you mean the FBI report that could not be confirmed which led to the eventual retraction of the original article.



your analogy is vastly inaccurate, simply put, bcause our government and it's history is directly responsible for the way of life in the USA

mostly because it's true. stop making excuses.

again incorrect... reporting on 9/11 was based on fact. it happened, period. this uncorroborated story based on an unconfirmed report is shaky reporting at best and more likely shady reporting.

that seems to be what the left has been working at for years. i fail to see your connection.

 

That's why Newsweek referred to it as an alleged incident. It's no different than reporting a crime which has not gone to trial or in which a verdict has not been given yet.


The results of any investigation of that FBI report have still not been released by the FBI or the DOD because they're taking their sweet ass time releasing the information under the FOIA. The fact that Newsweek's "source" "could no longer confirm the report" means that what Newsweek really reported from was not an inside source that actually knew anything, but rather someone who probably got a peek of the FOIA stuff before it was actually released. Shakey reporting perhaps, but the fact remains that there have been many reports of abuse or withdrawal of the Qu'oran from prisoners at GTMO coming up in the documents released under FOIA. The DOD would rather not have this information become public because it was expressly ordered that every prisoner at GTMO, regardless of reward level, would have a Qu'oran for their personal use.


In addition, there is a memo from an FBI investigator (not a report from a detainee) which states that DOD interrogators used unlawful/forbidden interrogation procedures, and impersonated FBI interrogators while doing it to cover their own asses. This memo was expressly written to cover the FBI's ass if ever the actions of those DOD guys became public, it's not a report of a report of a report.

 

You're wrong because you fail to define "undermine." You think that publicly disagreeing and criticizing the President undermines him and therefore the government and is thus treasonous. Fortunately for those of us who enjoy exercising our freedom of speech, the law doesn't allow subjective, vague criteria to decide who is guilty of treason.

I am forced to ask: how does my saying "Impeach that criminal Bush" put the troops in greater danger? (This is a rhetorical question. The answer is, obviously, that it doesn't.)

 

i miss these threads. h:

 

Holy shit?! Get the topic to a hospital!! It's flatlining, charge the panels STAT!

I wish *anyone* in a position to carry out these things would say this. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so we may as well make our country a better place and have the world hate us than have them still hate us, but continue in our downward spiral... and France can go straight to hell. At least they're not just pissing us off anymore and now other countries realize they suck, thank you EU charter.

 

I have defined "undermine". you failed to read it:goodjob:criticism is one thing. knowingly and willingly publishing an article based on unconfirmable information with the intent to outrage the musim population of the world is another. please stop typing when you know not of which you speak.