Daily Kos

Push Back on the White House Newsweek Scam

Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

A brief message today: What we are witnessing is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate the press corps so that they will be afraid to do their jobs.

Simply put, we must not allow this to happen, particularly when the struggle to hold this Administration accountable has been so difficult.  

There are serious, serious questions about the White House's conduct in the Newsweek matter.  More importantly, there are countless unanswered questions about documented and verified cases of detainee abuse and other matters.  These questions must be answered.

It is time to circle the wagons and demand that the press corps continue to be vigilant.  I intend to contact media outlets to demand that they pursue the unanswered questions about this Administration.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan owes us some answers as well.  This morning, I wrote to him asking for an accounting.  This letter will soon be in the hands of the entire White House Press corps.  I hope they pursue the questions I have raised.

May 17, 2005

Mr. Scott McClellan
Press Secretary
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. McClellan:

    I write to express my profound disappointment and outrage about comments you made about a matter involving Newsweek magazine, which smacks of political exploitation of the deaths of innocent and a shameless attempt to intimidate reporters from critically investigating your Administration's actions.  Your comments are contradicted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and stand in stark contrast with your actions involving the "Downing Street Memo."  I urge you and your counterpart at the Pentagon to immediately retract the comments made yesterday, and - at long last - provide a full accounting of the Administration's actions in the lead up to the Iraq war.

    As you are aware, a May 9th Newsweek report indicated that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba flushed the Koran down a toilet as part of an interrogation.  Newsweek has since retracted the story.  However, as the magazine was reevaluating information received from its sources, it appears you opted to exploit the situation for partisan political gain by falsely laying blame on Newsweek for recent deaths in Afghanistan.

    Specifically,  at 11:23am yesterday, you declared in a public statement:  "his report has had serious consequences.  It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad. It has -- people have lost their lives.  It has certainly caused damage to the credibility of the media, as well, and Newsweek, itself."  The Pentagon spokesman, Larry DiRita, made similar comments.  Referring to Newsweek's source, he said "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said."  The clear implication of these statements is that the Newsweek report had caused a loss of life in Muslim nations, presumably referring to the recent riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    First, this attempt to tie riots to the Newsweek article stands in stark contrast to the assessment of your own senior military officials.   On May 12th, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff had reported on his consultations with the Senior Commander in Afghanistan about whether there was a causal relationship between the Newsweek story and the riots thusly: "[h]e thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."  The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is that, in contrast to career military officers, political operatives sought to
Mr. Scott McClellan
Page Two
May 17, 2005

score cheap political points by spreading falsehoods about Newsweek.  The appropriate course of action is clear: you and Mr. DiRita should immediately retract your exploitative comments.

    Second, there is - of course - a sad irony in this White House claiming that someone else's errors or misjudgments led to the loss of innocent lives.  Over 1,600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives in the Iraq war, a war which your Administration justified by falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  To date, your Administration has consistently blocked Congressional inquiries into whether such claims were the result of intentional manipulation of intelligence or, as you assert, a mere "failure."

    Moreover, your loquacious response to this matter stands in stark contrast to your response to a recently released classified memo comprising the minutes of a July 22 meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet which calls into question the credibility of assertions made by your Administration in its drive to war.  Among other things the memo indicates that Administration officials were working to ensure that "the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy," implying that intelligence was deliberately manipulated to prop up the case for war.  The memo also indicates, contrary to contemporaneous statements to the American people and the Congress that the President had already "made up his mind to take military action."  When asked about this memo, you claimed that you "don't know about the specific memo" - two and one half weeks after its release and ten days after receiving a letter detailing its contents from 89 Members of Congress (which has still not been answered).

    Third, the public deserves to know what precisely the White House is asserting with respect to the mistreatment of the Koran by interrogators: are such reports categorically false or are they, in the words of one publication, "manifold?"  For example, a May1st New York Times report indicated that a Koran was thrown into a pile and stepped on at the Guantanamo detention facility and "[a] former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."  The incident where a Koran was allegedly thrown in a toilet was also recounted by a former detainee in a March 26, 2003 article in the Washington Post, and corroborated by another detainee in a August 4, 2003 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights.  The question is:  are you categorically denying that the mistreatment of the Koran occurred, or are you simply denying the Newsweek report is accurate on hyper technical grounds?

            Mr. McClellan, the American people have grown tired of the venomous partisanship and lack of candor on the part of this Administration.  When taken to task for wrongdoing, a pattern has emerged of this Administration viciously attacking its accusers.  The cornerstone of our democracy is an open and accountable government, and the American people deserve answers - not distractions -- today.

Sincerely,

 John Conyers, Jr.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 323 comments

  •  Thank you, Congressmen Conyers! (4.00 / 24)

    I wish you were my representative instead of Vern Ehlers.

    Al Gore for President!

    by VickiStein on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Stephanie Miller (4.00 / 2)

    Just read some of this and said you were the Patron Saint :) .
    •  Protest US Media Blackout Illegal Iraq War (4.00 / 8)

      Stop Violations of First Ammendment.

      State Sponsored Censorship of US Free Press violates Constitution.

      Join Veterans for Peace on Solemn MEMORIAL DAY March on Washington

      Join Congressman John Conyers in his efforts to bring war criminals to justice.

    •  I want the White House to answer whether... (4.00 / 25)

      they approved or not:

      1. a torture technique used by female interrogators known as, "change of scenery down", which is a "grave war crime" under the Geneva Conventions?

