while you’re at it, you might want to read the statement from the State Department refuting the connection between the rioting and the Newsweek story:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/12-273892.html?chanlid=washfile

funny, I haven’t seen much airtime given to this…

Well, uh, there was that whole war business, too.

just noticed something else – ABC News has been running stories about “flushgate” all day, accompanied by pictures showing demonstrators waving placards demanding an apology for the aledged desecration incident. It was running a headline “Too Little, Too Late” stating that the “Newsweek apology was considered insufficient” (as if it were Newsweek from whom an apology was being demanded). Not until you read the fine print under the photographs does one learn that it was actually taken at a demonstration in Mumbai, India.

For Bush’s recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a “virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,” according to Britain’s Evening Standard. But instead of a “free-speech zone,” the Bush administration demanded an “exclusion zone” to protect Bush from protesters’ messages.

I’d like to know how they’re able to tell the difference between the violence provoked by Newsweek’s article and the ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill violence one tends to find in a war zone. Any ideas?

I’d like to know how they’re able to tell the difference between the violence provoked by Newsweek’s article and the ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill violence one tends to find in a war zone. Any ideas?

Easy- one is violence perpetuated by Islamofascists. The other is violence perpetuated by the traitorous media.

“Easy- one is violence perpetuated by Islamofascists. The other is violence perpetuated by the traitorous media.”

Is it just me, or does this neither make sense nor answer the question?

The cat was already out of the bag. In military investigative documents they reported the same thing. I’m pissed at NewsweAk for trying to retract after pressure from Bushco. Salvage (HFN) has the links:
http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/index.htm

Yes, it’s not the fact that we are holding an undisclosed number of people for an indefinate amount of time and using classified interogation techniques that hurts our image. Its not the fact that everything the Bush administration says and does makes the Qaran story easy to believe…

The real problem is the liberal media, of course.

When the Boston Redsox win, Islamofascists win.
(6-4)

Let’s not forget, oh-fan-of-team-that-traded-away-its-two-ace-pitchers, The Red Sox are reigning Islamofascist Champs 😉

I can think of one time the Bush administration cared about our image abroad. It was right before the war, when plans were made to strike at terrorist mastermind Zarqawi (sp?), and Bush once, twice, thrice, rejected the plans because he thought it would damage our case for the Iraq war. Of course, that didn’t stop him from saying later, “I’m not exactly sure what you mean, ‘passes the global test,’ . . . My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.” like a fucking liar.

The one time it would have been appropriate for Bush to say, “You know what, fuck world opinion, we have to do this,” was also the one time he didn’t. What a piece of shit.

No matter how much vitriol we on the Left can heap on this administration, it will never be as much as these pigfuckers deserve.

Well, there was the time John Bolton, while Colin Powell was trying to set up talks with North Korea about its nuclear program, helpfully went to South Korea and described Kim Jong Il as a “tyrannical dictator” and said “life is a hellish nightmare” for many North Koreans.Was he right? Yeah, sure. But diplomats are supposed to know how to, um, be diplomatic.