The answer is simply to boycott this stuff. If it doesn't sell, the lovely people at Newsweek will get the message and knock it off (we hope). Let 'em know it has jumped the shark, already! For those with subscriptions, though, ...

*Yawn* it's getting boring now... what about photos of Arab regimes - the media would soon keep quiet about Abu Ghraib!

I stopped reading that POS 15 years ago...

Abu Ghraib...

...Abu so yesterday's news.

D. Edgren

Newsweek to me is like Doonesbury: "Oh, is that still around? Yawn."

And Charles must have had his Wheaties today. His posts are coming faster than changes in the Hamas leadership.

In the interest of fairness, though, nothing I have seen or read indicates that the abuse at Abu Ghraib or any other detention facilities in Iraq and/or Afghanistan abated after a single day. To suggest so seems to me more than a bit disingenuous. Personally, I don't mind coverage if it pressures the military into getting its act together to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That said, I find it hard to believe that a) 90% of the individuals detained were hauled in for no good reason and b) that "insurgents" would willingly give up information if asked to do so nicely. I would love to see Amnesty, OxFam, the UN, etc. suggest ways to pry information out of unwilling suspects without subjecting said suspects to at least mild discomfort.

OT, but a great article from Daniel Pipes

Which Muslims in the West support Islamism, which do not?

They might as well just flash "VOTE KERRY YOU STUPID UNNUANCED MORONS" on their covers. The DNC is so far up the "mainstream" media's ass that Tom Brokaw's mumbling is merely Al Gore's hershey-squirt riddled skull pushing up through Tom's throat.

Just hold for next week's "Abu Auschwitz" feature. (That is, unless they decide to run some David Irving feature on how the Holocaust was just a zionist propaganda plot instead...)

Regards, Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

cary strunk: a single day.

Thanks, Charles.

What you said!

D. Edgren

#1 cary strunk
Boycotting this stuff is a good idea, but it is only a start. If you really want to get them to pay attention, write to the advertisers. Go to the slimely smeer article and note the companies in the nearby advertisements. Next write to the CEO's of the companies (no, the CEO will not read it, but it will be noted by somebody) telling them that you found their advertisement next to an article that might not reflect well on the companies values. Please be as polite as possible. You can find the addresses on the internet. Regular postal mail works better than the e-mail for this purpose.

If the companies receive enough mail in this vein, they will say something to the publication. Newspapers and news magazines usually make most of their money through advertising, rather than the cover price, so this sort of campaign is much more effective a boycott.

#10 Charles - woof!! You are incredible!
Whilel it's pretty obvious that Newsweek has a profound bias, it could also be that the reporters and editorial staff simply don't know what truly consitituted a gulag.
While it's important to never underestimate your enemy, it's equally important not to overestimate them, either.
They could simply be ignorant.

Charles--my apologies. I was wrong. This just makes the emphasis placed on this story by the press all the more egregious.

Average Joe: One problem--I don't know who the advertisers are b/c I refuse to buy the magazine in the first place. Guess I'll have to leaf through it at the newsstand. ;)

Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post.

The Washington Post is dealing in:

Journalistic pornography

It is difficult to understand what useful journalistic purpose was served by the new photographs of Iraqi prisoner mistreatment published in Friday's edition of The Washington Post. As The Post itself acknowledged in one of two front-page stories about the pictures, the images do not shed any light on the central question of who directed the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. So The Post, by its own admission, adds no useful information on perhaps the most basic issue in the case.

Weeks before The Post published its photographs, the public was well aware that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were mistreated. So, given the fact that pictures had been published and the legal process against the abusers was already going forward, what did the newspaper hope to achieve by running a new set of graphic, degrading photos of Iraqi prisoners?

Three objectionable possibilities come to mind: 1) to sell newspapers; 2) to damage President Bush politically; or 3) appallingly, to undermine the war effort in Iraq.

Whether the motivation was meretricious, partisan or antiwar, it was meant to excite rather than to elucidate — and thus was journalistic pornography.

