What's Going On....at NEWSWEEK

[righthand]

Quote by: NEWSWEEK Global Plot? Investigators are examining whether the explosives used in the London blasts came from foreign military stockpiles. Plus, more on Gitmo interrogations http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8567356/...f=nwnewsletter WEB EXCLUSIVE.....By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball......July 16, 2005 July 13 - British and U.S. agents are investigating whether high-grade explosives believed to have been used in last week's attack on London's bus and underground train systems came from military stockpiles in the Middle East, including Iraq, a U.S. counterterrorism official told NEWSWEEK. The investigators are also exploring the idea that the explosives may have come from inside Britain or another foreign nation such as China the official said.

Now you really have to wonder what's going on when CHINA is dropped into a London terrorist story. There appears NO justification. It does give a reason for the story headline "Global Plot". The source is "a U.S. counter-terrorism official told NEWSWEEK." Is he real or concocted to give this story legs. Is this the start of CHINA getting blamed for everything bad in the world. Could it be the White House has its eyes on bigger fish than Venezuela and Iran. Now don't forget this CHINA name drop until the very end of this long story when this becomes relevant again.

There are three and a half more paragraphs of much of the same including...

Quote by: Newsweek "One U.S. official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material, said that British investigators informed their colleagues within a day or two of the attack that the bombers had planted devices primed with military-grade explosive. One official said the explosive was relatively unusual and clearly different from those more commonly used in other terrorist attacks."

Its not clear if its the same 'US official' in each case or at least three different 'US officials'. Not that it matters as all this appears to me to be a blind for the real story. Do you remember the long sub-heading ending with...

[CENTER]"...Plus, more on Gitmo interrogations "[/CENTER]

There then follows 12 paragraphs of a very good factual story about torture at Guantanamo Bay under the sub heading "Guantanamo Interrogations ". It's an extraordinary oversight to me that the name of this report to the Senate panel is not given. Maybe it's name is secret too. How the report came about is most interesting.

Quote by: Newsweek ...The report was commissioned late last year, when internal FBI e-mails disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act alleged multiple abuses by military interrogators at Guantanamo. One FBI agent , who, like others who wrote the e-mails, had been assigned to the facility, referred to "torture techniques" that were being used by the military. Craddock ordered a full-scale investigation into the content of the e-mails —and a determination of whether anybody needed to be disciplined ... ...The interrogation technique constituted a "death threat" to the prisoner—a tactic that violates the Uniformed Military Code of Justice, according to the report, released by the U.S. Southern Command today. Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, the commander of SouthCom , which oversees operations at Guantanamo, told a Senate panel today that he has recommended that the unidentified interrogator (who refused to cooperate with the SouthCom probe ) now be investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for possible disciplinary action. ...."It is clear from the report that detainee mistreatment was not simply the product of a few rogue military police on a night shift," charged Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the report Wednesday. "Rather, this mistreatment arose from the use of aggressive interrogation techniques." ... In an effort to make him crack, today's report revealed, U.S. military interrogators used a variety of humiliating techniques that included forcing him to wear a woman's bra and placing a thong on his head, telling him that his mother and sister were whores and that he was homosexual, tying him up on a leash, leading him around the room and instructing him "to perform a series of dog tricks," according to the report. Qahtani was also forced to stand naked in front of women, subjected to strip searches and had poured water over his head on 17 occasions between Dec. 13, 2002, and Jan. 14, 2003. On another occasion, the report said, an interrogator who squatted down in front of him in an aggressive manner unintentionally squatted over his Qur'an.

Now, would this not be interesting to the average reader. But, your average reader would not be expected to read such a long article. Would not any good journalist make two articles of this. They are not related - bombs in London and torture in Gitmo. Maybe it's an editor burying a story for the administration . If he was English he would be Knighted by the Queen for services rendered. What's the equivalent in the US? Ambassadorship in Iraq, no, it must be in London. And that's not the best of the story. As you by now might expect, the best is still to come.

