if it didn't feel so ... not-uncommon these days.

Humm.. the pity is in the truth of that statement.

A couple of points:

- As Newsweek sucked in the beginning, it sucks now, and ever shall suck, World Without End, Amen. In the doctor's office, I pick up Teen Beat instead. Hell, Rolling Stone even.

- Beyond their stupid Every-Bad-Thing-is-True MSM mindset and their Sucketh-Beyond-All-Understanding journalism, the response to this story is an outrage and a clear indication of the state of affairs in Allah-land. Charles Johnson, thou art vindicated for the thousandth time.

- Some years ago duing the Salman Rushdie affair, The New Republic ran an editorial called "Two Cheers for Blasphemy". They didn't suggest flushing the Koran down the toilet, but they argued that offending Muslim clerics was a good thing because it forced intolerance to stand up and take off its mask. (This was back in 1989, when liberals had no use whatsoever for Muslims.)

Fortunately Muslims don't read TNR as religiously as they read the Koran and Newsweek, so there were no riots. So what if there had been? Is everybody supposed to shut up so as not to detonate the zealots?

Here endeth the lesson.

I knew they were toast when the White House went public today. They better roll some heads out the door on this one. I trackbacked with my take and some righteous anger from my buddy Kev in the sand box

Cordially,

Uncle J

Sadness pervades. If my Bible had been flushed down the toilet, I would not have killed anyone. Of course, mine is a comparative Bible and it would never go down the toilet.

Many rightwingers think my NIV should be flushed down the toilet!

The Newsweek artcle, though exhibiting poor journalistic practices, only provided a spotlight. The show was ready to go as soon as one was available. If it wasn't Newsweek's, it would have been someone else's spotlight.

While the loss of life is unfortunate, we shouldn't be worrying about what a bunch of made for TV losers think.

Are we so ready for dhimmitude that we're going to blame our media for inflamming Muslims? The Bush administration, and seemingly most everyone else, is pursuing a poor strategy by focusing on the incitement angle. The short-term satisfaction of jerking Newsweek's chain is gained at the expense of endorsing the worst form of PC prior restraint.

Part of what I am grappling with is why the mind set and actions are against a group and not the individual(s) in question. It seems to me to be at odds when the individual can be punished within a society but the society is not punished for the individual crime.

In approaching this train of thought my (no doubt backward) reasoning says the society is just as much at fault for the individuals transgressions. Death to one within a society that desecrates the Koran yet death for all outside a society that desecrates the Koran. Certainly doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm in agreement with Lurker's comment #6.

Let's be clear. Newsweek didn't kill anybody.

Certain segments of the blogosphere have been (rightly) critical of moral accounting which credits the capability of (im)moral action only to the west (colonizers / imperialists / oppressors), and the rest of the world is only reactive - the whole "roosting chickens" meme in a nutshell.

Among other deficits, this way of thinking is extremely chauvanistic, as if "westerners" were the only people capable of controlling their passions, the only people worthy of condemnation when they did not.

I would observe that blaming Newsweek for the deaths in Afghanistan is another example of this same faulty moral accounting.

Here's where it comes down for me, lewy.

In a week, 100 or so young men and women whom I personally taught this year, and know, will be commissioned as new officers. In 6-9 months, many of them will be in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the young woman whom I've sponsored for 3 years, know very well and care deeply about.

I won't debate degrees of responsibility for the deaths that occurred last week. I've never been in Afghanistan but I've been in the middle east and have my own opinions about all that.

What I will say is that those riots, the likelihood of injuries and death - and an increased hatred of American soldiers - is as predictable a result of that Newsweek story as any outcome I can imagine.

All based on ONE source who had NO first hand knowledge.

Robin, FWIW, I have no agenda to defend Newsweek. What they did was reckless and negligent. I'll respect that you don't want to debate degrees of responsibility right now. But this is an aspect of the incident which interests me; it's a maelstrom where the moral compass can be set spinning and I feel it's important to try to sort it out.

