Newsweek Reporter Says He Dropped the Ball

[leftchick]

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1038520&tw=wn_wire_story

Michael Isikoff, addressing the furor in an interview broadcast Monday night on "The Charlie Rose Show," said that he regretted the possibility that his article, which has been blamed for violent protests in Muslim countries, may have enflamed rioters.

"It was terrible what happened," he told Rose. "Even if it was just a little bit that we contributed to the violence that went on over there, that was awful, terrible."

He said that the reporters had provided the article in full to a senior Defense Department official. The official asked for a change of wording on a separate issue, but said nothing about the details concerning the Quran.

Isikoff said that he believed that both he and his government sources had focused on other aspects of their article they considered more important than the alleged mistreatment of the Quran.

"I think that they, no more than we, understood the volatility of that charge," he said.


:puke:

[LynnTheDem]

1. RIGHTWINGNUT reporter Isikoff...the reporter Pigboy and Hannity et al

PRAISE for his Newsweek article and BLAME Newsweek for.

And Newsweek DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING to violence in Afghanistan. Said the US Commander in charge in Afghanistan. Said the President of Afghanistan.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Didn't Gen Myers already confirm the violence had NOTHING to do with the

Newsweek article? WTF???

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Yeah, what Lynn said!

[LynnTheDem]

4. Yeppers. So did Karzai;

“These demonstrations were in reality not related to the Newsweek story,” he said at a joint press conference held after a meeting with President George W. Bush. “They were more against progress in Afghanistan and our strategic partnership with America. We know the people who were behind the demonstrations.”

Mr Karzai's remarks echo the views of General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, who said the violence was “not at all tied to the article in the magazine”.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6958aa8-cbaf-11d9-895c-00000e2511c8,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

May 12, 2005; Myers and Rumsfeld press conferance, last paragraph:

GEN. MYERS: It's the -- it's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eikenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran -- and I'll get to that in just a minute -- but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan. So that's -- that was his judgment today in an after- action of that violence. He didn't -- he thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."


http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html

[Starfury]

5. So did Afghan Puppet/President Karzai....

But what would he know about Afghanistan, right? :sarcasm:

Edit: Drat, I got beat to the punch! :)

[MADem]

8. He was probably the SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL

...who vetted the article.

We'll get a pretty good sense eventually. Myers is on his way out the door. His replacement has already been named.

[dameocrat]

9. Ok what if it had

It would actually be the governments fault and not the reporters! Do we want to censor any news that makes people mad at public officials? WTF? Alot of media elites really don't get democracy or like it much.

[annabanana]

6. This whole thing finally answers the question. . . .

"How Can You Be in Two Places at Once, When You're Not Anywhere At All"

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[rodeodance]

7. somebody "got to" this 'senior official" in the Pentagon.

.........Isikoff said that granting anonymity comes with a risk, but is a necessary tool.

"Everybody gets some things wrong at some time because you're dealing with a government, in this case a Pentagon, an institution at Guantanamo, that's not open, that's not transparent."

Asked whether he thought the Bush administration had exploited the controversy, Isikoff said he wanted to avoid the question but added:

"Once we retracted the story, we gave them a club in which to bash us."

[MADem]

11. I think it is Myers. Maybe he is sowing land mines, Here is why:

At the ceremony where his successor (Peter Pace, current #2, first time ever for the USMC in the top slot, only the second time ever for USMC in either the top or second position--Pete just moved up one) was announced, I thought Myers was gonna cry...he got all choked up. He looked really...upset, discombobulated, at sea, splotchy, holding back the blubbering, damn near.

They could have kept him on, but he is going. So, the question is, did he want to go, did he ask to stay, did they reject him, did they not offer him a third term, or...what?

The Chairman of the JCS can, if the prez agrees, sit in his seat for SIX LONG YEARS, with an initial appointment plus TWO reappointments. After six years, the only way you can stay is in TIME OF WAR. Myers was REJECTED, I suspect. Myers got the nod right before 9.11. He is just finishing his second term this October. He could do one more term with chimp's say so, and additional terms after that if this "war" keeps up. But instead, he is going home...



http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/core/title_10.html#152

152. Chairman: Appointment; Grade and Rank
(a) Appointment; Term of Office.

1) There is a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from the officers of the regular components of the armed forces. The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the President for a term of two years, beginning on October 1 of odd-numbered years. Subject to paragraph (3), an officer serving as Chairman may be reappointed in the same manner for two additional terms. However, in time of war there is no limit on the number of reappointments.


Well, ya just gotta wonder:

Is Myers about to take the rap for the war's progress, that Shinseki warned us about, once he is safely gone? Funny that, you can't get out of the goddamn Army during this "time of war" but they are sending the top dog, HowdyDoody Zooomysuit himself, home.

Does Myers KNOW he is about to take the rap, and he is sowing seeds of dissent on his way down the garden path to military oblivion? `

Something to chew on, anyway. I find it mighty curious, myself...