Quote by: Newsweek ...This resulted in a recommendation from General Schmidt's team that the commanding officer of Guantanamo at the time, Gen. Geoffrey Miller, should be held accountable for failing to supervise the interrogations and should be admonished. But General Craddock said he overruled that recommendation because he concluded that Miller was never informed of the specific interrogation techniques being used and that no "law or policy was violated." "Since there was no finding that U.S. law or policy was violated," General Craddock testified, "there was nothing for which to hold him accountable ."

Now you would think after all that, there would be no more twists in the tail, but the best is left till last. This one real takes the biscuit. But of course you were never meant to read this far in sound-bit America.

Editor's note (posted July 16): Police now believe the explosives used in the London bombings were acetone peroxide, a homemade concoction favored by suicide bombers in the Middle East.

This extraordinary amendment three days later TOTALLY UNDERMINES the "Global Plot?" heading of the story. Are they saying that with modern technology they are not able to amend such a MISLEADING story. If they were not also burying the TORTURE story, they may have got this duplicity. If CHINA was an individual, I believe they would be entitled to sue for libel.

Watch out in the future for more China-bad-boy implants. They are now in the AXIS OF EVIL list. I'd say Venezuelan OIL is a large part of that. Up Hugo, the Latino pinup, with enough backbone for all the Andes. He really knows now to get under Bush's skin.

[OpenMinded]

What is the Newsweek maganize title called again? I would like to read this for myself.

[Dirty Name]

Here's another web site I think you might want to browse before you form any conclusions.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

[righthand]

Quote by: OpenMinded What is the Newsweek maganize title called again? I would like to read this for myself.

The title of the story is Global Plot?
The subtitle is: Investigators are examining whether the explosives used in the London blasts came from foreign military stockpiles. Plus, more on Gitmo interrogations.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET July 16, 2005
Just press on Global Plot? here.

[RickSp]

You seem to be implying that Newsweek is acting irresponsibly. On the contrary, they appear to be reporting the most current information available at the time of the publication.

The information put out by the British government has been highly contradictory from day to day. Initially they suggested that the bombs were crude devices, then that they were of military quality, then that they used homemade explosives. I read a report similar to Newsweek's in the Times of London published a day before the Newsweek article.
Terrorist gang 'used military explosives'

[righthand]

Global Plot?

Quote by: RickSp You seem to be implying that Newsweek is acting irresponsibly. On the contrary, they appear to be reporting the most current information available at the time of the publication. The information put out by the British government has been highly contradictory from day to day. Initially they suggested that the bombs were crude devices, then that they were of military quality, then that they used homemade explosives. I read a report similar to Newsweek's in the Times of London published a day before the Newsweek article. Terrorist gang 'used military explosives'

I'll say it very explicitly.

1. Two stories that are not related have being joined together intentionally.

2. One story is about bombs in London and is five paragraphs long.

The investigators are also exploring the idea that the explosives may have come from inside Britain or another foreign nation such as China the official said.

CHINA is dropped into the story in a most extraordinary way from "a U.S. counter-terrorism official". You find nothing wrong? Is it not malicious. Try it this way.

The investigators are also exploring the idea that the explosives may have come from inside Britain or another foreign nation such as US the official said.

Still OK? Then at the end of seventeen more paragraphs we are told..

Police now believe the explosives used in the London bombings were acetone peroxide, a homemade concoction favored by suicide bombers in the Middle East.

3. When someone writes "...Plus, more on Gitmo interrogations " I certainly do not expect twelve more paragraphs. It is a very good factual story about torture at Guantanamo Bay hidden in a different story. Why? There is no Newsweek reporter who would bury such a juicy story. This was done by an editor. Why?

Why was China not deleted before posting. It had to intentional.

.

[RickSp]

I will say it very explicitly - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

Newsweek reported only what others had reported based on British governement information. The Gitmo story was seperate and unrelated. You can't figure this out - that is your problem not mine.

