Replies

In this little exercise Andrew McCarthy sought to bring rational analysis to the subject of Newsweeks latest shame. Sadly about all he achieved was to provide a fine example of moral equivelancy on steroids.

Newsweek isn't getting a pass on this latest example of the absolute worst a news organization can cause, at least from true conservatives. It shouldn't. What I have seen in the media though, is that there are excuses for Newsweek. "Oh, if you think this is bad..." Misdirection is being employed also. All the little media conastogas are circled. The big bad boogie man is sure to attack at any moment. "How unfair!"

In this offering McCarthy actually excuses Newsweek. Newsweek didn't cause anything! Heck, it was the nasty middle-eastern mindset that caused this. Andrew McCarthy, BULL-PUCKY!

Who doesn't know what we are dealing with in the middle-east? Andrew, do you seriously think it rational to pound out articles that forgive people for lighting a match in this 'fire season' tinderbox?

In a perfect world McCarthy's article might make some sense. Folks, we don't live in a perfect world. The radical Islam element is going to capitalize on anti-American rhetoric and we all know it. In this environment Newsweek chose to print an article that was incredibly inflamitory. I take issue with that, and that doesn't begin to describle my anger at Newsweek.

Newsweek didn't have a story, but let's pretend they did. Was the subject of this story really newsworthy? Seriously, we're in the middle of a war with people we're trying to win over to western ways of leadership. Switching them to republics is a wise idea. Is this the evironment in which to publish a non-event, knowing full well the only effect it will have will be to cause more distrust and hatred against the U.S.? In Newsweek's mind it does. And there's the problem.

If Leonard Lipshank in Possom Bottom, Kentucky got juiced up on moonshine and flushed a King James version of the Bible, would Newsweek publish an account of it? The answer is no. It would be a non-story.

The Koran story was also a non-story. Newsweek did publish their account, but not to enlighten. It did it solely for the commotion it would raise. It did it so Newsweek's name would be lofted in conjunction with the story. If it would have been true, Newsweek would have been ever-so-proud of itself for destroying just a little more U.S. credibility. If people died, so what!

McCarthy says we shouldn't blame Newsweek because it can't control what middle-easterners do. "If Newsweek lied, is it any worse than Bush lying and people dying?" What a moronic question.

Before the War with Iraq, everyone thought Hussein had WMDs. His denials of access, his past history, his hatred for the U.S., his oil for food billions, it was all indicative of a serious problem.

Bush did not make up a whopper to invade a peaceful nation and cause needless deaths without a hope and a cause. His hope was to rescue the Iraqi people. His causes were to put an end to the evil dictatorship of Hussein, to cut the incidence of terrorism and bring western governance to Iraq and hopefully other M/E nations. That plan is well on it's way.

What did Newsweek desire? To deliver news? Brother McCarthy, if you don't see a little bit of a difference here, perhaps I'm wasting my breath. Seventeen people are dead today because this story was published and distributed. We all know what the radical element in the middle east is, but if this lie hadn't been developed, published and distributed, those seventeen people would be alive today, radical M/E element or not!

What most people don't quite understand today, is that we have our own radical element in the United States that is just shy of the evil that is perpetrated in the middle east. No they don't physically kill people, but they sure as hell don't mind prividing the canon fodder to do so.

Well, Newsweek got it's name out there alright. How fitting, them being outed for what they are! Obfuscating with regard to this story is disgraceful. We should be so lucky that Newsweek sales would colapse and it have to close it's doors.

This 'still another' example of 'fourth estate' Royalty, does the 'let them eat cake' comment one better.

"Die you unfortunate peasents, nothing touches us!"