      2. short shackling prisoners in a painful squat for hours?

      3. stripping prisoners of their pants during prayer?

      4. a training program called "training the tiger" that would teach guards how to cause series pain by stricking "pressure points".

      5. Techniques designed to cause pain including - grabbing or kneeing their genitals or poking them hard in the eye or holding their eyes open and spreying them with pepper spray?

      6. Beating them to force compliance with an illegal order such as requiring them to strip for a search or shower or to change clothes in the presence of female guard (s)?

      7. Creating a group called an "extreme reaction force" that would severly beat prisoners for complaining about cold food or asking for blankets or even for just speaking to another prisoner?

      8. Leaving prisoners in isolation in a totally dark and empty cell for up to 30 days straight with no human contact?

      9. Denying access to a toilet and being required to soil themselves?

      10. Desecrating the Koran?

      11. Forced enemas?

      12. Forcing prisoners to perform oral sex on each other?

      13. Forcing devout Muslims to watch pornographic movies?

      14. Dragging them along by a leash?

      15. Threatening to sick dogs on the prisoners?

      16. Sending prisoners overseas to be boiled?

      17. Stripping prisoners and leaving them nude in their cell?

      18. Shoving foreign objects up their rectum during a "body cavity search".

      19. Shaving their entire bodies - including genitals?

      20. Sleep depriving prisoners for days?

      21. Purposely shackling them so tightly that the shackles would cut into their skin and then forcing them to race each other in leg shackles while the guards laughed?

      22. Hooding prisoners for long periods of time?

      23. stripping prisoners naked and then bringing in female guards who would fondle their genitals?

      24. Denying the prisoners toilet paper or anything to clean themselves with after using the toilet?

      25. Being forced to wear a prison jumpsuit that had a slit in the side that was designed to expose the prisoners genitals when they knelt down and bent over for prayer in violation of their faith?

      26. Not being permitted to request and get male medics for routine exams and being forced to expose themselves for examination in front of female medics in violation of their religous beliefs?

      27. Being denied necessary medical care for injuries caused by the "extreme reaction force"?

      28. sexual taunting by both male and female guards?

      29. religous taunting by both male and female guards?

      30. rape of female prisoners by male guards

      31. forcing female prisoners to expose themselves in front of male guards?

      32. taking hostages such as the wives or children of suspected insurgents?

      33. fondling female detainees?

      34. Detaining and abusing children?

      35. stripping the child of a detainee naked and throwing the kid in the back of a truck and driving the kid to a mud patch and throwing him in the mud.

      All of these things violate the Geneva Conventions and our treaty obligations and I want to know if the administration approved this stuff and if so they should be held responsible; if not then the interrogators and other perpetrators should be held responsible.

      In addition, every prisoner is to be given full Geneva Protection until their status is reviewed by a competant tribunal. So far no detainees have been reviewed by a competant tribunal. Either charge them or let them go.

      We need an investigation to get to the bottom of who all is responsible for all of this abuse and torture!

      Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

      by RichardG on Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:42:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is (none / 0)

        What is change of scenery down?  

        Dana Garrett http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/

        by Dana Garrett on Tue May 17, 2005 at 12:50:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Basically it is sexual humiliation... (none / 0)

          the female interrogator would walk in on the detainee while he is in the shower or on the toilet and stare at his genitals and make sexual comments and degrade the prisoner by referring to penis size, how the prisoner wipes himself or cleans himself - just trying to humiliate the detainee as much as possible. This is the technique that the ICRC said was "tantamount to torture" and the FBI said in its memos amounted to "torture".

          This could also be done shortly after a forced enema.

          Whether this is abuse or mental torture it dosn't really matter, because it is a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions.

          Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

          by RichardG on Tue May 17, 2005 at 01:23:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not according to Googled sources (none / 0)

            WaPo, for example, defines "change of scenery down" as "putting a prisoner in a worse place". An example given elsewhere is a more barren cell.

            There may be more than one meaning, of course.

            A reply to a big, juicy lie: "If that were true, McCain would have said it himself, but he won't because it's nothing but a lie." Not much to argue about.

            by technopolitical on Tue May 17, 2005 at 06:04:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "A worse place" somehow became the... (none / 0)

              shower or bathroom and involved only female interrogators. Someone approved this illegal abusive treatment and they should be held responsible.

              If you read the definition on withholding "incentives" it won't say withholding toilet paper or access to a toilet, but that is what happened.

              The point is who approved all of this interrogator abuse that violates the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ and why are they not being held responsible?

              It is also clear that techniques were designed to specifically violate the religous convictions of the detainees, which means there was probably high level involvment.

              Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

              by RichardG on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:10:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  add to that (none / 1)

        Sodomizing little boys in front of their parents to get them to talk. (re: Seymour Hersh)

        Forcing women to walk on all fours while nude. (Don't remember where I read that)

        •  I forgot about the sodomizing of the kids at.. (none / 0)

          Abu Ghraib. Good call.

          I didn't read the story about forcing women to walk on all fours while nude, but don't doubt at all that it happened. Perfectly consistent with all of the other verified abuse.

          Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

          by RichardG on Tue May 17, 2005 at 02:05:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's hard to tell what is the most heinous (none / 0)

            but raping children, I think that one is probably one of the worst.  (though outsourcing prisoners to Uzbekistan is pretty bad too).
            •  I was trying to note all of... (none / 0)

              the ILLEGAL and abusive prison activity that I could recall, however it is in no means in any particular order.