17

#15 cary strunk and others
In my message, #12 Average Joe, I was simply taking your (cary's) suggestion and trying to make it more effective. Targeting newspaper and magazine advertising is the most effective way of attacking them. You do not need to buy the paper or magazine to write to the advertisers. A grass roots, guerilla campaign against the bias in the main stream media could do alot of good, if done intelligently. My message is one tactic for making our attacks more effective. I would be interested in hearing other such tactics.

Too bad these same rags weren't posting pics of muslims' torturing innocents all these years and just turned their backs and focus on some indiscretions that happened in one day. Did you see the blood bath in that complex in Kobar--word is that they went around slashing throats. And these same people get their skirts in a knot over wearing panties on their heads??? I can understand why the soldiers did it--if they respect muslims as little as I do. I'd like to piss on them.

[Link: www.sotaliraq.com...]

What new aspect of this story has come out since day 1?

None.

Yet, it still remains "news" with a number of media sources - for the only purpose of continuing the propaganda and bashing.

This is as pathetic as the NY Times Ombudsman criticizing paper over Iraq.

No, it's not what we would think - criticizing the paper over it's slanted coverage and Bush bashing - but criticizing the paper over it's falling for the "cunning campaign" to convince people that Iraq had WMD - since it is clear that Iraq didn't have WMD (to those who don't read the Kay reports, or subsequent reports, or understand UNSC 1441, or believe that almost a gallon of sarin in an unmarked artillery shell isn't a WMD.

The credibility of much of the US mainstream media is being shattered almost daily with the continuation of the biased reporting. NY Times is now positioned to be completely discredited if any more WMD are found of Saddam's - and Newsweek is rapidly achieving the same with its coverage of the war.

In terms of the use of the word gulag - they knew very well what the term means - and IMHO - used that term specifically to cause the maximum amount of embarassment to the Administration.

If magazines had voices this one would be Howard Dean!! or maybe AlGore after his last rant in front of the commies!!!

All this Abu Ghraib thing is making news when the following are being all but ignored...

Arab militia use 'rape camps' for ethnic cleansing of Sudan

Islamic leaders abroad have been particularly shameful in standing with the Sudanese government oppressors rather than with the Muslim victims in Darfur. Do they care about dead Muslims only when the killers are Israelis or Americans?

...in Paris, a 12-year-old girl coming out of a Jewish school was attacked by two men. They beat her, held her down and slashed her face with a box cutter. They carved a swastika into her face and walked away.

#21 bigel

Yeah, but (heh heh), the advertisers don't know that.

#23 Nannette

Sick. Why are Jew-haters such cowardly scabs?

I'd like to see those two try to do that with *ONE* IDF man. He's wrap their intestines around their heads and drop them in the Seine...

Hiya TQC... I felt sick when I read that - and also when I read about the latest in Sudan... :-(

Of course these cowards wouldn't be able to take on any man, let alone one of the IDF!

Islamists are famed worldwide for their attacks un women, children, the elderly and unarmed... they're just cowards in the extreme, LOL.

They're called terrorists, because they go around in gangs and prey on innocents, but you'd never see them individually taking on a real man - it just wouldn't happen!

I just hope the Jews in France all move away and take their assets with them, leaving the Islamist scroungers to suck France dry...

The wonderful thing about the liberal media is that it makes the libs confuse the map for the territory. They honestly think all this prison nonsense has traction in the country, simply because it plays well inside their cocoon. They have a big surprise coming, methinks.

Mark Steyn said similar things a while back.

OT, but showing more Lefty media bias:

Bikers Roll to White House to Praise Bush

Let's start with the obligatory "Bush Hid from 'Nam in the Texas ANG" rant:

The group endorsed Bush in 2000 over Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites), a Vietnam veteran. This year, they chose Bush, who served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam, over John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated veteran of the same war who is also a motorcycle enthusiast.

Followed up by how Bush doesn't want to spend any money on these very veterans who support him:

The Kerry campaign said Bush's proposed budget cuts would affect veterans.
"It's pretty audacious of the president to brag about looking the leaders of Rolling Thunder in the eye considering that his most recent veterans initiative is a secret plan to cut almost $1 billion from the Veterans Affairs," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said.

So, what did we learn from the Associated Press today?
Gore: Vietnam veteran.
Kerry: decorated Vietnam veteran, biker.
Bush: draft dodger with secret plan to cut funding and hurt veterans

In this meantime, is this a case of bioterrorism, a new, virulent strain of MRSA hit the streets of NYC???

locutus (#30),

That one's almost as bad as this article from UPI.

