the single anonymous source claim:
<<<
So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter. The source told Isikoff that the report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Qur'an down a toilet.
...
On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.
>>>
But what did the original story claim?:
<<<
Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.
...
Sources familiar with the SouthCom probe say investigators didn't find that Miller authorized abusive treatment. But given the complaints that were being raised, sources say, the report will provoke questions about whether Miller should have known what was happening—and acted to try to prevent it.
>>>
Thus, we have even more questions about whether or not Newsweek is being truthful regarding their decision to run with the phony story. Why claim multiple sources in the original story, then retract it and now say it was a single anonymous source? Was it to make the initial bogus story sound more credible?
Posted by Matt
blogsforbush.com
msnbc.msn.com
msnbc.msn.com
msnbc.msn.com |