[oasis]

25. Could be that the Tillman story screwup is about to get pinned on Myers.

The parents aren't taking this outrage lying down.

[MADem]

26. No. He has nothing to do with that.

That is an Army and DOD fuckup. That trail goes straight to Rummy.

He does big picture, National Security Council, Decisions Of The Highest Order type stuff. The management of war dead and investigations into FF incidents don't go near him. He can always weigh in if he doesn't like the way something is going (he is the most senior military officer on active duty right now), but it would be tough to try to blame him for it and be credible for any amount of time.

[gratuitous]

19. "Once we retracted the story . . ."

So, Spikey Mikey, this corrupt administration lied to you, forced a retraction, and then used your craven little apology as a club to bash you over the head? Is that what you're telling us? Because if it is, the next logical question is, "What have you learned, Dorothy?"

But you can bet that Isikoff and Newsweek and all the rest of the Kool Kid media whores will allow themselves to be led down the yellow brick road again, ever in search of that mythical land where Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan was about to attack and conquer the United States, all these invasive unconstitutional powers of the USA PATRIOT Act really do add to our national security, and outspending the rest of the world combined on our military actually reduces tensions and violence.

Let's do the same thing all over again; maybe this time, the outcome will be different . . .

[chelsea0011]

10. Funny, I don't remember any apology for RW using him to impeach

Clinton for, compared to the clown in office now, wasn't much of anything.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. asshat nt

[DeepModem Mom]

13. My question -- are Newsweek articles always cleared by Defense Dept....

officials?

"He said that the reporters had provided the article in full to a senior Defense Department official. The official asked for a change of wording on a separate issue, but said nothing about the details concerning the Quran."

And, if so, is this standard practice for other media as well?

[MADem]

14. This happens ALL THE TIME

It is not new. It isn't a question of clearance, it is a question of fact checking. Anyone who works the Pentagon beat has buddies on the inside, there are many retired buddies too, who continue to socialize with their pals still on the inside, and who pass on the odd tidbit for follow up. It has been going on for years and years. The good reporters have sources way up the food chain, and in the weeds as well. Before 9.11 they used to crawl the rings unescorted and try to read shit in your inbox (upside down!), while making inconsequential conversation. No joke.

There are some sources who just want to get their agenda out there, and then, the more interesting ones, are disgruntled because they believe that the wrong course of action is being pursued, or their idea was rejected, or they are simply whistleblowing because the actions being taken border on, or cross over into, illegality.

A couple of years ago, Rummy lowered the boom, and threatened everyone with really dire consequences for speaking out of turn. It got a little hairy after that, but the fear is wearing off.

At any rate, you have to read between the lines. SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL can be anyone, military or civilian, at the flag or general rank, ASD or higher for civilians. Defense official can be a military or civilian worker, usually a midgrade officer or civil servant working within a specific department. Pentagon source could be the E-4 who pulled something out of the trash can next to the copier. Also, if you see a quote by a named official in the same article as an unnamed official, often it is the SAME PERSON, talking on and off the record.

I think the source was Myers himself (see my comment above). He hasn't been doing too hot a job of crossing t's and dotting i's lately, and he will be out of a job come October.

[DeepModem Mom]

15. Thanks for that info, MADem!

[MADem]

18. Anytime!

I've been there, done that, and used the old tee shirt I bought to clean my car!

[kskiska]

16. Didn't the White House

clear the CBS National Guard story, too?

[indepat]

17. Newsweek and other MSM outlets have dropped the ball, missed the biggest

story of the the new century: how the government of the people, by the people, and for the people is no longer the government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[KansDem]

20. Golly, Mike! You don't suppose dropping 2,000 lb Daisy Cutters...

on Iraqi Children, in a "war" begun on lies and deceit, had anything to do with riots over there, do you?

[leesa]

21. Yes. Shame on him for telling the truth!

[daleo]

22. Pravda apologizes

Comrades, the Red Army vetted our story, but apparently a wrecker or hooligan influenced the copy. We are undergoing intense self-criticism and re-education at this moment.

[TexasLawyer]

29. Perfect!

[AP]

23. He forgot to give Rove a copy of the article to mark-up BEFORE publication

[GeorgeGist]

24. His source burned him

what a schmuck.

[LisaM]

27. They're not responding to the CHARGE

They are responding to the action. Stop shooting the messenger.

[SoCalDem]

28. Newsweek reporter has bills to pay and a lifestyle he likes,

so of course he says whatever he's told to say..

[donheld]

30. Michael Isikoff, tell'em to *f* off

Michael had nothing to do with it.

[mom cat]

31. Sellout! Even Karzi admits that the Newsweek article did not spark the

violence. And what about the hundred thousand deaths from a war that the media helped fuel? I don't see much hand wringing there!

[genieroze]

32. So the defense department gave the go ahead. It's good to know that

all journalism MUST be cleared with the government now. To bad tricky Dickie Nixon didn't have that luxury. There wouldn't have been Watergate.