              I also did not include the fact that prisoners were beaten to death at Bagram and a few other places as well as chained to the ceiling by their wrists at Bagram.

              I would also consider raping children the worst, however alot of these activities probably would qualify as torture like raping women, beating prisoners to death, boiling them and the consistent abusive treatement collectively, in my view amounts to torture.

              Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

              by RichardG on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:09:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course (none / 0)

                These all are tantamount to torture as well as war crimes, according to the Geneva conventions...and rape is considered a war crime, as it is used as a tactic of war.  But we are also breaking our own laws in sedning prisoners to a country that has a reputation of torture.

                Uzbekistan is a horrible regime and well known as a regime of torture.  

                For that matter we shouldn't be taking any prisoners now either, we are breaking our own law.

                •  Grave War crimes under the... (none / 0)

                  Geneva Conventions are; "outrages upon personal dignity" in particular "humilating and degrading treatment".

                  Grave War crimes require prosecution on behalf of the host country.

                  Honor bound to defend freedom. Freedom is long-standing army regulations.

                  by RichardG on Wed May 18, 2005 at 11:06:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  answers (4.00 / 2)

          I hope you can help us find the answers.

          Frankly, I don't know what a lot of the questions above are.  It's pretty bad when an average American citizen cannot even look at the questions.

          I guess that is part of the problem.  To find the answers, we have to acknowledge the possibility, and I don't even want to look.

        •  But you already know the answer... (none / 0)

          It never hurts to ask it but you know the answer will be "No, we never approved these techniques."  

          And they probably never did explicitly.  These guys are smart enough to not leave a paper trail.  They probably tell their subordinates what they want done in vague general terms or and let the subordinates carry it out.  The top guys maintain their deniability and nothing ever touches them.  

          I think the more fruitful question is more along the lines of whether these things actually happened.  Once you establish that and who was involved, you try to work your way up the chain.

          By the way, I hear tell that you used to work at the old Workers Comp Bureau in Detroit.  Best wishes from a former workers comp appeal writer who lives in your district.

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Wed May 18, 2005 at 02:55:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Add Murder? (none / 0)

        Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

        And that's Graham talking!

        We need to call them to account!  Justice, please! What has happened to our country???

  •  McClellan must be made (4.00 / 3)

    to answer for himself first, and then the president.  Thank you for pressing this, Representative Conyers.  The more they speak, the less they will be able to defend themselves.  

    Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

    by See you out there on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:39:05 AM PDT

    •  McClellan Must Resign- (3.93 / 30)

      The White House press corps should refuse to attend any further press conferences until McClellan resigns.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

      The resignation of Scott McClellan (Keith Olbermann)

      SECAUCUS -- I smell something - and it ain't a copy of the Qu'ran sopping wet from being stuck in a toilet in Guantanamo Bay. It's the ink drying on Scott McClellan's resignation, and in an only partly imperfect world, it would be drifting out over Washington, and imminently.

      Last Thursday, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld's go-to guy whenever the situation calls for the kind of gravitas the Secretary himself can't supply, told reporters at the Pentagon that rioting in Afghanistan was related more to the on-going political reconciliation process there, than it was to a controversial note buried in the pages of Newsweek claiming that the government was investigating whether or not some nitwit interrogator at Gitmo really had desecrated a Muslim holy book.

      But Monday afternoon, while offering himself up to the networks for a series of rare, almost unprecedented sit-down interviews on the White House lawn, Press Secretary McClellan said, in effect, that General Myers, and the head of the after-action report following the disturbances in Jalalabad, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, were dead wrong. The Newsweek story, McClellan said, "has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives. This report has had serious consequences."

      Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about `media credibility,' I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

      Whenever I hear this White House talking about `doing to damage to our image abroad' and how `people have lost lives,' I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will - and at what human cost.

      [MORE]

      "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary."-Handmaid's Tale

      by JLFinch on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:58:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He will not resign over this (4.00 / 7)

        At least not quickly.  The Administration is in full "revolutionary power" mode:  deny, lie, obfuscate, distract, and most of all, "win."

        Those pansy traitors at Newsweek brought us down and embarrassed us?  Gut them.  Bring out the entire war felon cadre--Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld--to fill the media with quotes.

        The Attack Poodles--Coulter, Charen, O'Reilly, Limbaugh--are in full yapping mode, creepy green saliva dripping from their dull fangs.

        Saving "face" is everything to these war felons, just short of putting liberals down.  Many have noticed the cruel and sick parroting of the Bush war crime line--"Newsweek lied, people died"--a sure sign the GOP has decided it's time to knife and mock liberals over this.  When it comes to saving face and mocking liberals, nothing will stop the war felons or make any of them resign.

        We had our chance to get rid of these foul creatures and failed.  From all that I know of these radical war felon freaks the last thing they would ever do is make McClellan resign when in this sick attack mode.

        •  and you know what? (none / 0)

          The attack dogs don't give a shite about the lives of the Muslims, they are using them as pawns to attack us.

          But that must mean they're getting nervous.

        •  They don't fire anyone over anything. (none / 0)

          People sometimes step down, to "spend more time with their families".  If anything, they'll look for some way to promote Simple Scotty for lying to us everyday and inviting the likes of Jeff Gannon over to ply their trade.  Maybe he should get a Medal of Freedom.  

