WH: Newsweek must "do more" to make up for Issikoff story

[BurtWorm]

Do More = Lie More


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051700713.html

"We appreciate the step that Newsweek took yesterday," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It was a good first step. And what we would like to see now is for Newsweek to work to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region, and Newsweek certainly has the ability to help undo what damage can be undone."

While offering few specifics, McClellan said Newsweek should explain "what happened and why they got it wrong, particularly to people in the region."

"They can also talk about policies and practices of the United States military. Our United States military goes out of its way to treat the holy Koran with great care and respect," he said.

The U.S. image had already been tarnished in many parts of the Arab world and Washington has sought to rebuild trust among Muslims as violence continues in Iraq and following last year's disclosures that U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib physically and sexually abused Iraqi prisoners.

[Plaid Adder]

1. Subject line is too wordy. Let's tighten that up a bit:

WH to Newsweek: You're Our Bitch Now

C ya,

THe Plaid Adder

[NYCGirl]

2. Here's what "Wonkette" had to say about that article:

We Come Not to Praise Newsweek...

We're not going to try to defend Newsweek -- Mark Whitaker cocking that up nicely on his own. But we do wonder if the administration should be piling on like a bunch of naked prisoners. If you're the one that soaked the field in gasoline, is it a good idea to draw a lot of attention to the guy who walked by smoking a cigarette?

www.wonkette.com

[BurtWorm]

4. She's nasty.

:rofl:

[DemBeans]

10. it's an interesting point

One does wonder why, if the administration was so worried about the deaths and rioting, that they'd blow this story up and give it a new daily headline by this relentless attack on Newsweek?

Three guesses:

1. Incompetence, as usual;
2. A mafia strong-arm tactic meant to create a 'crisis' in our media so they can impose censorship, or
3. They WANT this part of the world to be in a constant state of turmoil, so eventually they can step in and restore order (and interesting that Pakistan is experiencing these riots - very interesting).

[BurtWorm]

12. 1 and 2 for sure.

They're a lot more expert at playing rough with the media than they are at making nice with Muslims who aren't despots.

[Inland]

3. Yes, NW should ID the official that gave them the implication

and reveal each and every thing he said, and let the people decide the truth.

And then we should be allowed to have IRC and congressional observers at Gitmo at all times.

[ComerPerro]

5. That's such bullshit. All around

I can't believe they are actually blaming attacks and deaths on Newsweek!

It still suprises me. And they are getting away with it!

[BurtWorm]

7. They're getting away with it in the media.

I don't think those of us who are paying attention are falling for it. Everyone else just doesn't care.

[ComerPerro]

8. Well, yeah, but honestly, it doesn't matter what we know

The mainstream media gets the point:

Don't question the administration, or you will be sorry.

[BurtWorm]

11. They got that point a long time ago.

Isn't it obvious this is Karen Hughes finding it easier to bully Newsweek than to sweet talk the world's Muslims? They've always rolled over before.

[Vincardog]

6. OK so the problem is not the policies and practices of the MisAdministrate

and the malfeasance of the military: it is the reports of those practices. Talk about blame the messenger.

What happened was a confidential insider told the press facts were documented. The press asked the Pentagon to confirm the story. The Pentagon had no problem with the report.

The press reported the story. A week later the White House didn't like the story and put pressure on the confidential insider to change their story.

The press reports that the story has changed. The MisAdministration is still not satisfies. They bitch and moan about 15 dead rioters as it they were the fault of the press while continuing to ignore the 100,000+++ dead Iraqis civilians they are directly responsible for.

So the press withdraws the story. That does not change any of the facts of the case. that brings us to my question. Why don't they tell us who the lying confidential insider is?
AND
When will aWoL be held responsible for these crimes against us and humanity?

[MADem]

9. Perhaps NEWSWEEK should sacrifice Isikoff, Linda Tripp's pal

...on the Chimp's personal altar? They could charge admission, and probably retire the deficit! A twofer!

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. Put His Head on a Spike. Yeah, that'll do it. n/t

[BurtWorm]

14. Josh Marshall asks an interesting question

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_15.php#005702

(May 17, 2005 -- 09:10 AM EDT // link // print)
The headline to this NBC article out this morning reads: "White House says move <i.e., Newsweek's retraction> 'a good first step,' but demands more action."

A question. What "more action" should a White House ever be in a position to demand after a story has been retracted, especially in a case where the White House is not even directly involved in the facts of the case.

Think about.

[liveoaktx]

15. White House gets to dictate what a free press should say? BS

[althecat]

16. Isikoff has been doing good work on 9/11 Intelligence failures

For quite a long time...