I understand, lewy. I'm just heart-heavy right now.

Newsweek is directly responsible for what it prints. In this case, something Newsweek printed provided the excuse for moronic mullahs to inflame their even more moronic flock to commit murder. Newsweek therefore bears responsibility in the chain of causation.

Truly the muslims who are so easily jerked around by their clerics to commit murder are not fully human. They are merely violence and hatred clothed in flesh and blood. Likewise Isikoff by providing them the excuse they needed to kill, for political reasons of his own, has become even less human than he was.

Robin, I understand your concern for your students.

I don't wish to add to your concerns and a appologize in advance if my poorly crafted words do just that.

You're an Internet old-timer, so I'm sure you know about Usenet and how forums for the most part, the usable ones at least, have migrated to the Web. Having mentioned that you don't follow sports, you probably haven't seen how this concept has been adapted to the college sports arena.

There are many Web networks, with rivals.com and scout.com being the largest, where the fans of the many colleges have there own forums to discus the successes, failures, and prospects of their teams. It's great fun!

One innovation through the networks is the ease of opponents fans finding and posting on each others boards. This creats many opportunities for much mayhem, different from Usenet mayhem, but mayhem none the less.

There is one particular type of mayhem caused by the "don't get no respect" trolls. These guys will visit an opponents board, enage in conversation, and then be offended by a random homey of little tact. The vistor will them say, "Well! I see that the fans of XYZ College are classless and don't give my team, ABC university, the proper respect. Though I liked you before, I hate you now. Die Scum!"

The problem is that when someone is looking for insults, there's always someone ready to oblige, either on purpose or by accident.

I expect Muslims not to be trolls. We don't put up with Internet trolls, why should we put up with Muslim ones, even if they're real world trolls that kill people.

Trolls exist for their own purposes. It is impossible for trolls not to be offended.

Bill,
Will the next atrocity be the fault of an American comedian for telling a joke? Maybe something like: "Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed went into a bar..."?

Newsweek can't be blamed for the atrocities. The Muslims that actually commited the atrocities are responsibile for the atrocites.

Newsweek is only guilty of bad reporting. If everything they reported had really happened, should they've not published the story to keep from inciting more violence? This is a really slippery slope. Perhaps Little Green Footballs should be banned.

Lurker: 'fire' in a crowded theater.

I'm with Paul Marshall on this point:

Equally disturbing is the fact that Newsweek reporters seemed to have little idea how explosive such a story would be. While noting that, to Muslims, desecrating the Koran “is especially heinous,” Thomas looks for explanations, including “extremist agitators,” of why protest and rioting spread throughout the world, and maintains that it was at Imram Khan’s press conference that “the spark was apparently lit.” He confesses that after “so many gruesome reports of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the vehemence of feeling around this case came as something of a surprise.”

What planet do these people live on that they are surprised by something so entirely predictable? Anybody with a little knowledge could have told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the article. Remember Salman Rushdie?

The spark was lit not by Imram Khan but by Newsweek itself on May 9 when apparently none of its reporters or editors was aware of the effect such a story would have. There seems to have been nobody there that knew that death is the penalty for desecrating a Koran in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

I'm off to bed, all ... I get up at 5 am eastern time and have some things I have to do before turning in. So if I don't respond until the AM, it's not because I'm ignoring the thread, which is an important one.

I do agree with lurker and lewy that those who acted violently are responsible for their acts. I also believe Newsweek is responsible for their lack of care with a topic that even the most casual blog reader knows was incendiary.

One other cite, before I leave the keyboard for the night:

Veteran journalist Mark Tapscott talks about professional standards for stories like this one.

For whatever reason, it appears Newsweek's reporters and editors forgot Journalism 101's First Rule: If you don't have two independently verifiable sources for a serious allegation the publication of which could seriously damage or destroy an individual's reputation, put somebody in of physical danger or place public safety at risk, don't publish it.