          The  responsible parties may be paying a few bucks more for a little extra "punishment" from Mistress Karla or Master Jeff this weekend, but I don't expect anything more public than that.

          The War on Fact continues.

          •  Agreed (none / 0)

            Why are we writing letters to McClellan and other ensconced members of The Party? Why not direct our energies where they can make a difference?

            I also don't get these "demands" for resignation. It seems a bad idea, in general, to demand things you are powerless to compell. It reinforces one's impotence. We need to put the pieces in place to make demands for resignation have teeth.

            Do work on a local level. Support blue businesses, blue talk radio, etc. Contact the local press with letters that are tuned to the local audience. Point out specific lies and patterns of lies to your friends and acquaintances.

            OK, maybe if a million people bang their heads against the same wall it will come down. I still would prefer to save my head and dig under the foundation. Or probably best of all: a million people bang their heads and another million start digging, and a third bunch write up blueprints for what will replace the wall.

      •  In a Democracy You Are Not Powerless or Voiceless (4.00 / 2)

        McClellan can be made to stand down.

        And he will be made to stand down if you use your vote.  Vote in a Congress that does not commit war crimes.

        Use the paper vote that cannot be fixed, or made to disappear.  Write a letter to the editor.  Support a free press.

        •  Don't forget the GOP's 'bought and paid for' press (none / 1)

          Don't forget the Armstrong affair, No Child Left Behind, the Social Security paid for PR blitz, the government made videos and other orchestrated GOP paid for media placements.  

          Perhaps the fun way to ask the question is to use a good fork:  "Seeing as the White House relied on a single source for invading Iraq, can the White House confirm if it is really hitting at Newsweek because the story wasn't bought and paid for, or because US/GOP policies on torture are inflammatory to persons of conscience around the globe and damage control is needed?"  

          Does the White House so hate Islamic people that they can't change their torture policies to prohibit profaning the Koran?

          When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

          by antirove on Tue May 17, 2005 at 12:38:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  FREE PRESS CANNOT BE BOUGHT (none / 0)

            That is also a violation of the First Ammendment to the Constitution.  It is against the law of the land.  It is another example of Bush administration violating the law, lying to the people, and usurping the Congress.
        •  This is exactly what I have been saying (4.00 / 2)

          I could not agree more.  The tactic of the right-wing is to make you feel powerless and that your efforts serve no useful purpose.  Being angry and frustrated is a understandable response.  Channeling your energy into activism is a better one.
      •  If he's so concerned about our credibility.. (none / 0)

        I have a suggestion:

        Stop the fucking torture/religious desecration/economic exploitation/meaningless war-mongering/etc/etc/etc already!

        Gee, you'd think it would be obvious to anyone who graduated from elementary school (McClellen did do that, right?) that if you torture someone and i report it it's not me that's doing the real damage here.

        But no, we get "Everything's fine, do not look this way, trust us: everything is fine. If you look this way you are a traitor and you hurt our credibility. Go away. Quit looking at us."

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Tue May 17, 2005 at 01:09:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's too reality-based... (none / 0)

          newsweek reported a slight mischaracterization of accurate info - less than 1,000 killed.

          shrubCo reported gross exaggerations of dubious info - at least 30,000 killed and counting.

          in the orwellian world of herr chimperor, the first item is egregious, the second a matter of course.  up is down and all that...

          you sure you don't need some re-indoctrination?

          "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

          by Cedwyn on Tue May 17, 2005 at 03:09:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  politically speaking (4.00 / 18)

      i wondered if it was prudent for us to get out of the way on the Newsweek story to avoid getting stomped.

      but now i think that we need to fight this -- from an pragmatic and idealogical view:

      1.  Congressman Conyers is right.  They ARE using this as a scapegoat for the problems THEY caused.  THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN!

      2.  We have to put the spine back in the press.  They are rolling over too much.  If we fight back on this issue, perhaps the press will not feel so alone in battling the WH, that someone's got their back.  We may not win this particular frame/issue -- but it can set up a win later

      3.  Extend the debate:  What other mistakes have there been made?  Will the WH retract it's own Iraq story?  

      Thanks to Congressman Conyers & this diary's author (RonZ) for an excellent frame.
      •  The press will only get a spine when (none / 1)

        it equates to MONEY.

        So don't buy Newsweek. Don't buy their stock. Don't buy from their advertisers, and TELL THEM WHY. You want to read it, go to the library and read it there.

        Buy publications that you DO agree with, or that at the least tell the truth. Buy multiple copies and hand them out. Give them away. If your local library doesn't carry it, buy them a subscription and tell your state and local reps why. Always tell them WHY.

        Reward the good guys in the only way their bosses understand -- MONEY.

        When it pays off, the press will get a spine.

        •  Why punish Newsweek? (4.00 / 2)

          They did the right thing. Their original story was that an unnamed, high level person confirmed that the Koran was abused and that an impending report would cite it.

          Despite what the rest of the media has reported, Newsweek retracted their story about what was said by the unnamed official. They are not saying the incident never happened - which is what many reports would have us believe.

          If the unnamed official is changing his tune, what else can Newsweek do, other than retract what he told them?

          To me, the story is pretty clear:
          An unnamed official is no longer willing to confirm that the Koran was abused during interrogations at Guantanamo.

