My partner Marc is interviewed by John Hawkins about Pajamas Media.
MORE: I just got off the phone with the BBC. I was being interviewed by their new online media show regarding Pajamas Media. This BBC group was surprisingly accepting of the idea. Change is in the air perhaps. While waiting my turn to be interviewed, I listened in as they discussed the situation in Uzbekistan with a blogger from Tashkent. He endorsed Nathan Hamm’s excellent blog on that area, as do I. And, yes, during my segment Newsweek was mentioned.
SPEAKING OF NEWSWEEK: They have made a smart move in retracting their story. According to the NYT, Newsweek didn’t want to happen to them what has happened to CBS:
In the interview, Mr. Whitaker contrasted his action with that of CBS News when it refused to back down immediately last year from a report that raised questions about President Bush’s National Guard service.
“Clearly it became a problem for CBS because people thought they weren’t acknowledging that they screwed up,” Mr. Whitaker said.
True enough.
The NY Times will soon charge on-line visitors to read its columnists. This may dramatically increase Pajamas Media readership. Who in hell is going to spend money to read the silly stuff of Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Nicholas D. Kristof and Frank Rich?
I was sorry to hear about the trouble in Uzbekistan. I heard that a lot of people are blaming the US for that too.
Sometimes I feel as if America is some kind of global sin eater.
Was it Chris Vallance you talked to? I talked to him earlier this weekend. Nice guy.
Yes, it was and, yes, he was.
I unfortunately missed the segment. Do you know if my interview was on? Also, was the Tashkent speaker male or female? I’m sure that the person was anonymous, but I’ll know who it was from the gender.
I did not hear your interview, so do not know. The blogger from Uzbekistan was definitely male, but I am not absolutely certain he was from Tashkent. I was listening to a radio show over the phone that went in and out.
David Thompson,
I kind of like to follow Kristof as a leading indicator. He has always struck me as a man out of touch with his inner conservative: too much time at Oxford perhaps.
ìI kind of like to follow Kristof as a leading indicator.î
Are you saying that you will spend $49.95 annually to do so?
As regards the Newsweek story…
Roger says:
“I may seem to be taking this lightly, but there is a strong argument to be made that this is more serious than Rathergate.”
But I remember Roger saying that Rathergate was as big as Watergate. So presumably the Newsweek story is bigger than Watergate.
As for the validity or not of the Newsweek story:
I think its quite possible that a Koran was flushed down a toilet.
And I am sure many commenters here and at LGF would ask; what is wrong with that?
John
And your point is?
As for the “nomenklatura”, I think that particular comparison with communism is particularly off beam.
And of course, if that nomenklatura were to go, they would only be replaced by a new lot of nomenklatura.
Pajamas Media, for all its radical intent, if it is to be successful, will be only then metamorphose into a regular media operation, but one that suits Roger’s political tastes – which was one of the reasons it was set up in the first place.
David,
Are you saying that you will spend $49.95 annually to do so?
Well… unh… no.
John,
And I am sure many commenters here and at LGF would ask; what is wrong with that?
Sorry, but I think peoples deeply held beliefs should be treated with at least politeness. Especially if you need some of them on *your* side. The aim of US policy is not to provoke a war with the whole Muslim world.
The same, by the way, goes for the treatment of Christians. The Democrats and the elite are going to unite a lot of Christian folks against them if they keep up going on as they are going on. There is a political backlash underway and it is well earned.
As a rule of thumb, don’t use fighting words if you don’t want to fight. And I think it is foolish to fight *if* you don’t need to. Fight when necessary, not just for the heck of it.
Perhaps I do not read as closely as you do, John, but I have not seen a single comment here advocating or applauding flushing a Koran down a toilet, assuming such a thing were possible.
Luther,
Oops, look like I got suckered by a troll
Thanks for the clue.
Interesting article about elaborate US Military policy about the handling of the Koran in the
Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601320.html
Actually the point of both (Rather vs. Water) was to directly influence and alter a presidential election. One may have been a tad more devious, complex and illegal (though debatable IMO) than the other (you guess which), but the goal was the same. I am conflicted as to whether the loss of lives in the newspeak situation is equal to or a greater tragedy than than the loss of American democracy and freedom. Not true. I’m not really conflicted, I know which would be the greater loss for the world. In a sense you could say that those folks died for the cause of freedom.
