Well, to clarify, Newsweek doesn't say that reports of U.S. soldiers desecrating the Koran are untrue; their original U.S. government source still stands by his claim, but is unsure if the incidents are cited in the report reported on by Newsweek or other ones. As the story says, they checked with other two other U.S. government sources; one chose not to comment and the other did not dispute the claim by the original source. This is in addition to detainee claims that these incidents did happen.

As the editor says, other news outlets had reported that prisoners had made these claims, and they decided to run this bit because they had a government source who says the U.S. found evidence that this happened. The pentegon responded to the story saying they investigated these claims and found them to be uncredible, but, again, the originall source does not retract his claim, but does sound like he is a less reliable source than Newsweek once thought.

Now, behind this incident is a larger debate on what role the media should play in a time of war. It's a tricky subject, but I do not believe the media is responsible for reporting government wrongdoing -- and again, whether these alleged incidents are "wrongdoing" is also open to debate. Personally, I think it is. And I think the press has the right and duty to report it.

Yes, islamic militants use reports like this to fuel their anti-american jihad, but, as the old saying goes, the government works for the people, and the people have the right to know if they are acting in a way that they would not approve of. The US military represent all of us. We have a right to know if they are acting in a way that does not reflect well on us.

I'm also curious, what basic critical thinking do you think was missing by Newsweek that bloggers routinely use?

Well, what's a few more dead soldiers or Afghanis to them anyway, except for another anti-Bush story? ...but their "apology" is very telling: But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

So, the US soldiers that were victims of the violence aren't considered "victims of the violence" to them? Seems to me they added the "...and to the US soldiers" as an afterthought.

Tom, you may buy into the spin, but I don't. The unnamed government source can be anyone in the government that may or may not have ties to ANY investigation....more likely to be yet another aide leaking anti-Bush propaganda...judging by the whole "I don't know where I read it, but it's there somewhere" defense. ...and the ultra-liberal Newsweek ran with it without thinking of the fallout it would cause....and the deaths that THEY are responsible for in reporting a pile of shit that they thought would hurt Bush, when all it hurt were innocent US soldiers and innocent Afghanis. ...and the defense of the reckless media that reports this crap for RATINGS/SPONSOR-$$$ always rests on the "source", as in it's the source's fault that they were recklessly reporting their crap without verifying it. Sorry, an ex-girlfriend's father is one of their senior editors, so I've been to Newsweek black-tie galas and such and met 'em all and they did this for the anti-Bush sentiments....and for some heresay evidence, this ex-girlfriend's father told me that most "goverment sources" were simply aides for congressmen that want something leaked, which is why I'm skeptical of ALL "sources" that come from the gubmint.

Why don't we send that "source" over to apoligize to those affected by the violence that the "source" caused....make him go to the funerals of the 15 that died because he thought he read about this incident somewhere in a report, maybe not THIS report, or a draft of a report, or a memo, or a handwritten note, or scribbled on the men's room wall.

Personally, MY ideas on what's "wrong" are far from what yours are, but that's for another day.

Sarge if you honestly believe that alone started the riots well then I say lay off the Meth.

If anyone is at fault for the deaths it is the killers themselves.

And if you want to blame anyone else then blame Dumbya.

I find the discussion over this topic to be ridiculous -

"Did the US military torment and abuse prisoners? Yup. Did they destroy and insult a book? ABSOUTELY NOT"

The riots that occurred were not only due to this article - they happened because of past mistakes that did indeed happen.

I don't use meth anymore...switched to crack-heroine....better for the body.....what was your non-point again (other than if I don't agree with UY, I must be on drugs)? Actually, the riots that THOSE THAT WERE RIOTTING SAID HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THIS REPORT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THIS REPORT, while they were busy killing 17 at last count. Evidently, UY doesn't know it's a felony to incite a riot and one can be held responsible for the damage and deaths if they incited said riot.....that's why we target the instigators specifically. Go ahead and try one in NYC...stand on the streets inciting a riot and then try to blame the dead on "the killers" when you're in front of the jury....when the law, specifically precedented Constitutional law, says that you cannot do this...regardless of how many "rigths" you think you have. Now, use your pathetic little brain and translate "riot mentality" to a 3rd world country mentality to understand why we have those laws. OF course, you may not know much about riot mentality and you may have never had to control a riot as I have...so feel free to plead ignorance.