Anonymous sources in government always have agendas, typically self-serving agendas. That means journalists should never rely upon lone anonymous government sources unless they are quoting a document or person they routinely see and can provide additional details, the verification of which would not jeopardize identity.

Tapscott is a conservative. He's also a soft-spoken, even-handed and thoughtful writer on these topics, not a partisan-for-partisan-gain type. RTWT.

Robin,
I readily conceed any defense of Newsweek's journalistic practices. It was never my intent to defend those, or their judgement either for that matter.

I reckon the question comes down to whether the offended Muslims were really offended by the Newsweek allegations, or were only using them as an excuse. Either way, it's difficult to see how newsweeks actions amount to incitement.

There are some American publications or Web Sites offensive to Muslims everyday. It's difficult to see how we can NOT offend Muslimns if the standard we are held to is universal respect. I tell you what. I'll grant them universal respect as soon as they grant America theirs. The point is, no one has that power. Salmon Rushdie must die!

Good ideas being expressed in this thread. Thanks to commenters for enlightening remarks on aspects of this story I wouldn't have considered.

...Now back to lurking...

There's a couple of levels of horror here:

Newsweek, for whatever motive, ran an article that told an important story -- if it was true. But it wasn't true, or at least not verifiably so. They ignored their own rules, and people died as a result. That is negligence of the worst sort. Nevertheless, if they HAD followed basic prudence and the story had been true, it would have been much worse to ignore it for fear of what the clerics might do.

Far more horrible was the reaction to it in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The disconnect between the "Religion of Peace", the crime, and the WAY out of proportion reaction to it could not have been more pronounced. Perhaps worst of all, it was a reaction that was all too predictable for anyone paying attention to this stuff, Newsweek most emphatically included.

I suppose on the plus side, if such can be said in a case like this, this is another example of what makes a site like Little Green Footballs so important. Islam has much to commend it, but also far, far too many dark (and not so dark) corners which must be continually held up to the light. The more the West understands what is wrong with Islam, the better it will become at dealing with it -- and hopefully encouraging those parts of it which are commendable. I think some more eyes may have opened these past few days, and ultimately that might be a good thing for all of us.

-Boo

I disagree BooPear, if it had been true, the story wouldn't have been important outside of the ridiculous overreaction to it.

If it had been true, Newsweek was still going for the intentional shock the story would have had among the intended audience, those that hate the U.S. - and for no other purpose.

The criticism of Newsweek is unwarranted until the posters and the author of this blog hold themselves to the same high standards they seek to hold Newsweek to. You are seeking a moral high ground you neither deserve nor have earned. Your zealousness to defeat the terrorists has made you blind to the errors of this administration.

The issue for you is whether or not Newsweek has aided and abeted the terrorists by publishing false stories or diminishing the crediblity of the United States abroad by our actions. The real issue is by not criticizing the leadership of this country over like issues has allowed this administration to do continue doing the same thing(s). The correct way to address the issue is no more Pontius Pilates and his supporters at this blog, washing their hands of the blood of our soldiers by their steadfast refusal acknowledge the mistakes of our leaders in this war that have done far worse than what Newsweek has.

Let us look at the ways out leaders have failed us. Mr DiRita screams about American lives endangered and non-american lives lost because of this article. How much blood does he and all the religious Taliban members of the Bush administration have on their hands with their continuing witch hunt for homosexuals in the military? This witch hunt has removed linguists whom can translate documents and conversations of the terrorists. The resulting shortages have meant that information that could be gleamed in a more timely manner is put off until someone else can get to it. How many lives Mr DiRita?