Thanks chuck, but you knew it all along
Roger:
The original source has backtracked on his original thought. It turns out he never read the report that he said the koran incident was in. Newsweek has retracted the story. But notice how badly the visiting trolls want to believe that the story is true. I am sure many had the first draft of their outraged commentaries written out and know they can’t use them. So they are reduced to snarky comments ripping Roger because he was right.Look how the new venture that has many partners has morphed into Rogers personell playground in the bitter minds of these trolls. Can you imagine the vitriol they will spout if Roger is correct on the UN. It should be fun.
Kevin P
You are so correct:
“Can you imagine the vitriol they will spout if Roger is correct on the UN. It should be fun.”
Because you know he is, and it will be.
Kevin P
I am quite prepared to believe the Newsweek story is untrue.
But there is no evidence to believe its actual falsity, just as there a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
It seems a realistic scenario that a Koran is flushed down the toilet. Not because its official policy to do so, but it seems quite realistic actions of heated, inexperienced staff.
Pajamas Media is not Roger’s personal playground. It is though, set up for a purpose, as we can by glancing at the editorial board.
It will, if successful, morph into a mainstream media organisation. Why not indeed – that’s what makes money, and they would want a return on their investment.
ìBut there is no evidence to believe its actual falsity, just as there a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.î
I can play this game. Letís try this: ìBut there is no evidence that you didnít beat up your grandmother to believe its actual falsity, just as there a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.î
Newsweek failed to honor even the minimal standards of journalism. An accuser has no right to hide behind the ìmight be trueî excuse. No, one is obligated to provide substantial evidence before the charge is even presented.
David Thomson
I think there is realism to the story.
It is not far fetched.
I think its perfectly possible that sort of thing happened in Guantanamo Bay.
Roger, this BBC story might be related to your interview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4551683.stm
“But a new phenomenon is at work which has forced journalists onto the back foot.
This is the growth of the “bloggers” on the internet, the web loggers who make it their business to delve into the practices of the mainstream media.
What is called a “blogswarm” over the Newsweek story is now developing, clamouring for Newsweek blood. ”
They go on to talk about Rather and Jordon.
Glad to see the BBC notice the power of blogs. That power is not as great here in the UK – yet.
Only at the end does the BBC admit to one problem with its reporting. But the BBC has committted far more sins. See here:
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
ìI think there is realism to the story.
It is not far fetched.î
Thatís simply not good enough. It matters not a bit if an accusation seems somewhat plausible. The accuser is still obligated to present substantial evidence before the charge is made. What is it that you are not getting? Of course, I already suspect that I know the answer to my question. You and many of todayís journalists are the progeny of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. The very concept of objective reality is alien to you.
But there is no evidence to believe its actual falsity, just as there [is] a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
There’s no evidence to believe the actual falsity of the notion that the USAF has captured aliens at Nellis AFB, just as there is a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
There’s no evidence to believe the actual falsity of the idea that God created the universe just a millisecond ago, memories and all, just as there is a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
There’s no evidence to believe the actual falsity of the rumor that you’re a cannibalistic paederast, just aa there is a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
There’s no evidence to believe the actual falsity of the rumor that it was actually you that uses the Qur’an as toilet paper, just as there’s a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
But I bet you won’t take that as sufficient reason to publish your name and address, and that rumor, on al Jazeera.
David Thomson
I am fully in support of Newsweek retracting the story, if they cannot fully substantiate it.
However, that does not mean it is not true. It just means Newsweek could not substantiate it.
It’s not far fetched. It certainly the actions of heated inexperienced staff, and is not particularly severe.
Obviously that should read:
“It certainly could be the actions of heated inexperienced staff, and is not particularly severe.”
ìHowever, that does not mean it is not true. It just means Newsweek could not substantiate it.î
“”It certainly could be the actions of heated inexperienced staff, and is not particularly severe.”
If the accusation cannot be substantiated—then one is obligated to keep their mouth shut! End of story.
