Various administration spokesmen have made a variety of statements on this topic. If one actually looks at those statements and takes them seriously, the result is a picture that makes no sense. Yet all sorts of obvious and pressing questions are simply not being asked. The result of considering those questions is to understand that our government, as usual, is full of it.
And then there's the Downing Street connection, where a review of the chronology seems to show that the US suddenly changed its approach to the Koran story not just to create a distraction from Downing Street, but to specifically punish a corporation that had abruptly decided to take on the Downing Street story.
Let's review who said what, and when.
Phase 1: silence
Anyone following this story closely is already aware that pre-publication, Newsweek reviewed its material with US officials, and they barely batted an eyelash. In other words, they passed up a chance to object to the story. This itself is bizarre, given that the US now says the material is "demonstrably false" and "irresponsible."
What is less noticed is that as far as I can tell the US continued to be silent (with regard to public statements, at least) for a full 9 days after the material was published. If it was both "demonstrably false" and foreseeably inflammatory (as many on the right have suggested), why?
I think this 9 day period of silence tends to be overlooked because of some confusion over the original publication date. The original item is stamped "May 9 issue" but it was actually published on 5/1. One indication of the actual publication date is here, where Kurtz correctly calls it the "May 1 report."
Phase 2: "we're looking into it"
What's also widely overlooked is that even after the US started to speak up, it spent another six days declining to say the story was false. In other words, the US didn't claim the story was false until more than two weeks after it was published.
As far as I can tell, the first administration comments on this story were on 5/10: "it would be important to have them [the allegations] be looked into" (link); "the Pentagon is aware of the allegation ... they have started an investigation into it" (link); "we're probably several weeks away from being able to say that the commander has made his final assessments there" (link). In other words, the central talking point was (paraphrase) "we're looking into it and we'll get back to you."
On this day and subsequent days, there were also various statements of alarm and concern, and claims that such behavior was "reprehensible and not in keeping with U.S. policies and practices" (link). But there is a very distinct absence of any US official simply contradicting Newsweek and claiming the story is false. This didn't happen until 5/16. From 5/10 to 5/16, the US stuck with the message "we're looking into it."
Note that as late as Sunday (5/15), the administration was still sticking with that message ("we're looking into it"). U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley said on CNN's 'Late Edition' "if it [the Newsweek story] turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible" (link). Hadley was still treating the story as unconfirmed (i.e., could either be true or false), which obviously indicates the US investigation had not yet been completed.
Note that DOD's Di Rita made an angry call to Newsweek's Whitaker on Friday (link), blaming Newsweek for the riots. This itself is bizarre, since ostensibly the US had not yet completed its investigation into the allegations. In other words, the message seems to be that Newsweek was wrong to print the story even if it was true. But if that's the case, why did the US pass up so many earlier opportunities to point that out?
Phase 3: "we didn't do it"
Finally on 5/16 the US abruptly launched a PR onslaught against Newsweek. For the first time (publicly, at least), the US stated the story was false. But how does the US know that?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Rumseld famously said that a few years ago. Now he's suddenly talking out of the other side of his mouth. He's claiming that he's looked for proof of the allegation, he's claiming further that he has found no proof, and he's claiming further that this is sufficient to suddenly assert that the allegation is "demonstrably false." This is utter baloney, on all counts. Let's take a look at the US "investigation."
Investigating DOD's "investigation"
To begin with, there are numerous mixed signals and contradictions regarding what the US knew and when it knew it (regarding such allegations). There's ample reason to believe the US has known about these allegations for a long time, since "American and international media have widely reported similar allegations from detainees and others of desecration of the Muslim holy book for more than two years" (link). If we take at face value US claims that such behavior is "an anathema" (link), then presumably the first allegations (more than two years ago) would have triggered a prompt and thorough investigation. Yet obviously this did not happen, if the US is still saying "we're looking into it," as late as 5/15/05.
The US has also admitted that it has been aware of the allegations. Consider this much-overlooked statement: "Guantanamo prison spokesman Lt. Col. Brad Blackner said officials there had been aware of the allegations for several months, but he did not know whether they had been substantiated or whether they resulted in any disciplinary action. 'That's one of the things we're looking into,' he said" (link).
A few obvious questions arise. The allegations were first raised a couple of years ago. How is it that we've only been aware of them for "several months?" And if we've been aware of them for several months, how is it that as late as a few days ago we had not yet thoroughly investigated them to determine whether they're true or false?
There is ample reason to conclude that even though the allegations are more than two years old, a proper investigation never took place, and still has not taken place. So much for our lip service to the idea that we take such matters seriously.
How did we "investigate?"
The US is acting as if a thorough investigation has been conducted and completed. And what did that investigation consist of? Checking to see if any of our interrogators were stupid enough to document their own misbehavior:
"They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the toilet incident" (link); "we've looked at, I think, something like -- reviewed 25,000 documents, and there's no indication that anything like that happened" (link).
In other words, we're being told that no interrogator ever made notes about this form of Koran desecration by themselves or their colleagues. To begin with, we're supposed to take this at face value, with no opportunity for independent verification, even though we were told the investigation would be "transparent." Aside from that, it's the height of absurdity to suggest that a thorough investigation consists solely of checking to see if the accused kept careful notes of his own bad behavior (what are the odds that a soldier who just tossed a Koran in a urine bucket or latrine would be in a hurry to make notes about this?). Yet the US considers this sufficient basis to label the allegation "demonstrably false," despite the fact that there's no indication whatsover that the US has taken other proper investigatory steps (and even though we were told the investigation would be "thorough"). For example, there's no indication the US has interviewed any of the many former detainees who are on record as witnesses to various forms of Koran desecration.
Even though there's little or no reason to believe a proper investigation has been completed (or has even beeen started, for that matter), the DOD has the gall to write this headline: "Pentagon Official Debunks Koran Desecration Story" (link). And what's the basis for this? "We've certainly found nothing that would give any substance to the Newsweek story." Yet there's ample reason to believe they "found nothing" because they didn't look very hard. We're supposed to forget that when UN inspectors did indeed look hard, and find nothing, we were told "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We're also supposed to swallow the idea that the many eyewitness reports, on the record, by former detainees, do not represent an important form of evidence that is worth pursuing.
The Downing Street connection
It's interesting to note how the administration changed its tune so abruptly. After days of saying "we're looking into it," they suddenly said the report is "demonstrably false," as if a proper investigation had been conducted and completed (although there's ample reason to be skeptical about that). Consider the timing with regard to the Downing Street matter.
The Downing Street memo first appeared on 5/1 (by coincidence, the same day the Newsweek story appeared). For about 10 days, both items received little attention in US MSM. But late last week, the Downing Street story started to gain momentum (in part thanks to efforts here at Kos). On Thursday 5/12, the LA Times spoke up. And after almost two weeks of being mostly silent on this topic, the WaPo finally chimed in, with a sharply written story, on Friday 5/13.
We now know that on Friday Di Rita placed an angry call to Newsweek, and on Monday the administration suddenly launched a scathing assault on Newsweek, after weeks of either being silent or saying "we're looking into it."
WaPo and Newsweek have the same corporate ownership. Is it a coincidence that the administration shifted its approach to the Koran matter right after the WaPo spoke up about Downing Street? I suspect not. Aside from the more obvious observation, that the administration was looking to manufacture a distraction, I think they were also conducting a retaliation against a corporation that had (prior to 5/13) seemed willing to let the Downing Street memo slide into the memory hole.
Update 8:20 pm: I got the idea for the last section of this diary here. I didn't mention this until now because it took me this long to re-locate that excellent comment!