Let us look at two former military officers in The bush Administration. Both Mr bush and Mr Rumsfield were pilots and officers. Both in the course of their training knew it was the policy of the United State Military to avoid using torture to extract information. In fact in 1994 it was set down how much pain and suffering could be used. In 2002 as terrorist leaders and cells were destroyed, and members either killed or captured the CIA asked for a legal review of the policy. Mr Bush assigned Alberto Gonzales(our current Attorney General) as the Counsel to the PRESIDENT to find ways around this law. (Use this now
Phillip Carter the author is both a lawyer and an ex-military officer). Seperate memos were then issued by both John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales changing the rules.

Later on Feb 7th Mr bush issued an executive order exempting terrorists from the protections of the Geneva Conventions. This action was cited by the James R. Schlesinger's Defense Department panel as playing a key role in Central Command's creation of interrogation policies for the Abu Ghraib prison. In August 2002 Mr Gonzales approved a legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel approving strategies that officals could use to prevent criminal prosecution for torture.

Yet we are to believe that Newsweeks actions are more egregious than those of the bush Administration. That Newsweek has lowered -OUR COUNTRIES_ standing in the world less than the actions of the bush Administration that approved as a legal policy. An Administration that was forced over the hue and outcry of such policies to to have the same Office of Legal Counsel repudiate its own policies one week before the confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. What kind of stain on a democratic country is that when we are out insisting on the rule of law under democracy?

And now the Mr bush insists that the countries terrorists are being held in at our request do not practise torture. Countries like Ubzekistan,Saudi Arabia or Eygpt whose name has come to mean repression. Whom is smearing the name of the United States more?

Now to the issue of whether it is plausible to put the Koran down the toilet. I put you in a room that is subject to extreme swings in temperature, I interrupt your sleep patterns, I disorient your sense of time, and treat you like Gilligan. I now pull you out your cell, hood you and drag you to the interrogation room. I know from your actions you are a religious zealot. I pull out a small object with the words of the Koran printed in Arabic Script. I show you a page torn from the book with the words of the Koran which you have memorized in a mahdrass and I drag you to the interogators toilet facilities and I put it in.
We know that menustral blood, pigs blood and pork products have been smeared on the terrrorists. All are unpure things for people whom practise Islam. Why is it now implausible to print a Koran small enough to go in a toilet?

For many of the posters and the author of this blog especially those whom served in the military criticism during war is treason. You are now not in the military and you can criticize. You do not have to wait for the after action report that is seen in a limited fashion. You need to criticize because many are acutely aware that as a military conflict the Viet Nam experience was won on the battlefield but lost at home. The author writes with first hand knowledge and insight to understand the GWOT and offers other sites to further flesh out his points. But the unwillingnes to criticize is a case of lack of situational awareness. That blindness kills and destroys the work you do. It leaves me with no choice but the conclusions I have laid out.

Ah, the return of moral equivalency. Didn't take long. Robert, you are still misrepresenting the Geneva Convention.

What is the line? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH?

Robert, a movie line doesn't change the fact that your arguments are false, your attempts to put words in the mouths of the bloggers here are dishonest and your claims re: Geneva convention are false.

It appears that I'm not the one who cannot handle the truth.

RE: Robert M's "Gilligan' scenario. I haven't got a single problem with sleep deprivation, or temperature variations, fake mentrual blood, pork products, any of it. And I think using the word "torture" to describe it borders on obscene.

I'll add that he's wrong about more than the Geneva Convention, too - the bit about flushing the peper down the toilet... if he checked, he'd find that strict regulations are in place that would disallow this tactic. But of course, he'd have to check.

As for the Vietnam war being lost at home, that's true. In his eagerness to prosecute his own war against the Bush Administration and accept any allegation in that effort, while exculpating both our enemies and a dishonest report, Robert M exemplifies the mentality that brought that about.

Raymond, perhaps you'd like to insert one comment with some statistics for our friend re: the death toll in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as a result...

So, if you'd been in Nixon's shoes (with better press) you would have stayed and fought on, Joe? How high would have the casualties gone (on either side) before you would have pulled out? A million more-- would have been worth it?