Newsweekís reporters heard a flippant remark about a Koranís pages being flushed down the toilet. They had a responsibility to substantiate the rumor before releasing it to the general public. This, by the way, is taught in Journalism 101. A first year journalism student shouldn’t commit this sort of egregious error. The sad thing is that the Newsweek journalists are well paid professionals and not “heated inexperienced staff.” I seriously doubt if any of them covering our mission in Iraq earn less than a six figure income!
John,
But there is no evidence to believe its actual falsity, just as there a lack of clear evidence substantiating it.
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” – Joseph Welch
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/McCarthyism
Roger,
Newsweek has retracted the story. But that is not good enough. If they want to make amends for the DISINFORMATION they recklessly spread they have only one choice.
NEWSWEEK MUST DISCLOSE THE SOURCES!
Somebody lied or recklessly repeated lies to Newsweek. They have no obligation to protect sources that lie or recklessly repeat lies.
NEWSWEEK MUST DISCLOSE THE SOURCES!
Hmmm.
“It seems a realistic scenario that a Koran is flushed down the toilet. Not because its official policy to do so, but it seems quite realistic actions of heated, inexperienced staff.”
And you have proof of the latter? Or are you just pulling this from some nether region in order to make an otherwise ridiculous argument?
The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the people manning Gitmo are anything but the most professional. Particularly with the massive amount of visibility the facility has in the domestic and international press. Alleging that the Gitmo handlers are “inexperienced” or “heated” without any proof is just an example of a bankrupt position.
So either you have proof, or you’re just talking out your ass.
The irony is that Quran pages were flushed down the toilet…except it was by AQ prisoners trying to flood the cell block. Look it up, John.
The irony is that Quran pages were flushed down the toilet…except it was by AQ prisoners trying to flood the cell block. Look it up, John.
Is it just me, or does this Whitaker seem morally deficient? Here I see no sense that this guy understands that wrong was done. Perception seems to be the key instead.
If you’ve never seen the classic golden-turkey, Ed Wood’s “Plan 9 from Outer Space,” the movie opens with the then-famous “psychic” Criswell (of “Criswell Predicts,” er, fame) giving a talking-head endorsement of the garbage about to follow, which he concludes by asking, portentously, “Can you prove it DIDN’T happen?”
To the editorial staff of Newsweek… when your journalistic integrity has degraded to the level of an alcoholic, cross-dressing exploitation film director, it’s time for firings…
Bostonian: It is not just you. The 3 sentences in the NYT story following the one quoted by Roger is more telling:
“Unlike CBS, we felt we were being extremely forthcoming by publishing all the details and publishing the Pentagon’s denials and saying we committed an error. But then it seemed that people felt like we weren’t apologizing. In order for people to understand we had made an error, we had to say ‘retraction’ because that’s the word they were looking for.”
#1. “We were…forthcoming…by publishing the Pentagon’s denials”
WRONG: There was no denial. What they published was the Pentagon’s LACK of a denial, which all sentient beings should agree is much different.
#2. “We were…forthcoming…by…saying we committed an error”
WRONG: I saw no admission of error in Sunday’s Statement.
#3. “But then it seemed that people felt like we weren’t apologizing.”
CORRECT: People felt that way because there WAS no apology. No form of the word “apology” or “sorry” or “pardon us” to be found in it; just a statment of regret because of the violence that resulted. Guess what? I ALSO regret the violence that ensued, but have nothing for which to be sorry.
#4. “In order for people to understand we had made an error, we had to say ‘retraction’ because that’s the word they were looking for.”
BINGO! To Mr. Whitaker, uttering the word “retraction” is analagous to the poor victim’s yelp of “uncle!” to an arm-twisting bully. At the very least this phrase reveals that Newsweek’s issuance of the retraction had NOTHING to do with journalistic integrity and EVERYTHING to do with cessation of [deserved] pain.”
Advice to Whitaker: Stop while you’re still behind.
I really really liked Jay Rosen’s take on this…
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/05/17/nwsk_err.html
You know, it doesn’t matter if Isikoff trusted his source if his source was so far removed from any actual knowledge.
