– NewsWeek, according to the BBC newscast I was watching while on the treadmill earlier, has apparently completely retracted its’ story about the Koran being desecrated as an interrgation technique at Guantanamo Bay - that’s got to be an astounding piece of crow they’re eating just now, not only that but it begs the question as to what those of us who referenced the story do at this point.
(It’s a long post folks - read the rest in the extended text section)
As I understand it NewsWeek ran the story based on what their people were told by a US official who said that government investigators had found evidence of the events taking place; coupled with previous reports from detainees of Koran desecration at other times carried elsewhere it seemed like a fair bet for a story - all fairly reasonable until it turned around and bit them, and apparently those of us who blogged it if ya listen to the righties, solidly on the ass.
The whole thing has sparked a tremendous amout of controversy in and around the blog-o-sphere and various pro-Bush/pro-Iraqi war blogs have had a field day at demanding that every anti-Bush/anti-Iraqi war blog on the face of the planet that even mentioned the story immediately print their own retractions (which of course they all claim they would immediately do if the shoe was on the other foot) — a demand usually followed up with a ‘but they won’t do it because they never do’
So what really happened in the blog-o-sphere anyway? Reduced to its’ most basic form those of us who decided to blog it, in my case via the Memo To US Military, did what we usually do when what appears to be a credible story that backs our position do - we blogged it.
I’m not sure what others are saying about the retraction at this point, I haven’t had time to scoot around and see, but I know that I certainly do not fall into the category of ‘happy camper’ over these events - not because I’ve supposedly made some sort of grievous mistake, but because NewsWeek didn’t do their job and that resulted in
- a whole lot of unnecessary death and violence;
- additional unnecessary Muslim/western controversy; and
- a big ‘ole stump for the pro-Bush/pro-Iraqi war types to muddy future waters with
The first two items require no explanation, anyone with even half an ear to the news knows the results, so I’m gonna spend a bit of time on #3.
You may recall some time ago that there were reports that one of the primary tactics to be used by terrorists was to claim torture and abuse at the hands of the US military if they were captured - in the face of pictorial evidence to the contrary that became the rallying cry of the right…. “they’re lying, we don’t do that, here’s the evidence”… mark my words folks, we’re gonna see the same thing here.
Another question that needs to be looked at here is one of US credibility, I know the righties are gonna scream and yell at this one….. but they don’t have any in this particular arena do they? The first question I asked myself was “Is this something that they would do?” - and in my case the answer is yes. This is an administration that has told us any number of stories, everything from Iraqi WMD, to airborne drones capable of spreading chemicals over America, to Bush’s famous “We found the weapons of mass destruction“ - there have already been documented cases of torture by their own definition of the word, and pictures and court cases abound about sexual abuse and humiliation - what’s not to believe if we hear more of the same?
To sum it all up, if you came here looking for an apology for either believing the claims or posting on them you’re probably surfing away disappointed - I referenced what I considered to be a credible claim, I’ve stated my reasons for considering the claim credible, I’ve taken my swipe at NewsWeek, I’ve posted that the claims have now apparently been retracted, and the basement bunker will continue to follow the story….. the comments section is yours.
So you are using the “Fake but accurate” defense?