I'd really like an answer; I think the Stalinist logic behind these "war being lost at home" comments needs to be aired out more, so everyone can see how damn ugly it is.

If you think nation-building is tough, just wait and see how tough it is for the U.S. to change people's religious views.

You don't have to agree with muslim views on the special sacredness of the Koran, but I think shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is an apt description of what Newsweek did.

SAO, pleased to assist.

The best retrospective re: a viable approach to the Vietnam War is probably Col. Harry G. Summers "On Strategy." Great critical application of Clausewitz et. al. to a flawed U.S. strategy.

Here's a very enlightening conversation with Col. Summers about military strategy - and here's a posthumous bio

The North Vietnamese did not win one major military engagement against the USA. Not one. The Viet Cong took over 80% casualties at Tet, a fact acknowledged post-war by the North Vietnamese. They actually found that very convenient, because it reduced back-talk and made it easier for them to take over.

Yet North Vietnam won the war... Res ipsa loquitur.

As a sort of consolation, a number of people who helped bring that about had serious attacks of remorse once the depth of North Vietnam's cruelty became brutally obvious via the Boat People exodus et. al. Some would turn away from a leftism they saw as too ready to hate America and too ready to love tyrants, and join a nascent movement called "neo-conservatism" (so called because it didn't really fit in with the right back then - too eggheady, social-sciency, critical theory for their tastes).

As far as connecting the tactics and attitudes of that era to the present, I recommend Podhoretz' World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win (see esp. "The New Jackal Bins") and also The War Against World War IV (see esp. the section re: Tet).

Thanks for the interesting links, I am well aware we kicked the NVA's asses all over SE Asia, yet still lost the war. But I'm not so sure that if there hadn't been a backlash we would have automatically won. We're wandering into the same moral/casual territory we've encountered in the post above: does the (proven) evil of the Communist Vietnamese justify extending a war leading to the deaths of millions of non-communist, essentially good people?

I for one think the left's legacy of activism is particularly overstated and glorified. The left didn't end the war, the may have helped. The casualties combined with the lying and obsfucation of the Nixon and Johnson Administrations did.

Joe, if Raymond isn't available, I would be happy to supply a link to R.J.Rummel's summary table which lists 1.7 million democide by North Vietnam, of which his more detailed chart shows that more than half of that occurred before US involvement and after the fall of South Vietnam.

Summers argues, clearly, that the US strategy for fighting the Vietnam war was badly, even fatally, flawed. Politicians had set a series of conditions that essentially made the war unwinnable (and where did the pressure for that come from?), the technocrat body count approach was a poor substitute for strategy (100% self-inflicted, and not the left's fault), and the South Vietnamese were a weak government that combined serious flaws of their own with all the flaws of working with the Americans. Meanwhile, Laos and Cambodies were sanctuaries with the shell of sovereignty but not the reality.

And even then, it took a full conventional invasion by 3 NVA armored divisions (with America having commited itself not to intervene) to beat the South. An invasion that would have failed too if the Americans had not been barred from assiting. But they couldn't, and it succeeded. With america driven from Indochina, Cambodia also fell (Laos had fallen a long time ago, for all practical purposes).

Whereupon millions of "non-communist, essentially good people" DID die - and it was not by America's hand.

I'll note further that America's casualties in Vietnam were not overly heavy for a 10-year war. As another weird kind of mental exercise, try looking up car accident deaths in America from 1965-75 and compare. And re: the claim that the left's role was overstated, you're entitled to that belief but I don't share it.

Nor does North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin. Read his interview in The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995 - he seems to think they were awfully important.

And just to be a mischief, I'll add that his recommendation for winning the war mirrors Summers'.

Robin (#31), thanks. What does it say re: Laos and Cambodia?

Joe, the first chart give 461,000 for Cambodian democide by North Vietnam and 87,000 for Laos.

"Democide" is Rummel's term for intentional killings of non-combatants by governments. The above values are median estimates from a low-high range of values based on his sources. The Laotian figure is post fall of S.V., the Cambodian figure overlaps.