Roger:
John’s posts are the perfect example of what I originally wrote. They want it to be true so badly that they are performing handstands to continue the myth. They are inventing scenarios, the “inexpierenced guards”, without having any knowledge or facts to back up their opinions. They ignore the release of the carefull and detailed instructions for the guards on the handling of the koran that was printed on one of the previous threads. They buy into to the absurd logic of “well it hasn’t been proven false so I will take it as true” which can be used to justify anything, no matter how stupid. In their minds everything is Abu Ghraib, even though that has been shown to the actions of a handfull of idiots rather then the general attitude of the American Military. But that doesn’t fit into their preconceived worldview so they latch onto any morsel of propaganda, even AFTER it has shown to be false.There have been plenty of proven errors in this war, there are actually facts that can be used to critique the Bush foreign policy, but instaed of using facts to make their case they hold onto these fantasies. A rumour was printed in Newsweek. John buys it because the report says it is going to be released in an official Army report. Perfectly logical thinking. The story is shown to be built on a house of cards and even the authors of the story admit that they blew the story. Does this make John think? Of course not. He will hold on to this because he has faith in the concept, because it fits perfectly into his worldview. Journalism as dogma.
P.S.- I don’t think pajamamedia is Roger’s play toy. I was reacting to what you wrote.
Syl,
Rosen quotes the LA Times quoting an anonymous Newsweek source,
“The issue of how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo has not gone away,” said the journalist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Now they want to deflect that by talking about how irresponsible Newsweek magazine was.”
Well, at the risk of overreacting to the purported words of an anonymous source and rioting in the comments, this guy sounds like an arrogant little t*rd. There is a reason Newsweek is in trouble.
It still boggles my mind that CBS and Dan Rather, of all people tried to stonewall. The old saying about being careful about whom you make your enemy, for you will come to resemble them was never more true.
As for whether a Koran could have been flushed, all I can say is that either the Korans are very small, or the toilets are very big.
Isn’t it obvious that the Koran flushing story is of the “Fake, but accurate” variety?
The Newsweak reporters included this “report” of the Koran being flushed because they wanted it to be true, not because it was true.
I have grave doubts that there even was a “source,” anonymous or not.
If there was, he/she will be of the probity and moral stature of a Bill Burkett.
Newsweak, Isikoff and Barry should be forced to reveal this “source,” if not by public acclaim now, then by an official investigation a la Valeria Plame.
Someone needs to be frog-marched to jail in handcuffs.
And apologies as well as retractions must be issued… to the Arab world, to the American people, to the US military RIGHT NOW.
On reflection, I have a different take on the Rathergate vs Mythical PissKoran matchup. I don’t see Issikoff as a typical Bush basher. Perhaps he set out to embarrass the Bush admin, but certainly if that were his main motive he would have come up with something far more devastating than the PissKoran tale. My hunch is that he came across what seemed like a good scoop, and dropped the ball when it came to verifying his sources.
Quite a bit different from what someone called Mary Mapes’s “Ahab-like” pursuit of Bush’s TANG records over five years, an obsession whose explicit end was to influence the outcome of two elections.
In short, Mapes is not a journalist but a partisan. That’s bad. Issikoff strikes me as a reasonably fair journalist who happened to royally screw up what should have been a trivial story. That’s a lot less bad. A mistake on the order of Bush’s casual slip when he invoked our “crusade” against islamofascism.
Reaction to “retraction” in Pakistan:
“The apology and retraction are not enough,” Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told Reuters. “They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”
In other words, they should understand the sentiments of Muslims, but Muslim journos and clerics needn’t respect those of Americans, Westerners, Christians, and Jews.
In other words, they should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news, but the Muslim/Arab press needn’t think at all before publishing “news”, except how it advances their anti-infidel agenda.
In other words, they should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims, irrational and pathologically shame-fixated though they be.
In other words, they should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims, whether it is true or not.
What hath Newsweek wrought? If we think there is a paucity of critical coverage of Muslim/ Arab culture and politics now, imagine how sparse it’ll be if journalists and news organizations self-censor even more, so as not to offend Muslims. Meanwhile, our media needs to figure out how to smear the US, the Bush administration, and our military without upsetting Muslim sentiments in the process.
Good points, Charlotte, but I dissent from the last one. I don’t think it’s fair to ask “what hath Newsweek wrought” anymore than it would be fair to say that Bush, by letting slip the word “crusade” in 2002, was responsible for the jihadists’ all-too-literal belief in such a crusade. Newsweek screwed up, but this is the equivalent of throwing a packet of matches onto an existing blaze.