          Unfortunately, that's a bit too complicated for CNN.

        •  Support Newsweek (none / 0)

          Their coverage of Iraq - including the photos they've printed in full color - has been the most honest, and most skeptical of the Bush administration that I've seen.

          And they've run eloquent, informed Op eds and essays - mostly on their website, or in the foreign editions.

          I'm sure that's why the Bush admin has sicced McClellan on them.

          And the official who retracted his statement also felt pressured enough to ask to be anonymous in the first place - or was allowed to talk to Newsweek only on an anonymous basis.  Either way, the result of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld pressure.

          •  Right (none / 0)

            We should be thanking them for their honest journalism.  They are being pressured into stuff by a corrupt government.  Isikoff, however, offered to resign, but Newsweek refused his resignation, and instead offered to retract that ONE item from that article, however they didn't say it wasn't true.
    •  BushCo Logic: (4.00 / 2)

      Guns don't kill people, Newsweek kills people.

      The bigger the jackass, the louder the bray

  •  Words cannot express... (4.00 / 8)

    our gratitude to you John Conyers.  Keep going and do not stop!

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:39:07 AM PDT

  •  Where are your colleagues?! (4.00 / 14)

    Thank you Congressman Conyers for your brilliant description of what all this means for us and to our country.

    I am scared. I cannot believe Newsweek folded. Who will be next--Kos?

    •  my thought (none / 1)

      exactly.

      Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

      by Miss Devore on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:01:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well just fasten your seatbelt (4.00 / 14)

        They're coming.

        I am almost 50. I lived through Nixon, Vietnam, Kent State, Reagan, Iran hostages, JFK assassination (I was young). RFK assassination, Martin Luther King assassination. God knows what else.

        Never, ever has it been this bad!

        We are near the breaking point--I am sure.

        •  I think you're right. (4.00 / 4)

          And what that breaking point will bring scares the spit out of me.

          The pathologies that some of this administration have shown would indicate that they are capable of ab.so.lute.ly. anything.

        •  Let them Come (4.00 / 6)

          I'm tired of worry and I'm ready to fight.
          We are not so weak as they think we are, nor as few.  Poll after poll shows America sides with Us not them.  The do what they do because they think that America will not remember, will not care by the time we reach 2006.   They Couldn't be more wrong, we will see to that.

          If it breaks we will fix it.  IF they want a fight we'll win it.   The tipping point has already been reached.

          Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

          by Magorn on Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:39:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Never been this bad (none / 0)

          I'll second that, and I'm 58. I was college-age during the Vietnam/Nixon years, politically active, a conscientious objector, and paying lots of attention.

          From a historical point of view, these things play out over generations and lifetimes. I'd have to say that what went down then was a preview, and what we're seeing now is the end-game.

          And yes, it's a lot worse.

        •  I've got a few years on you ... (none / 0)

          ...and I agree.

          Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

          by Meteor Blades on Tue May 17, 2005 at 02:51:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. Didn't know there were (none / 0)

            so many people on this board of my generation.  LOL  I just turned 50 and I agree.  It's never been this bad.

            Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

            by Maggie Mae on Tue May 17, 2005 at 03:01:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are still just a ... (none / 0)

              ..."baby" Baby Boomer compared with those of us born in the first wave (1946, in my case).

              Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

              by Meteor Blades on Tue May 17, 2005 at 03:17:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most of my life (none / 0)

                I've been the "baby" of the group.  LOL.  Seems funny, but good for my ego, to think at 50, I'm still the "baby."  

                Thanks for the smile you put on my face!

                Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

                by Maggie Mae on Wed May 18, 2005 at 03:24:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Republican rope-a-dope (4.00 / 17)

      First, Newsweek hasn't totally folded. They retracted the story when their source went soft. They did the right thing. Their reporting was, in the first place, responsible (they gave the Pentagon ample 'right of response' and did not recieve a denial). Their retraction was responsible.

      The pattern here, which we also saw in the CBS TANG story, is this: a news org comes to the Administration with a lead and asks for comment. Official Administration sources, whether on or off the record, decline to deny the story, which no administration would ever admit. Reporters and editors rightly assume there to be some truth there and move forward with it. Then they gin up the wurlitzer, pick a hole in the story and cry about the liberal media making stuff up, when the offending news org was following accepted practice according to the strange rules of Washington press detente.

      Dan Rather's colleagues in print and broadcast alike were only too happy to stand back and watch him swing. Isikoff should be another story. If the news media has any backbone at all, they'll know that There but for the grace of Rove go they, and they'll take a stand. But I'm not holding my breath.

      "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

      by Septic Tank on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:17:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  History teaches .... everything? (4.00 / 6)

        Lest our friends in the press grow complacent, a history lesson:

        Niemoller's Poem

        A poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller, Berlin, 1939.
        Niemoller was a pastor in the German Confessing Church
        who spent eight and one-half years in a Nazi concentration camp.

        First they came for the Jews
        and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
        Then they came for the communists
        and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
        Then they came for the trade unionists
        and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
        Then they came for me--
        and there was no one left to speak out for me.

