[robertpaulsen]

So if the story were true and Newsweek reported it (thereby resulting in the same number of deaths) this would be a non-issue with you. Which answers my question.

[leilani]

It would be a non-issue insofar as the appalling lack of due diligence applied by Mssrs Isikoff , Barry & Whittaker in publicizing a claim they couldn't confirm. It demonstrates a shockingly callous indifference to the consequences of their unethical actions. In using a non-denial by one lower level anonymus pentagonian who didn't even have access to the report as "confirmation" for their preconstructed "story", they have demonstrated reckless disregard for any adverse outcome. They should have known, or at least had every reason to expect given the Islamic reverence for the Koran, that their incendiary charge would have inflamed violent passions. Which, let's face it, is precisely why they printed the story with such shaky foundation. It was a killer "get" in more ways than one -who cared if it was true, it would generate a lot of heat for their celebrity 'journalists'.

So: if people die in a stampede when someone yells "fire", it is a tragedy regardless of whether there actually was a fire or not.Dead folks are just as dead no matter how they got that way. But if someone incites a stampede on false premises, and people die, the people advancing the bogus alarm need to be held accountable.Yes the rioters need to be held accountable, but the folks stoking the violence do as well. Dan Rather never got anybody offed. Isikoff did. Post/Newsweek has deep pockets, and I understand there are ambulance chasers here already lining up colleagues over there to troll for clients. No joke.

[leilani]

If what you are asking is would I be outraged if the story were true, I wouldn't be outraged at Michael Isikoff (again, a guy I used to have some respect for). I'd be outraged at the idiots in the US military who handed such prime propaganda on a silver platter over to the enemy, and I'd be outraged at the irrational muslims who use their religion as an excuse to commit gravely evil acts who did the actual killing. But since Newsweek has admitted that they didn't have any professionally responsible basis to print the charge, and pretty much breached every journalistic ethic in the book in order to do it, I (and others here) are just saying that Isikoff deserves whatever our good friends over at the American Trial Lawyers Association are currently planning for him. Heck, I like the guy, but Isikoff wouldn't want me in that jury box. Even I'd say: REAM him!