The Medium Lobster Speaks...

on Newsweek

The Medium Lobster has learned that while it was spreading lies about Korans at Guantanamo Bay, Newsweek managed to torture hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan, killing dozens of them in the process. And apparently Newsweek has not been content to torture prisoners on its own. It has also kidnapped citizens of other countries and flown them to dictatorships to be tortured! The Medium Lobster has said it before and he will, no doubt, say it again: no blood for mainstream media.

I agree with Kevin Drum

who writes:

I'm annoyed at Newsweek for knuckling under to the Pentagon over its Koran desecration piece, I'm annoyed at the reflexive press bashers for piling on even though Newsweek's reporters did nothing that every other reporter in Washington hasn't done a dozen times before, and I'm annoyed at my fellow liberals, who have been tepid in defense of Newsweek because the piece in question was written by Michael Isikoff, against whom we are all expected to hold a lifetime grudge because of his treatment of Bill Clinton.

It's time to grow up. If we want a vigorous press, that means going after thinly sourced stories. It means occasionally making mistakes. And it means sometimes our side takes it in the shorts too. That's life. But it's a helluva lot better than the alternative.

For disclosure purposes, readers who don't know me should know that I am related, at a weddings-and-bar-mitzvah "hey, how are you?" level, to Michael Isikoff of Newsweek. I have not recently seen him at any weddings or bar mitvahs, so I have no special insight into this story. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't publish it on this blog. Also, I was as pissed at him as the rest of you over the whole Clinton thing. There. I've followed the blogger disclosure code of ethics.

I want to cry

Here is the Times, on the Downing Street Memo:
British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics - New York Times:

More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to 'remove Saddam, through military action' is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Why don't you just print the damn memo, in its entirety, and let people decide for themselves if it is evidence that Bush was intent on war or not? It's not such a long memo, and it's quite interesting reading, and then you can avoid the story being about "what critics say" vs. what the "Bush administration says". The document is there, guys. Let's see it!

UPDATE: Here is my letter to the Times:

When Ken Starr released his report on Clinton's sex life, I remember that the New York Times, along with many other newspapers, reprinted the report so that readers could come to their own conclusions about it. Rather than report that administration critics think the leaked British memo is damning, and the administration itself thinks it's not at all important, the Times should print the memo itself, in its entirety, and allow readers to decide for themselves. It is much shorter than the Starr Report, and while it's true there's no sex involved, it does address the very important question of whether the American and British people were led into war on false pretenses.

More Bird Flu PR

Maternal & Child Health: Avian Flu Evolving?

Scientists meeting in Manila under the auspices of the World Health Organization are concerned that the avian flu virus has begun to evolve into a form that can be more readily transmitted from person-to-person. This concern is based on both the observed spatial and temporal patterns of cases in Viet Nam and on the results of gene sequencing of avian flu virus samples. The evolution of the avian flu virus to a form easily transmissible between humans is the last step required for the avian flu pandemic. The WHO scientists were not able to prove that this has occurred. What they reported is that the recent pattern of the disease is consistent with this possibility.

Bird Flu: It's the New Black Death*

Watch for our video news release "Bird Flu Facts: A Special Report" to appear on your local TV news. Avian Influenza, LTD. is taking PR tips from the pros now.

Every time I read one of these press briefings,

with Scott McClellan, I think "yeah, we really gotta go to New Zealand."

Q Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.

And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled -- or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report -- those that are opposed to the United States -- some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

[...]

Q Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday -- I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran." He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.

So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those -- that that violence was a result of Newsweek?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America. The protests may have been pre-staged by those who oppose the United States and who may be opposed to moving forward on freedom and democracy in the region, but the images that we have seen across our television screens over the last few days clearly show that this report was used to incite violence. People lost their lives --

Q But may I just follow up, please? He didn't say "protest," he said -- he used the word very specifically, "violence." He said the violence, as far as they know from their people on the ground -- which is something that you always say you respect wholeheartedly -- it was not because of Newsweek.

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I guess I'm not looking at it the same way as you do, and I think the Department of Defense has spoken to this issue over the last few days. But the facts are very clear that this report was used in the region by people opposed to the United States to incite violence and to portray a very negative image of the United States, one that runs contrary to everything that we value and believe, and it has done some serious damage to our image.

Q You don't think there's any way that perhaps you're looking at it a little bit differently, now that you understand that the Newsweek report is false?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can go look at just about every news report that has covered this and they have pointed out that this report, itself, helped spark some violence in the region.

Q Scott, to go back to Dana's question, are you saying that General Myers was wrong, therefore, that this -- the violence he's talking about? Are you saying he was wrong in his assessment of what happened in Afghanistan?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. In fact, maybe you didn't hear me, but as I said, there are people that are opposed to the United States that look at every opportunity to try to do damage to our image in the region, and --

Q Okay --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, let me finish -- and this report gave the additional material to incite violence, and additional material to exploit in the region. The report was wrong. Newsweek has stated that it was wrong. And there has been some lasting damage that has been done to our image because of this report. And it's going to take some work to repair that damage. And that's why we would encourage Newsweek to do its part to help repair the damage.