[righthand]

Quote by: RickSp I will say it very explicitly - you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

NO NEED FOR THE UNCALLED FOR INSULTS. REFLECT AND WITHDRAW YOUR INSULT. IF YOU CANNOT DEBATE, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN. I won't go running for daddy to solve my problems. Fortunately, I value my time more than dealing with someone with a plank on his shoulder. Grow up. Debate and learn something.

Quote by: ricksp Newsweek reported only what others had reported based on British government information. The Gitmo story was separate and unrelated. You can't figure this out - that is your problem not mine.

Quote me instances where two totally unrelated stories were joined together. The purpose, who knows. It certainly was not in the reporters interest to 'lose' their story underneath a story with no new news.

I'm not the only one who sees a problem with Newsweek reporting. FAIR 'Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting' have had a go to.

Quote by: FAIR Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Misjudging Roberts ....Newsweek dismisses accurate information on judge's record 8/2/05 [CENTER]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2608[/CENTER] Newsweek went even further than most, dismissing as inaccurate stories that depicted Roberts as a conservative partisan--even though it was Newsweek, in fact, that was getting the stories wrong. The first supposed falsehood: "Liberal bloggers floated conspiracy theories about the behind-the-scenes role he played on Bush's legal team in the epic court fight after the 2000 election, a contribution that supposedly earned the president's undying gratitude." The reality, according to Newsweek: "Roberts's role in the case of Bush v. Gore was minimal, according to colleagues who worked with him. Roberts did briefly go to Florida to be on hand as a legal consultant, but he was preoccupied with working on the adoption of a baby son." As it turns out, the liberal bloggers' "conspiracy theories" were closer to the mark, as more careful reporting revealed that Roberts was an important part of the Bush legal team. According to a report in the Miami Herald (7/27/05), Roberts worked "as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job." The Herald noted that Roberts was considered one of the top names for the effort, which he worked on for "a week to 10 days"; as Bush adviser Ted Cruz told the paper, "There was no one better for the job." Newsweek's other gotcha: "Right-wingers smugly assumed Roberts's membership in the Federalist Society, an organization that has taken on an almost cultish mystique as both incubator and old boys' network for conservative jurists and lawyers in Washington." Here Newsweek was following the line of the White House, which went so far as to demand corrections from media outlets that had reported Roberts was a Federalist Society member. But as the Washington Post revealed (7/25/05), Roberts was not only listed in the group's 1997-98 leadership directory--he's named as a member of the Washington chapter's steering committee. Dismissing these accurate stories served to bolster Newsweek's claim that Roberts was "conservative, but apolitical," and that his confirmation was a sure thing. As the magazine put it, "Roberts's marginal involvement as a political activist is revealing. It suggests that Roberts is not the hard-line ideologue that true believers on both sides had hoped for.... Barring unforeseen and unlikely bombshells, Roberts seems destined to be confirmed without the kind of stormy melodrama that boosts cable-TV ratings and fills the coffers of activist groups in Washington."

I could go one but I've probable lost you after the first paragraph. If you come back at me and I'm not counting my chickens, then please give me source as I have done. You have more practice at trading insults than I do. A PM apology would be perfectly acceptable and we can forget this.

Quote by: FAIR Given that Newsweek led its story with mischaracterizations about Roberts' record, "intellectual rigor and honesty" would compel the magazine to set the record straight for its readers. But this week's issue of the magazine (8/8/05) did not correct the article's inaccurate assertions. ACTION:Ask Newsweek to correct the inaccurate claims in its August 1 story about John G. Roberts' role in the Florida recount and his connections to the Federalist Society. CONTACT: Newsweek letters@newsweek.com To read the Newsweek article, go to: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8683401/site/newsweek/

[RickSp]

It certainly seems that you and FAIR deserve each other. You both overreact to very little, or it would appear.