Looking forward, the censorship angle is indeed the main one. I think it’s a near-certainty now that we will begin to see every western international news organization provide two or more versions of news, one for a US audience, the other for a Eurabian audience, with each version heavily edited and tailored to the sensitivities and predilections of its intended audience.
thibaud,
Newsweek screwed up, but this is the equivalent of throwing a packet of matches onto an existing blaze.
Yeah, Isikoff doesn’t seem to be that bad a reporter. I would put the blame more on the editors. I am also curious why this story suddenly gained traction, as similar things have been said by released detainees and widely reported in the English papers. Perhaps the flames *were* already there, but not reported.
That said, I am happy to pile on Newsweek, a magazine that I found biased even in the olden days when I was a Democrat. Domestically, this is another go round in the political/culture wars and I think that victory abroad starts with victory at home. I do like the way the White House seems to handle these things: they wait quietly until the media invites in the photographers and stands in the toilet, then they pull gently on the chain.
As to two versions/market-driven journalism, let’s say some idiot guard did trample on a Koran as a way of, shall we say, pissing on his captors. The CNN or Newsweek “international” ie Eurabian version would omit any reference to this, whereas the US version would mention a developing story.
OTOH the US version would bury mention of the Georgie Galloway performance at Coleman’s hearings within the larger OFF story, whereas the Eurabian version would probably lead with the Galloway angle. Eventually, you’ll have separate branding for media properties owned by the same organization: CNN-US and CNN-Eurabia, for ex.
correction to above: captives, not “captors”
repeat after me: SCIMF
thibaud,
Do we really want to draw an equivalency between Bush’s rhetorical use of small c “crusade” with Newsweek’s false or at least unverifiable charges against US Guantanamo personnel? Here’s the difference in effect: while the administration is now more mindful of the words it uses so as not to get caught up in semantic swordplay, it still is vigorously prosecuting its wars of transformation in the Muslim world, and the whole world knows it, including the jihadists.
But, as a result of the reaction to Newsweek’s inflammatory charges, the press may simply be cowed into reporting even less than they do now that is remotely offensive to Muslims. The only wars that our media have been vigorously prosecuting are those against Bush, the military and our country’s efforts, and the whole world will interpret any further sensitivity and self-censorship because of overwrought Muslim sensibilites as a weakness to be exploited against us. Goodness knows, they already see our media’s willingness to damn our government for real, exaggaerated or imagined offensives as an advantage for them to exploit.
Charlotte,
the whole world will interpret any further sensitivity and self-censorship because of overwrought Muslim sensibilites as a weakness to be exploited against us
Maybe, maybe not. The jihadist hard boyz used to think we’re soft– ObL claimed that he brought down the USSR and that we were patsies in comparison– but Bush and Rumsfeld disabused them of that notion.
In any case Bush himself has done a fair amount of self-censoring. Note the obnoxious and repeated references to the “Religion of Peace” and the White Hosue invitations to US muslim “leaders” who happen to be fund-raisers for jihadists and other terrorists.
I won’t bash Bush for this, and I won’t bash Issikoff. They both screwed up, but it ultimately makes no difference to the PR war because that war is practically unwinnable.
The bottom line is that the enemy here is gripped by a primitive and gullible mindset which we have next to no power to alter. We can only adjust what the soviets called “the correlation of forces” and give aid to democratic, moderate muslims where and when we find them.
As to Issikoff, he deserves a slap. He doesn’t deserve a horsewhipping. My view is that neither his nor Bush’s offense by itself is significant or indicative of a deeper malicious intent. Yes, there are journalists who have it in for Bush and who will disregard all standards in their effort to nail him. I see no evidence that Issikoff is one of those, any more than I would attribute to Bush all kinds of sinister, muslimophobic motives because of his “crusade” screwup.
In both cases, someone goofed. In each case, the goof in and of itself was trivial. The jihadists were slaughtering their own as well as the infidels long before Bush’s “crusade” remark, Abu Ghraib, long before the PissKoran fable, and will continue to do so long afterwards.