Using Rummel's figures, one can rationally conclude that a US success in Southeast Asia could have prevented civilian deaths on the order of half a million to a million.

Coolin my Jets, others did a better job of making the point anyway.

Course, the next step, is what judgments do we make about that, what does it tell us about our leftist adversaries, what should it tell us the next time they find something they can use as a political tool, are we allowed to notice the defining factor that determines if they pretend to care and coalalese into the lynch mob of the suddenly rightous.

how many decades more are we to remain in denial.

The marxists, and every thing that makes them what they are, deserves the same contempt as the nazis, even as both the bazis and the communists are the product of siblings living in incest.

Both welped by the same bitch.

Using Rummel's figures, one can rationally conclude that a US success in Southeast Asia could have prevented civilian deaths on the order of half a million to a million.

Ah, excellent. We're re-fighting the Vietnam War. Which we won, right? After all, we won every military engagement. Until that dastardly Dan Rather started showing pictures of men in black pajamas on the grounds of the embassy in Saigon in '68.

Let's cut to the chase here. Vietnam was a counterinsurgency war; we fought a nationalist, Communist movement while allied to a corrupt, venal puppet government in Saigon.

How many Americans would have had to die to achieve US success in Southeast Asia? Would we have had to invade the North? How many draftees would that have taken? LBJ refused to raise taxes to pay for the war; how high should they have risen to pay for it?

Thanks stick, for demonstrating the failure of the leftist perspective and historical ignorance.

Ah Stickler, did you read the comments? See #29 and #32. And in order:

Ask Miss Cleo, probably not, about the same, no more than they were.

What was needed was an effective strategy, which was lacking - but even so, there is strong evidence that the work of Hanoi Jane et. al. made a significant difference to the war in North Vietnam's favour. Col. Bui Tin of the NVA seems to think so in his interview.

When we see the an adversary media culture that still lives in the Vietnam War, the same tactics from the Left, and the same apologetics for tyrants and murderers, it's fair tto point this stuff out. And to note the incredible human toll that followed. If the USA is partly responsible for the toll of the war, the Viet Cong/NVA supporters and those who worked with them to ensure that the USA pulled out and lost are partly responsible for the toll afterward.

And #34 understates, insofar as the Pol Pot democide of 2.5 million or so is absent. In a savage irony of history, North Vietnam would eventiually end Pol Pot's regime. But this was long after its allies in the USA had pushed the USA out of the area and left it unable to assist, or resist the Khmer Rouge directly.

There are worse things in the world than war. And tearing down the USA to the advantage of despots and murders has consequences.

The speed limit on the interstate highway is 55 mph. If I gave you a radar gun how many people do you think are going over the limit? Your assumption that everyone working as an interagator is a trained professional and that even those do not become obsessed with their goal and go overboard. It simply is not logical.

There were procedures for the amount of force by the CIA in 1994. Alberto Gonzales and John Woo wrote memorenda overturning it and them the same memoranda were withdrawn and the legal arguments for them disavowed prior the hearings for Gonzales approval as AG. Abu Ghraib was a result. This was torture a word you find obscene. Obscene is that the President would knowingly approve a policy of it.

The only people exculpating are yourselves. All it takes for evil to take hold is for good men to ignore it. This is what you are doing. It is like the early days of Hitler. If we do ugly things only to the people whom are not really seen like the mentally insane or those whom we now call impaired no one will notice. We will be embolden to do worse.

If the USA is going to win the GWOT outside the military arena we have to act like the greatest country on the face of the earth not a bunch of frighten ninnies giving into our darkest fears. I have sited the sources for the rulings on the Geneva convention and those for torture. Try the Intel-dump for more. As I pointed out it is written by a former military officer and is currently a lawyer. If you think these issues are not worse than Newsweek you are sadly mistaken.