#31 Nannette

No, but it's really bad news ...

IF, Heaven Forbid, a WMD attack by al Qaeda ever happens on our soil, and the President were forced to clamp down on the Media...Newspeak would be the first to go!

Or would all those liberal rags go down all at once?

It's unheard of previously just to contract MRSA on skin contact alone!

#35 Nannette

True, but that bug's been evolving for many years.

newsweak is a tabloid

Newsweak
Newspeak
Loseweek
Snoozeweek (Nod to Bob Dylan on that last one)...

I'm enjoying this!

#36 Thom™

That's true. Staph aureus wasn't as bad in the 70's...

#32 Geepers

I loved this part:

If Bush capitalizes on the sentiment at least among Rolling Thunder membership, he may neutralize one of Kerry's greatest assets -- combat experience.

Well, I guess if there are any Viet Cong running around D.C. in January 2005, theoretically Kerry would have the advantage over Bush if they launched an attack on the Rose Garden or Lincoln Bedroom.

Funny, though, military service, nevermind combat experience, wasn't a prerequisite for the presidency according to Clinton supporters in 1992 and 1996..including John Kerry himself.

#30 Locutus

My guess is that most of these biker vets don't bother to read garbage from Al-Associated Press.

Newsweek say they have new photos and then display te ones we've all seen. Even the Bush haters must be disappointed.

Everyone will see this as junk.

locutus (#40),

Go figure, huh.

And where do you put "Combat Experience" on you resume? And what good is it exactly? Unless you need someone for combat duty?

For quite some time, I was willing to give the media the benefit of the doubt. Silly me. As many here have probably surmised by my previous posts, I like to hear all sides of every issue before making up my mind. Still, this is beyond the pale. I finally realized that the fix was in when there was virtual media silence on the sarin found in iraq. The stories provided in post #23 blow my mind. Why people who are in a position to spread information like that choose to sit on it blows my mind. //reads Fred Barnes' piece on Pew Center polls in Weekly Standard// So THAT'S why...

preview is my friend. Substitute "is an anathema to me" for the second "blows my mind". There. Now I look halfway literate...

#35 Nannette

It's unheard of previously just to contract MRSA on skin contact alone!

No, MRSA moves very well. Those with a compromised immune system (ie: cancer patients during chemo) are especially susceptible. Hospitals have a horrible time with it, and are probably the easiest places to get it. It's damn near impossible to get rid of once it sets into an area.

If you're healthy, you'll probably never know you have it, at least with the common strain. If not, you're sure to hear about it, and you'll get used to having everyone you see wearing masks, gloves and gowns.

MRSA sucks.

Here is, so help me, some good news for once, and it actually comes from (gasp) al-Reuters!

Yet again, many thanks to a true friend, Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi!

#49 NY Nana

"The real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was Saddam Hussein -- and he was found."

Bless him. Thank you. Let's hope Italy doesn't go the way of Spain in the upcoming election. Let's also hope they don't get hit.

Tonight's prayer: May the Italian police be blessed with both wisdom and luck.

know what's sad? i used to buy newsweek because they are the most centrist of the week-lies. except for cw, they actually allow a bit of dissent in the form of george will et al. but every time i pick it up it reads more like time...

You ask where the "Gulag" reference came from?

Al Gore's recent speech to MoveOn.org:

"Private Lynndie England did not make the decision that the United States would not observe the Geneva Convention. Specialist Charles Graner was not the one who approved a policy of establishing an American Gulag of dark rooms with naked prisoners to be "stressed" and even - we must use the word - tortured - to force them to say things that legal procedures might not induce them to say."

It's called "yellow journalism".

I wuvved what amritas uvaaca (sez):

I spend $0.00 on local newspapers and cancelled my subscriptions to 'news' magazines. Why fund ads you don't believe in? Why raise my blood pressure? I could write my own 'paper' for free using either of two approaches:

A. Stick my head in the sand and write about American Idol (a show I've never watched in my life). Who's Nick Berg? Isn't 911 just a phone number?