Why is it that the "blame the killers" mentality isn't there concerning everything y'all try to pin on Bush, such as 9-11, AIDS in Afica, Malaria deaths, etc...? Oh yeah, I get it...blame everything on Bush.....but blame "the killers" whenever it pleases your non-point.

Reckless disregard for the truth.....such is the norm of the MSM....and if a few troops die because of it....well, just blame Bush and if that's not good enough, well, they signed up for it didn't they?.....and y'all wonder why readership is down at places like the Globe.

.switched to crack-heroine..

and it shows.

Why is it that the "blame the killers" mentality isn't there concerning everything y'all try to pin on Bush, such as 9-11, AIDS in Afica, Malaria deaths, etc...? Oh yeah, I get it...blame everything on Bush.

Sarge as a Conservative Freeptard you must be aware that Republicans have tried to blame every little thing possible on Clinton including things that happened under the first Bush like Ruby Ridge and things that happened under the Second Bush like 9/11.

So the ONLY thing to say is you can dish it out but not take it.

When Um Yeah doesn't have tha balls to back up his statements he throws a diversion into the debate. See how UY said that Sarge mentioned Bill Clinton, and Ruby Ridge when Sarge did nothing of the sort. Only one person mentioned Bill Clinton, and that was you UY.

See how UY said that Sarge mentioned Bill Clinton, and Ruby Ridge when Sarge did nothing of the sort.

I said Republicans shit fuck.

And then you said 'YOU can dish it out, but YOU can't take it', the person to whom you were addressing would be Sarge. That would mean that yes, you said 'republicans', and then proceeded to include Sarge in said group 'republicans', including him in the group that brings up clinton. And by this inclusion, yes, claiming he brought up clinton when it was really you.

Denial doesn't work when your words are written out for all to see.

So UY is gonna lump me into the group that blames Clinton for everything? I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME BLAMING CLINTON FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN FUCKING UP THE MILITARY......I was there before him and lived with what he did to the military for 6 years.

Sorry dipfuck...I don't dish that out....so I don't HAVE to take it.

Go ahead.....lie about me some more....it's you're MOE.

'YOU can dish it out, but YOU can't take it', the person to whom you were addressing would be Sarge.

Thats a phrase and I was including republicans in general and yes Sarge is often right in the republican circle jerk.

Clinton military budget pretty much matched Bush the firsts last and Bush the second first. Military budgets were cut becuase the Soviet Union was gone.

You wanker, stop believing everything spoon fed to you.

So Sarge I noticed how you completely side step how your fellow Conservatives try to blame Clinton for 9.11 and everything else.

WRONG pathetic little ignorant child.....don't hold me responsible for what others say.

As for your little ignorant tid-bit concerning the military under Clinton, it's not about the budget AMOUNT...but about where the money went....and it didn't go to training the troops or servicing their equipment. I lived through it, did you? Oh no, that's right....you live off of OTHER PEOPLE'S SERVICE.

and it didn't go to training the troops or servicing their equipment.

How is that Clintons fault?

Dipshit....it was CLINTON's military...you know...the Commander in Chief. No matter how much you only want to ascribe the good things that happened in the 90's that WJC had nothing to do with to him....you can't them ignore the bad that he DID have something to do with.

Or in your little tiny Absurdistan world....maybe you can, but it doesn't fly in the real world.

.it was CLINTON's military...you know...the Commander in Chief.

He doesnt control where every penny goes.

And lets just say he did, the Republicans controlled Congress and they didnt care at all.

I know, I know....everything good=Clinton....everything "bad" = those nasty Republicans. It was HIS military, and it was worse at the end of his tenure than at the beginning. He allowed anything negative to happen to it. Simple fact.

it was worse at the end of his tenure than at the beginning. He allowed anything negative to happen to it.

Much much worse things are happening to W's military Sarge in case you havent been paying attention.

Just to fill you in there has been a lot of deaths and injuries.

Nice....change the subject. Good tactic, but it doesn't fly in a logic course, and it won't fly with me. Talking about Clinton...change the subject to Bush.

Talking about Clinton...change the subject to Bush.

Well you were on record yesterday whining about how people blame bush.