One last thing the terrorist are exactly what you say they are. In order to win this war and plant the seeds of democracy under the rule of law we can not be arbitrary. We can not start prosecuting the war the way they do by changing the rules towards combatants and torture simply because they treat us differently. That is the real sacrifice our men and women under arms have to make and it is a really shitty goal because it means more of them are going to die because we are better than the terrorists.

Raymond you need to read some more history about the WWII. It was the right wing isolationist movements that held sway prior to Pearl Harbor not the left. Colonel Parker's Chicago Tribune is a good place to start. Also read up on the large membership in organizations like the Bund.

Robert M, you continue to make objectively false statements. The conduct at Abu Ghraib was not torture by any rational definition of the term. It was abuse. And it was abuse without any real connection to intelligence gathering, without any but the most tenuous connection to Gonzales' memorandum as White House counsel.

You still don't understand why the Geneva Convention doesn't apply - and that failure on your part informs us.

And you are the last person to lecture anyone on the history of WWII. The isolationist movement in the US included participation by CPUSA elements during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact Aug '39 to June '41.

Yes,, the left loved Socialist Hitler just fine.

His "third way" form aof socialism was seen as milder than the bolshiviks who already had mass graves full of as many millions as hitler ever would.

When Hitler attacked their beloved Stalin, thats when the left turned.

Guthry even had a song ... Franklin D Franklin D, you are not gonna send me across the sea ...

beginning with Walter Durranty covering up mass murder at the New York Times, since the 30s the public got conflicting information about that was going on vi a vie progroms.

Which is why Hitlers death camps was news on discovery.

America enters the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor Dec 1941. Operation Barbarossa begins in June 1941. There was no sentiment for the War in the USA until the Japanese attacked.
.
The fact the Communist Party participated in Isolationists actions does not mean the Isolationists were mostly on the left. The mass of people whom supported Hitler were on the right in this country.

The Geneva convention does not refer to combatants of the type of al-Queda. US military policy had been to treat combatants that way as a sign of OUR superiority. SoD Rumsfield changed that. We can adhere to the Convention and still beat the Jihadists(Islamic nihilists). Do we want to become like them and just start beheading people we capture? Or do you prefer rule 303?

The Clintonian parsing of the word torture does not explain 36 prisoners killed while in US custody. All seven of the people charged at Abu Ghraib have acknowledged that they were under orders to soft up the prisoners as they saw fit for interogation. That they "abused" them means the intelligence officals in charge were incompetent and derelict in their duties(''Torture and Terror,'' by Mark Danner). That is torture. Another example is the four Britons released from Guantanmo prison facility. More here about their lawsuit: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/rasulrums102704cmp.html

As to the left and journalists and newspapers in those days. The vast majority of the newspapers were still primarily owned by businessmen whose orientation you would recognize as conservative. The NYT was one paper in a city that had at least 5 papers during that time and in a coountry that had at least two to three papers in every major city. It simply did not hold the sway you wish to give it.

Robert, our cops have prisoners die in custody for no other reason than they refuse to submit, continue to struggle even fully in restraints, and litteraly cause themselves to expire.

I does not mean torture or abuse.

That 50 would die in our clutches dont bother me at all, we know the character of our military, and excesses are aberations that are not representative. and have been delt with rather too harshly in my view.

You can know that a prisoner that causes no problems will complain aboout being kept awake too long, and we dont force peoples heads down toilets because some may be innocent.

These are our American military and we know the majority, would never tolerate anything like which we are accused.

Frankly, its just the left throwing mud.

There are plenty Blackfives and Seargent Mat's looking over things, if there wasnt, we would never have known about the Iraqi prison misbehavior, that was already being handled property, with the press finding out, after the fact, and using it as a tool to smear the united states Like John Kerry did is Veitnam, making the exception the rule, and flinging that mud on the innocent.

All of this is more of the same.

The left need to account for their very real gulags, and the millions upon millions that died in real ones, they have no standing to point at us for anything.