        •  With apologies to Niemoller, U.S. media version: (4.00 / 5)

          First they came for Dan Rather
          and I did not speak out--because I work for ABC, and Dan rather was really wierd, anyway
          Then they came for the Isikoff
          and I did not speak out--because the bastard scooped me on that fucking blue dress story
          That Pulitzer was mine, I tell you! I coulda been a contender!
          Then they came for me--
          And that's when I went over to the dark side and got a nice, cushy PR job

          "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

          by Septic Tank on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:39:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You forgot a couple (4.00 / 4)

            First they came for Susan Sontag
            and I didn't speak out because she was, like, a feminist or something and that is so, like, 1970s.

            Then they came for Bill Maher
            and did not speak out because he was just a comedian...plus he hung out in L.A. and I was stuck in D.C. ...and he was clearly getting way more action than I was (and he's so weird looking).

            Then they came for Eason Jordan
            and I didn't speak out because he actually reported from Iraq and made me look bad.

            Then they came for Dan Rather...

            •  Niemoller cont'd (4.00 / 4)

              Then they came for Bill Moyers
              and I didn't speak up--because he was probably retiring anyway, and besides, he's such an earnest old pinko geezer. Whatevs! Like, he could never hang with my clique. Sooo uncool. Gang of 500 posse up, beeyatch!

              "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

              by Septic Tank on Tue May 17, 2005 at 10:04:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Moyers grows claws, too (none / 1)

                  Hope you've read or seen Moyers' Sunday night speech. You can find it here: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-34.htm

                  Throw in Galloway today and suddenly some very cold water is splashing over the WH. There needs to be so much more, so much...

                  Congressman Conyers, you're doing a great job; these formal letters are historic. Thanks is really not adequate for your bravery and fortitude in the face of such a national threat.

                "But their gift is an empty snake, Carrying hypocrisy in its mouth like venom" - Sami Al Hajj

                by walkshills on Tue May 17, 2005 at 05:59:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Moyers always had brass ones (none / 1)

                  He's a national treasure.

                  Gorgeous George is kindofa winger, but what a joy to see in action! Almost makes me nostalgic for when we had wild, acrobatic wingers on our side.

                  "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

                  by Septic Tank on Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:05:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  May be heating up? (4.00 / 4)

        First, Newsweek hasn't totally folded.

        Things may just be starting to get interesting. The sirens were out in full force Drudge earlier; it looks like Newsweek is ready to fight. Maybe?

        "Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%," a top magazine source told the DRUDGE REPORT. "We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."

        http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mi.htm

        You can lead a conservative to logic, but you can't make them think!

        by mrCurmudgeon on Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:04:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rope a Dope or Rove A Dope? (4.00 / 2)

        its getting to the point where you can't even be paranoid enough anymore

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Tue May 17, 2005 at 09:40:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In a perfect world, (4.00 / 13)

    you would be President Conyers. Thank you for you vigilance.
  •  is it possible (4.00 / 3)

    fantastic response Senator...
    do you think we could get a number of like minded individuals in the house and senate to sign on to this letter and then have it published in a variety of news papers in across the country, with a link at the bottom of the letter to allow citizens to add their names to the letter demanding an accounting???

    lets get this forwarded to Olberman

  •  Thank you, Rep. Conyers (4.00 / 11)

    This administration is attempting to destroy not only the independent judiciary, but the independent press.  Both are vital for the United States to survive as the United States.

    The administration cowed, bribed, and bullied the media into being cheerleaders for the Iraq war. They cannot be allowed to get away with gutting the last remnants of the media's watchdog function.

    •  Discrediting the Messenger (4.00 / 23)

      I'm flogging this same comment all over the place now, it seems, but it bears repeating:

      We're seeing once again the Administration's strategy of discrediting one specific aspect of an individual report in order to neutralize the entire larger story.  By throwing one item into question, many people are left asking themselves, "But if this was made up, how can we know for sure that the whole thing wasn't fabricated?"  And just like with CBS and the TANG memos, the distracting sideshow has overwhelmed the important story at the core, again because the investigation into the reporting of the disputed element is done far more openly than the investigation into the underlying issue.

      In many respects, it's almost like a criminal jury dealing with the issue of "reasonable doubt".  Once one component of the evidence crumbles, it becomes almost impossible to convince the jury that the rest of the evidence is perfectly sound.  If someone were being held criminally liable for this particular act at Gitmo, I would certainly feel that there wouldn't be enough to convict here.  However, allegations such as these should be viewed more along the lines of the evidentiary standards for a civil trial, where all that's needed is the preponderance of the evidence.  There's no question that this standard has been met sufficiently.  Illegal/improper acts occurred with regularity at Gitmo, as they did at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq.  There's a pattern of activity that should render individualized proof of each act moot.

      The point here is that the Administration is continuing its program of cowing the media into not reporting controversial stories for fear of public vilification and retribution.  More dangerously, fewer Americans will be willing to give credence to the smaller number of stories damaging to the Administration.  With that unquestioning attitude and self-censorship, the Administration is given much greater latitude to deceive us all.  Thus lies the way to tyranny.

      Can you smell the Constitution burning?

      by The Maven on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:13:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The flip side (4.00 / 6)

        discrediting one specific aspect of an individual report in order to neutralize the entire larger story

        This is an excellent description of the Bushies' coverups.  The flip side, however, is what they do when they're getting screwed to the wall:  when it became clear that the WMD scare was based on lies, manipulation, and b.s., they used tiny bits of non-lies ("there was a WMD-related program in the conceptual, pre-development stage, we think!") to reinforce their big-picture story ("Saddam had nukes!").