Wow....another red herring. "People" don't blame Bush for everything...only dinks like you do.....but in THIS CONVERSATION, of which you know nothing which is why you try to change the subject, concerning what happened to the military under the tenure of Clinton from '92 to '98, your obsessive change of subject is and always will be called a red herring. You can try to pin it on the Republican Congress, or try to change the subject to Bush, but "the facts are all on my side".....the 90's was a negative time to be in the military. The SecDef appointed by Clinton treated the military like a social experiment. You don't know this shit because you were not there. Ever heard of "low stress basic training"....I was a Drill for THAT failed bullshit. Did you know that training $$$ were cut to the bare minimum? Didn't think so....you were not there. Did you know that the Morale Welfare & Recreation programs were eliminated? Of course not, you were not there. Just thinking of shit like "sensitivity training" for military personnel is a crude joke. "Now now Sarge....you're hurting my feelings"....but you wouldn't know that....you were not there. Safety training that was more important than combat training? Never mind the concept that you train as you would fight, but centering on safety only makes troops afraid to do dangerous things. Of course, you'd know that if you were there. How about the non-smoking campaign in the military of the 90's? You've gotta be shitting me....but you weren't there. An attempt to eliminate profanity from the Sarge's "conversations" with subordinates? ....you weren't there. The EPA campaigns that said we couldn't put gun-oil on our weapons because a few drops might end up on the ground? You weren't there. ...that said that infantrymen couldn't go to the bathroom in the woods...as in "Stop the war, we gotta take a piss"....oh yeah, YOU weren't there. Got a tortoise sighting in teh middle of an armored Brigade battle in the desert....stop everything!!! ...but you weren't there. Tank Brigades going YEARS without actually driving around in tanks because they're out "keeping peace" in the world? You weren't there. The notion that a Basic Trainee cries to home about how badly he's been treated and the Drills get to go in front of Congress to explain the harsh treatment of a trainee is ludicrous....but you weren't there.

Quick...change the subject to something anti-Bush because you weren't there and Clinton could do no wrong.

So Sarge everything bad that happened to the military under Clinton is Clintons fault. So the fact that there was a tortoise in the road and guns couldnt be oiled is his fault.

So following your logic every dead body and missing limb (the bad things happening under W) is his fault.

Nice try...once again, take a logic course while you're studying to be a future ACLU asshole...what you've just done is called a false analogy.

Everything that went on in the military under the tenure of Clinton is directly tied to Clinton through his cabinet nominees. All those social experiments conducted ON the military were due to the SecDef and the undersecretaries that were appointed by Clinton.....and isn't it the POTUS that picks the head of the EPA?

If you want to show me some changes made in the military that were conducted by the current SecDef and undersecretaries that were negative changes in the military....THAT would be a logical analogy.....but logic is certainly foreign to you and your obsessions.

So are you gonna blame Roosevelt for the 400,000 dead American troops?

No, those are all still clintons fault.

Bush wouldn't have had to do the things he did (all the ones that turned out bad, that is) unless clinton had created the problems in the first place.

In fact, if it wasn't for Clinton and Carter, we'd all be driving around flying cars, from one tree-top arcology to another, gaping at the plethora of virgin forest below while we sip coffee from our gold-plated mugs and muse how hard things must have been back when people had to get jobs.

So are you gonna blame Roosevelt for the 400,000 dead American troops?

FDR didnt start WWII.

W did start the current Iraq war. Indeed brought out a ton of discredited and sketchy evidence to get his precious war.

Who started ANY war is irrelevant to the postulate that has been presented....and incorrectly usurped by you in a false analogy right here:

So following your logic every dead body and missing limb (the bad things happening under W) is his fault.

Here's your free logic lesson of the day. "My logic" postulates that anything that happens IN the military (changes, programs, bullshit social experiments) are the direct result of who that C-i-C is because HE'S the one that appoints those that make those shitty decisions). If you can't logically follow that wars are irrelevant to that postulate, fine you're ignorant to logic.....but if you're gonna say in a false analogy that "using [my] logic..." I have to blame deaths in a war on the POTUS....then (following MY logic that those things that happen IN the military are the fault of the C-i-C) you HAVE to blame ALL deaths in EVERY war on the POTUS that was their C-i-C. "Who started the wars" is irrelevant to the postulate.

Amature...take a logic course.

Well according to Shinseki W and crew messed up by not having enough troops.

The Republicans control everything right now, and W rushed into this war who should get the blame the Amish?

Seeing as I am not talking about "war" at all, I'll just ignore your illogical obsession to try to keep the discussion 4 years into the future of where it was.

You suck at life Sarge.