Q Let me follow up on that. What -- you said that -- what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, we would encourage them to continue working diligently to help repair the damage that has been done because of this --

Q Are you asking them to write a story?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of this report. I think Newsweek is going to be in the best position to determine how to achieve that. And there are ways that I pointed out that they can help repair the damage. One way is to point out what the policies and practices of our United States military are. Our United States military personnel go out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care --

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, Salon. Must you too fuel our overconsumption?

Salon has introduced a new column called Object Lust. In it, writers and readers pimp stuff they like. This week it's Katharine Mieszkowski gushing about a pedometer. There's a link to the product website. This disgusts me.

Salon introduces the column not by saying "here's stuff you can buy, and we're pimping it," but by saying "oh, even you self-righteous simple-living types lust after stuff, let's all admit it in a literary and enlightened fashion":

No matter how far above the material world we float -- never mind how emotionally and spiritually tuned in we may fancy ourselves -- somewhere deep inside, we all love stuff. Even those who crow about being able to fit the contents of their lives into their Volkswagen eventually develop an intense connection with the Volkswagen itself.

Our prized possession might be a special brand of toilet paper or those Mr. Clean sponges that wipe every stain imaginable off the walls while creepily disintegrating into chalky paste in your hand. It could be the razor that leaves no nicks, the garlic crusher that cleanly mashes clove after clove, the takeout service that delivers fresh organic produce to your door, or the bra that shapes us beautifully.

Thus, we're launching a new weekly column called Object Lust.

Salon, salon. Sure, we all want stuff. Could it be because it's always being pimped to us, even in places we don't want or need it to be? Why encourage us in our pathetic obsessions with our crap? Or, if we have to talk about our crap, why not about crap that can't be bought? Crap we made. Crap we picked up on the street. Crap our grandparents brought from the old country that we can't get rid of now, even though it's crap. Broken phones we insist on saving. Or what about a column on crap we have and hate. Or stupidest purchases of crap ever.

If I want to know about stuff I could buy and why someone else has an idiotic obsession with it, there are about fifteen thousand magazines I can look at. Why do I have to see that in Salon?

One Thing

about the Koran issue, from Talking Points Memo:

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.

I so resent having to write about the freakin' Koran story

which is just one more Administration excuse to crack down on the press for its lack of patriotism.

Actually, I resent it so much that I'm not going to write about it. Go read some other blogger, one who is not taking a mindfulness-based stress reduction course. I have to do some mindful breathing now.

Kevin Drum Goes Cold Turkey on the Times

The Washington Monthly:

SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE WORDS....This isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I think I'm going to stop linking to New York Times op-eds and columns starting now. Yesterday's announcement made it clear they no longer want to engage with the hoi polloi, and in any case their op-ed page will be off limits to all of us nonsubscribers in September anyway. So why wait?

It was nice while it lasted, though.

Me? I know I'll be scrabbling around in the ashtrays of the internets, looking for half-smoked butts of Krugman columns for months after I lose access.

Articulate blogger on NEWSWEEK, censorship

here. I am pleased to see this blogger agrees with me that the real story continues to be the Downing Street Memo

Where's the Gorilla?

So, the NEWSWEEK story. Press can't decide whether to report that NEWSWEEK is retracting the story of the Koran desecration, or whether the story is that NEWSWEEK won't retract their story despite White House pressure.

The story is neither of these. The story is the Downing Street Memo.

Watch the gorilla, guys. Hard evidence that our government lied to get us into a war that's killed tens of thousands of people. Lied. Plotted and Lied. Yet what's the news? A NEWSWEEK source who read something in a different document than the one he told a reporter he read it in. The thing he read was reported elsewhere, and has been alleged by lots of former detainees. And does anyone honestly think that it's something our interrogators wouldn't do? If they'd grab a man by the testicles and make fun of his hardon? Smear 'menstrual blood' on his face? Beat him to death? Sodomize him? I'm sure no one at NEWSWEEK expected riots. But the riots are not their fault. Let Mr. Bush stand up and apologize for torturing people; let him stand up before America and the world and admit that he lied to get us into war, and that he's sorry about that. Then we'll all go ice skating in hell, and laugh.

It's awful about the rioting. But let's not blame it on NEWSWEEK.

Here is the Downing Street Memo. Do yourself a favor, and read the whole thing. Then weep, not only for the lying government we've got, but for the apathy of the American people when faced with the liars.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.  But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.   The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Ajai Raj: My New Hero

Ajai Raj asked Ann Coulter whether she thought marriage was sacred even when the husband only fucked his wife up the ass. He was arrested. Read his account of the whole thing, you won't regret the click-through.

Yes, I am aware that you already know all about the ever-increasing perversity of of the wingnuts, dear readers.This post is for my mom, who has been in the Bermuda Triangle for a couple of months and missed all the buttfucking good times we've been having here on the mainland. Please click through that one, too, Mom, the writer's a friend of ours and very funny. And why should I write about David Hager's habit of anally raping his wife while she was passed out in narcoleptic fits, when I can let someone else do all the work?