Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (104460)	5/18/2005 11:21:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Newsweek described the anonymous "source" as "a knowledgeable U.S. government source,". You say he is a Pentagon official, In all accounts I've read they've not identified the "source" as a Pentagon employee - they always use the word government. Do you logically believe Newsweek would make something up and destroy its credibility when the White House would somehow call them on this kind of misstatement? I agree with you that Newsweek's credibility is destroyed, but as to Newsweek's logic - well, it's surprising that Dan Rather would destroy his career and kill Sixty Minutes II by basing a story on obviously forged documents - but he did it and now Newsweek has done something just as bad. the Pentagon and Centcom both reviewed the article and did correct other things in it, in a prepublication review, Actually Newsweek says, "before publishing the item, writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry sought comment from two Defense Department officials. One declined to respond, and the other challenged another part of the story but did not dispute the Quran charge, Whitaker said." washingtonpost.com Sounds like unofficial contacts to me. One of which blew off the request for comment and the other partially refuted some charges. Perhaps that's all he had time to do. I don't think every time a phone rings, the gov't is obligated to disprove every wild charge someone makes. And the failure to do so is not confirmation of the charge. BTW, the same article discloses: "The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'not credible.'" And this article mentions that there have been confirmed reports that Gitmo detainees have themselves flushed Korans - meaning the one "source" Newsweek had could have confused such reports with guards flushing Korans: "It is also possible that Newsweek reporters relied too much on an uncertain source, or that the magazine confused the story with (confirmed) reports that prisoners themselves used Korans to block toilets as a form of protest." washingtonpost.com