I won’t bash Bush for this, and I won’t bash Issikoff. They both screwed up, but it ultimately makes no difference to the PR war because that war is practically unwinnable.
I respectfully disagree, thibaud. Bush is waging war against the jihadists and the media is not. We’ll eventually win the PR and military war, but no thanks to our media who are making it a longer and bloodier struggle than it would have been. Our President inauspiciously using the generic form of word “crusade” is not the same “screw up” as Newsweek leveling sacriligious and false charges against our government.
I hear what you’re saying, Charlotte. Perhaps at bottom I agree with you, at least insofar as this strikes me as a tempest in a terlet.
Perhaps I’m suffering battle fatigue. Not fatigue over real battles, like the ones in Fallujah and Ramadi — far from it — but these pseudo-battles on the cultural and PR front. I frankly couldn’t care less about the opinions of people who slaughter others because someone pissed on their holy book. I don’t understand this mindset, I have zero tolerance for it, and I do not wish to drag fellow Americans, of either side of the Great Bush Divide, into the primitives’ twisted game.
My reaction to all this is, even if we had flushed the holiest of holy passages of the holy book down the sh*tter, I wouldn’t particularly care. I wasn’t particularly agitated when a huckster found he could score publicity by stuffing a crucifix in a pissjar, and I see no reason to get outraged about desecrations of the Koran.
Report facts. Speak truths. Kill fascist warriors wherever we can. And treat the politically-correct PR effort like the window dressing it is. The jihadis don’t and won’t believe it, and we shouldn’t waste much time on it either.
Thibaud, FWIW I agree with you in that Issikoff doesn’t seem like an anti-Bush, or at least anti-Republican partisan. I mean, he made his bones by grabbing onto the Lewinsky scandal like a terrier, and he and Lucianne Goldberg double-teamed that one pretty well. I think he’s made a career by being a ‘gotcha’ journalist, and that’s what got him into trouble here. I would note that he at least had the decency to offer his resignation, and it’s Newsweek’s problem that they refused to accept it.
As for the notion that it’s plausible that guards at Gitmo could have desecrated the Koran, we should note that Col. Bay has pointed out on his blog (and Winds of Change, too, independently of Austin Bay) that Al Q operations manuals list spreading inflammatory stories about the infidels as standard operating procedure. This sheds a whole new light on the fact that various Gitmo prisoners have made similar allegations in the past.
What Doug said. Issikoff’s not the bad guy here. The head-hackers and slaughterers are.
I agree totally that Issikoff’s error was one of not partisan zeal but of overreaching for a scoop. It happens and will happen, even, or especially, among good, aggressive journalists. Just as some good surgeons will cut when they shouldn’t and some good investment bankers will overhype certain IPOs from time to time. If Issikoff tendered his resignation for this, then he seems more and more like a winner in my book.
This whole episode is increasing my contempt and disgust for muslim notions of piety. It’s becoming politicized beyond belief, as well: Americans shouldn’t be blaming or lining up behind Newsweek. We should all be asking what the f*** is wrong with these people who lop off heads because someone pissed on a holy book, and whether, and what price, we could ever win over their hearts and minds.
I think it’s time we started getting a bit more tough-minded about the utility of our PR efforts, and not over-react when the faithful go berzerk over this or that slight to their piety.
There is and always be an irreconcilable gap between our rationalist ideals and their holy faith. Can’t close it, never will. This is not to demean the democracy project– for our peace and security, democratic regimes are still more preferable to tyranny in almost all cases– but it is to say that we as a culture need to recognize who the enemy is. It’s radical Islam. I don’t think I’m misreading this when I argue that Issikoff’s on our side.
Perhaps this is the point at which our internal red-blue kulturkampf fervor needs to cool a bit and the nation realizes that whatever our differences, they’re nothing compared to what separates every American, secular or pious, red or blue or purple or chartreuse, from hundreds of millions of extreme Islamist loons around the world. It’s not about Bush, it’s not about Newsweek. It’s about the head-hackers.
So, so right…but go the last step–it’s about whoever is using the head-hackers…the syndicate controlling the equal-to-a-year-of-USA-GDP mountain of dirty money that has piled up since the Me Decade’s oil & drug price/volume superspike.