FAIR seems to spend all its time screaming about very little. I would not recommend acquiring the same habit.

[monty of ll]

righthand- If you read Newsweek then you will know if it's their practice to join two stories together in this way. I don't read it and it looks rather odd to me that they would do this. As for some deliberate attempt as you suggest, I don't really know so I won't comment one way or the other.

But it's intuitive of you to pick up on the 'China' reference IMO. The U.S./China coldwar has been in process for some time now regardless of whether or not it has been high profile in the news. I would suspect that we will soon see a more visible demonizing of China in the near future and it won't take very long before that's evident. That's whether or not Newsweek had intentions of kicking it off with this story. Another U.S. spyplane type incident or other such confrontation to heat things up a little?

[righthand]

Quote by: RickSp It certainly seems that you and FAIR deserve each other. You both overreact to very little, or it would appear. FAIR seems to spend all its time screaming about very little. I would not recommend acquiring the same habit.

The groveling by Newsweek over the Koran in the toilet story was pathetic. I've twisted enough mind to suspect it was a setup to bring other media back in line after a particularly rough time. Cheney or Rove would relish that. Newsweek bent over too quickly not to like the screwing. So I'm suspicious reading anything this government organ that just got screwed, write. Would you take the screwing. Maybe yes. Say no more.

When I see CHINA dropped into the London bombing, just my antenna go up. No, it is not overreacting as you allege. Nor does it appear as you allege. It is sinister. Newsweek is a mouth piece for "a U.S. counter-terrorism official" who of course proved false. Don't you realize that it was this same crap that got you into an unwinnable war in Iraq. Do you need a list. How long is a page? I'd be trying to prevent another Iraq not shooting the messenger.

I asked you to "please give me source as I have done". Again I make the same request.
Please read monty of ll post for an example of evidence and not emotional claptrap. Whether you agree with FAIR or not, it is the only evidence put forward. Maybe if citizen spent some time listening to FAIR's screaming, the US would not be in as much dodo as you are.

[monty of ll]

Righthand- There's no doubt at all that Newsweek turned belly up over the Koran issue much to easily and too fast. That is, for a story that was esentially correct. Maybe it's a case of, when power talks little magazines listen. Or else! Little in the sense that they can be easily destroyed but also big in the sense that they have a good many readers throughout the world, I believe.

[righthand]

Quote by: monty of ll Righthand- There's no doubt at all that Newsweek turned belly up over the Koran issue much to easily and too fast. That is, for a story that was essentially correct. Maybe it's a case of, when power talks little magazines listen. Or else! Little in the sense that they can be easily destroyed but also big in the sense that they have a good many readers throughout the world, I believe.

Thank. None of the things that went wrong with the war, before or after, would have been so bad if the administration were not so cocksure about the media. The quality of inquiry in the US off politicians is frankly pathetic.

NEWSWEEK -- Global Plot? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8567356...rf=nwnewsletter The investigators are also exploring the idea that the explosives may have come from inside Britain or another foreign nation such as CHINA the official said.

I'd doubt it there more bombs now, the above would not name CHINA.

First the Chinese bomb.

BBC - NYPD 'regrets giving bomb detail' of the 4 August 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4746835.stm The New York Police Department (NYPD)..Raymond Kelly said they were made in Leeds from household chemicals like hair bleach and stored in a powerful refrigerator..."It is more like these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store."

Leeds is a long long way away from CHINA.

Secondly, they are scratching each others' backs in mutual self interest.

BBC -- China and US 'unite' over UN bid on the 4 August, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4746459.stm Beijing will work with the United States to block a plan to add new permanent members to the UN Security Council, China's UN ambassador says. Wang Guangya said he agreed the deal with the new US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, at a meeting. Both countries oppose a plan put forward by the Group of Four - Brazil, Germany, Japan and India - to add six new permanent members to the Council.

I'd love to have seen Bolton get his back rubbed. I just cannot imagine him reciprocating.