And now the other shoe has fallen. The New York Post has published pictures of Saddam Hussein in his skivies. What the f*** are these people thinking?

And now the other shoe has fallen.  The New York Post has published pictures of Saddam Hussein in his skivies.  What the f*** are these people thinking?

 

 

Yikes!!

 

 

Insert Queen's hampster hiding his eyes pic..

Just for you Steff:

 

This s*** just reinforces my belief that, yes KWF, there is a liberal agenda in the press. Including Newsweek. The Post is rag, but it says "New York" on it's banner. That's all it takes to make the US of A look like s***. f***ing assholes.

Gotta love the Rupert Murdoch owned Sun running the photos.

 

/sits back and waits for somebody to discuss the liberal bias of Rupert Murdoch

Gotta love the Rupert Murdoch owned Sun running the photos.

 

/sits back and waits for somebody to discuss the liberal bias of Rupert Murdoch 

 

/joins him in anticipation, buys the first round of e-beer

/joins him in anticipation, buys the first round of e-beer

/If there's free beer, I'll wait too.

/If there's free beer, I'll wait too.

Mmmm, Hey now... How you doin'?...

(Now where did that smooth smiley with the shades go...?)

This s*** just reinforces my belief that, yes KWF, there is a liberal agenda in the press. Including Newsweek.  The Post is rag, but it says "New York" on it's banner.  That's all it takes to make the US of A look like s***.  f***ing assholes.

 

Bad move to take the photo and bad move to report it in the press. Idiocy on both sides. :headshake

Mmmm, Hey now... How you doin'?...

(Now where did that smooth smiley with the shades go...?)

Better once you get me that beer!

 

(I can already tell I will get no work done today and will be leaving early.....)

*waits for obvious joke involving Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction*

The point is ... there is nothing illegal or underhanded about what they were doing in Gitmo.  So why is it newsworthy?  Because it incites anti-American hatred.  That's all it accomplishes.

 

Why are we talking about it? How are you defining newsworthy? If US actions are pissing off the very people we are trying to help. The very people US servicepeople are dying for. The very people we are indebting out children to pay for. It's newsworthy.

 

This country is great because we do not allow our government to operate in secrecy. They are suppose to do what WE want them to do. We are in trouble when the press is only suppose to report what makes us look good. That would be the worse kind of bias imaginable.

 

I don't think something has to be illegal or underhanded to be newsworthy, so I guess we will disagree. It seems like a very narrow definition of the news.

*waits for obvious joke involving Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction*

Why are we talking about it? How are you defining newsworthy? If US actions are pissing off the very people we are trying to help. The very people US servicepeople are dying for. The very people we are indebting out children to pay for. It's newsworthy.

 

This country is great because we do not allow our government to operate in secrecy. They are suppose to do what WE want them to do. We are in trouble when the press is only suppose to report what makes us look good. That would be the worse kind of bias imaginable.

 

I don't think something has to be illegal or underhanded to be newsworthy, so I guess we will disagree. It seems like a very narrow definition of the news.

 

 

You're forgetting that there is no evidence to corroborate this news. News, without supporting facts, is not news.....its nonsense.

There is plenty of evidence to corroborate this news. Including a lawsuit filed against the government claiming the very same thing in October 2004.

There is plenty of evidence to corroborate this news. Including a lawsuit filed against the government claiming the very same thing in October 2004.

 

 

Yeah, enough that they had to retract their bulls*** story.

 

:rolly

Yeah,  enough that they had to retract their bulls*** story.

 

:rolly

 

 

No, only enough gov't pressure.

Edited May 20, 200520 yr by KipWellsFan

Yeah,  enough that they had to retract their bulls*** story.

 

:rolly

 

Actually pay attention to what they retracted. They retracted the prediction that a specific allegation would be discussed in detail. There is plenty of evidence out there on this subject already. However, Newsweek erred in making a prediction of what would be in a government investigation report.

Again, retracting this story - doesn't mean that what they mentioned may have happened didn't happen, just that the government isn't reporting on it.

Again, retracting this story - doesn't mean that what they mentioned may have happened didn't happen, just that the government isn't reporting on it.

 

Which means they are reporting heresay, or a rumor?

Which means they are reporting heresay, or a rumor?

 

Which is good enough to go to war with but not good enough to run a story with. Got it.

Which means they are reporting heresay, or a rumor?

 

They were reporting a source close to the investigation who has since backed off his claim. This really isn't too hard to follow. From what that source said, they made a prediction. That is not good journalism, and that prediction is what was retracted.

They were reporting a source close to the investigation who has since backed off his claim. This really isn't too hard to follow. From what that source said, they made a prediction. That is not good journalism, and that prediction is what was retracted.

 

Yes, I remember. It was an unnamed source, who said that he had heard that this investigation was going to happen. So the source was reporting the information third hand already. Should have been checked out better.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...secdef2761.html

 

From Keith Olbermann:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050516b

 

Last Thursday, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld’s go-to guy whenever the situation calls for the kind of gravitas the Secretary himself can’t supply, told reporters at the Pentagon that rioting in Afghanistan was related more to the on-going political reconciliation process there, than it was to a controversial note buried in the pages of Newsweek claiming that the government was investigating whether or not some nitwit interrogator at Gitmo really had desecrated a Muslim holy book.

 

But Monday afternoon, while offering himself up to the networks for a series of rare, almost unprecedented sit-down interviews on the White House lawn, Press Secretary McClellan said, in effect, that General Myers, and the head of the after-action report following the disturbances in Jalalabad, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, were dead wrong. The Newsweek story, McClellan said, “has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences.”

 

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

 

Whenever I hear this White House talking about ‘doing to damage to our image abroad’ and how ‘people have lost lives,’ I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will — and at what human cost.

Yes, I remember.  It was an unnamed source, who said that he had heard that this investigation was going to happen.  So the source was reporting the information third hand already.  Should have been checked out better.

 

Meh, reporters now are just copying the Whitewater reporting idea that one or no sources are needed.