        It goes without saying that Bush et al have raised hypocrisy to a high art.  The amazing thing is that the critics wearing press passes in DC refuse to say how ugly it is.

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Diary this, please (none / 1)

        You'd get a 5 from me if I could. This is the critical aspect of the story, because it's exactly what they did with the National Guard scandal.

        It's powerful, because it exploits a very easy logical fallacy -- but it's very very wrong. We need to find a way to fight back loudly and vehemently.  

        Even if one line of evidence is discredited, the conclusion can still be true so long as the rest of the evidence holds. Yet people who think narratively don't see this, and news reports are all narrative.

        This is especially important to keep in mind when the false line of evidence is deliberately forged and under the control of the people who want the inquiry shut down.

        Congressman Conyers, this might be something you'll want to look at -- this is propagandistic manipulation at its most shameful.

      •  Let's keep asking about the Newsweek story! (none / 0)

        The entire REST of the Newsweek story that is, the parts they want you to skip over.

        Not to mention the whole sequence of reports that Newsweek has published on abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and investigations or lack of same.

        Here's the start of the story, you have to log in to the Periscope Archives to read the whole thing:

        From NEWSWEEK:

        Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners,  . . .

      •  Keith Olbermann (none / 0)

        The real point, of course, is that you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that making a threat at Gitmo akin to `Spill the beans or we'll kill this Qu'ran' would have any effect on the prisoners, other than to eventually leak out and inflame anti-American feelings somewhere. Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called `war on terror' has done something dumb, dating back to the President's worst-possible-word-selection ("crusade") on September 16, 2001. So why wouldn't some mid-level interrogator stuck in Cuba think it would be a good idea to desecrate a holy book? Jack Rice, the former CIA special agent and now radio host, said on Countdown that it would be a "knuckleheaded" thing to do, but "plausible."

        One of the most under-publicized analyses of 9/11 concludes that Osama Bin Laden assumed that the attacks on the U.S. would galvanize Islamic anger towards this country, and they'd overthrow their secular governments and woo-hoo we've got an international religious war. Obviously it didn't happen. It didn't even happen when the West went into Iraq. But if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year-old tale about toilets and Qu'rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the `abuse', then weren't those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say "you can't print this"?

        Or would somebody rather play politics with this? The way Craig Crawford reconstructed it, this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet -- or has its proxies do it for them.

        That's beyond shameful. It's treasonous.

        Ultimately, though, the administration may have effected its biggest mistake over this saga, in making the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs look like a liar or naïf, just to draw a little blood out of Newsweek's hide. Either way -- and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine's doorstep -- Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that's what I smelled.

        Keith Olbermann
  •  Thanks you, sir. (4.00 / 8)

    One of these days, you will be recognized as a hero of our own "resistance" here in the U.S.
  •  This is what leadership looks like (4.00 / 9)

    Congressman, you continue to inspire us.  You're doing the right thing by the people of this country, and you're doing it fearlessly.

    No quarter!!!

    "A person is as free as they believe themselves to be off." - Fortune cookie

    by The Termite on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:41:11 AM PDT

  •  I didn't realize... (4.00 / 31)

    that Newsweek had such a huge circulation in Afghanistan.

    I'm gonna sit down and see if I can noodle up some other reasons why there might have been anti-western riots across the Middle East.

    Hmm. Nope. Must be Newsweek.

    •  Poppies (4.00 / 4)

      I suppose they might be anti-western if we were destroying poppy fields instead of allowing them to have record harvests, again.

      Scott McClellan is a despicable liar. Unfortunately for the world, he's not the most dishonest man in the building.

    •  CIA operatives... (none / 0)

      ...dressed as Afghanis handing out copies in the square, maybe?

      Just saying.

      "A person is as free as they believe themselves to be off." - Fortune cookie

      by The Termite on Tue May 17, 2005 at 10:50:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know (none / 0)

      even if the riots were brought on specifically by Newsweek's story and not any of the Administration's torture tactics, I wonder why the Bush-drones are blaming Newsweek.

      Aren't the rioters partly to blame? Aren't the people who did the killing and the damage a little to blame? What happened to the Republicans being the party of personal responsibility? You know, like when the police shoot 120 rounds at an unarmed black man in a residential neighborhood, wounding one of their own and seriously endangering local people, there's always some ass hat conservative that will defend the police by saying, "Well, when the police tell you to pull over, you puill over! It's HIS fault! Don't you liberals believe in personal responsibility?"

      I think the Republicans should learn to be a little more consistent if they want to be taken seriously by rational people. But I don't think they care too much what rational people think, because rational people won't vote for Republicans anyway.

      America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

      by Tony Seybert on Tue May 17, 2005 at 12:41:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When history records this era (4.00 / 12)

    You will be one of the few true Patriots to be acknowledged.

    "I just had the basic view of the American public -- it can't be that bad out there." Marine Travis Williams after 11 members of his squad were killed.

    by Steven D on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:44:03 AM PDT

  •  Way to go (4.00 / 3)

    Lets see what they say, Bush is no longer popular, the war is no longer popular,  .....Republican COngressman and Senators up for re-election have to start thinking whats best for them in 2006.
  •  Smoking memo connected to this. (4.00 / 27)

    The administration only started making the Newsweek article an issue after the Washington Post published its article about the Downing Street smoking memo last week.  The Washington Post Corp. owns Newsweek.  This is the administration's response to the Washington Post's reporting on the smoking memo.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:49:24 AM PDT

    •  Dead On (4.00 / 10)

      Perfect way to set up comparison. Another is the forged memos implicating British MP Galloway in Oil for Food going on today in the Senate. These bastards are like the fat kid with frosting all over his face screaming that the little skinny kid ate all his cake. I always wanted to smack that little twerp.

      Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.

      by kamarvt on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:55:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's right! (none / 1)

      I had thought it might be payback to Isikoff for the Abramoff story.  Could be both?
    •  Deja vu? (none / 1)

      Newswek has been used in the past for the same lies-spreading purposes http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/092300a.html
      I am not saying that Newsweek's report is false, but that is being used to deflate another story.
      What does surp0rise me is that the hole story is being denied because the report said that the allegations were brought about in an "internal investigation"
      The rest of the article  has never been denied or questioned
    •  Last Night Story Broke Through To Chicago Tribune (4.00 / 4)

      BRITISH MEMO REOPENS illigal WAR CLAIM

      May 17, 2005

      WASHINGTON -- A British official's report that the Bush administration appeared intent on invading Iraq long before it acknowledged as much or sought Congress' approval--and that it "fixed" intelligence to fit its intention--has caused a stir in Britain.

      In the U.S., however, the account has drawn only passing attention, even in Washington, where the debate over prewar intelligence on Iraq once dogged the White House. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and Iraqi scientists have told U.S. inspectors that any weapons Iraq did possess were destroyed years ago.

      Opponents of the war and administration have launched e-mail campaigns to elevate the issue. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) wrote a letter earlier this month to the White House, signed by 89 House Democrats, that expressed concern about the memo's revelations.

      White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Monday about the memo's implication that intelligence was being "fixed" on Iraq, said, "The suggestion is just flat-out wrong.

    •  Mabye (none / 0)

      these shits are doing some damage control. Just maybe they are trying to discredit Newsweek in general, thinking that Newsweek or another publication might do a hard hitting piece on the smoking memo. Make perfect sense if you belong to the R noise machine. Slap Newsweek hard, and make the rest of MSM think twice before they ever, ever question BUSHCO.

      He shit on me, then slapped me for stinking!

      by Arkydem on Tue May 17, 2005 at 10:47:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A Distraction from the Downing Street Memo! (none / 0)

      Now, that makes perfect sense.  The Administration is a master of turning attention in the direction they want you to go.

      Although the torture issue is the one that most gets under my skin: the Memo is the thing that could bring down the Administration and therefore truly is the smoking memo.

      Good call.

    •  Bear in Mind (none / 0)

      That Rove & Co were well aware that Galloway was coming to testify this week too, which essentially bolsters the memo and brings attention to this corruption & the lies they used to get us into this horrible war.  They are trying to confuse us by obfuscating everything which would reveal their behaviour by blaming Newsweek for something that was THEIR fault.  Keith says this stinks of McClellan... I don't think he's that smart, this reeks of Rove's bloody hands, McClellan is just Rove's butt-boy.

      I may be an optimist, but I'm beginning to think that it isn't going to work because Newsweek is not going to hang Isikoff out to dry, and McClellan was asked about the memo today.  And MSNBC and even FOX showed Galloway's testimony live.

      WE might have a chance, especially if we can get Conyers on the news channels.  And Congressman Conyers thank you for sending that letter to the press corps!  

  •  Yessssssssssssssss! (4.00 / 4)

    You go sir!!!!!! If you want a laugh in the midst of this BS, here's my take on this from earlier this morning...  

    I would be honored if you decided to refer to Mr Bush as "The Giggling Butcher of Crawford" in any of your future correspondences or postings...

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:49:27 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, Congressman Conyers! (4.00 / 5)

    Your spirited engagement on this issue and many others is an inspiration to us all. You have our support and we will do our part as well. This issue certainly wreaks of cheap exploitation, and deliberate connivance. Good work!

    "We must be the change we wish to see in the world" Mahatma Gandhi

    by jeeves on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:50:07 AM PDT

  •  thank you Rep. Conyers for your continued service (4.00 / 3)

    to this country. You give me hope.  Every day.  Thank you!
  •  What about Rumsfeld? (4.00 / 9)

    Representative Conyers, thank you for standing up for this principle.  While you're at it, what about statements made by Donald Rumsfeld yesterday to the effect of "people need to be careful what they say."  This administration needs to learn a thing or two about the First Amendment.  
    •  the Administration (4.00 / 4)

      needs to be careful about who they torture

      "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary."-Handmaid's Tale

      by JLFinch on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:55:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What he means is (none / 1)

      Loose lips fink shits.
    •  Veiled Threats? (Tin hat time) (none / 0)

      The reference to "people" dying and "people" needing to be careful about what they say seem to me to be veiled threats against the source.

      Could it be that the Pentagon does not know who Newsweeks source is, and has to use the media to get these threats out against his/her life?

      "If we outlaw everything some people find offensive, there wouldn't even be a Texas in the first place." - Cindy Campos, Lifeguard

      by jandrewmorrison on Tue May 17, 2005 at 10:53:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would not (none / 1)

        surprise me in the slightest.  I certainly heard Rummy's words as a kind of threat because of the way he juxtaposed "people are dying, people are dead" and "people need to be very careful what they say."  

        The implication was "you could wind up dead too."  And just the whole idea of being "careful" about what one