B. ABU GHRAIB ABU GHRAIB ABU GHRAIB ABU GHRAIB!!

#12 Average Joe:
"...Go to the slimely smeer article and note the companies in the nearby advertisements. Next write to the CEO's of the companies ... telling them that you found their advertisement next to an article that might not reflect well on the companies values. Please be as polite as possible..."

I'm not feeling very polite. If you or someone else could write such a letter and post it, noting the companies who advertised near the slimy smear article, I would be more than happy to paste in onto my stationary, sign it and send it, as I suspect many others would, too. I would even change it a bit to make it more personal if that is ok with you or whoever writes it.

America's defeat sells advertising. A victorious coalition sounds so boring; it won't upset readers and watchers enough, so it won't get market share. I think much of the media, both stateside and in Europe, has a vested interest in America's (and Europe's) defeat, if only because defeatism sells newspapers and gains ratings.

Look at it this way -- how many soap operas don't have awful things happening in them? Hearst newspapers incited the Spanish-American war and sold lots of newspapers. Then, when the war "bogged down" in the Philippines, Hearst newspapers turned against the war and sold lots of newspapers.

Right, so for the entire duration of Saddam's regime Abu Graib was a place of mutilation, decapitation, and murder, and the left never said a thing.

But now, a few Iraqi's are humiliated and it's the end of the world.

#50 Powderfinger

PM Berlusconi has been a true friend through all of it. I believe that the Italians are not that happy about being involved. I think he will stay with the US, and, like President Bush, and hopefully PM Blair, not surrender like Frawnce and Spain.

Truthfully, every time any military are killed, it hurts so much, but this is a job that must be done. There is no alternative, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any country that lives under the repression of the RoP, even though the last thing sadamn was is religious. And remember those 2 sons ,who never looked better than on this site

Warning: the above is very graphic.

If having an unatractive skol chewing hillbilly woman have sex in front of these jihads makes them crack and tell us ital info, then hell yeah. Let do it more.
We got lot's more wymen folk like Lindy and they would love to help their country ( just don't forget the southern comfort and a pack of marboros. for their trouble)

Most of the Abu Ghraib abuses took place in a single day, and the few soldiers responsible are already being brought to justice.

rotflmao
rotflmao

Yea, One day everything was orderly and the next you have hooded piles of naked prisoners, prisoners being beaten and attacked with dogs. Thats so far from the realm of realistic its not even funny.

So all they got was from a roll of film or memory card from one day, that in no way indicates it was isolated. Did all 7-9 murders of inmates also occur on that one day and at Abu Ghraib??? Not to mention the other what 20-30 questionable deaths?

Then we get more of the completely morally bankrupt argument that because the the muslim extremeists are worse(I agree they are worse) none of the things we do matter. We don't need to do the right thing because look at what the enemy does. That may apply on the battlefield sometimes but not in a prison.

Right, so for the entire duration of Saddam's regime Abu Graib was a place of mutilation, decapitation, and murder, and the left never said a thing.

Then moronic stuff like this is stated. Liberal groups such as AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL have been speaking out about abuse and torture in Iraq for years. But I guess if its not in Newsweek then idiots can't find it.

Here is the first paragraph of their 1995 report on Iraq.

Thousands of suspected government opponents and their relatives were detained during the year and tens of thousands arrested in previous years continued to be held. Among them were prisoners of conscience. Torture remained widespread and new punishments were introduced by law involving the mutilation of criminal offenders. The fate of many detainees arrested during the year remained unknown and the cases of thousands of detainees who ''disappeared'' in previous years remained unresolved. The scope of the death penalty was widened significantly and unknown numbers of judicial and extrajudicial executions were carried out. Widespread human rights abuses were committed in areas of Iraqi Kurdistan under Kurdish control, including arbitrary arrests, torture and deliberate and arbitrary killings.

[Link: www.amnestyusa.org...]

Decent liberal organizations criticise ANYONE who they see doing wrong. They aren't blinded by idiotic pride or nationalism!

Re. no. 60, "liberal jew hater"

The "right thing to do" is to destroy terrorists, period. My arguement about that prison business is not that we tortured terrorists (which we have a perfect right to do, under international law) but that we are not torturing them enough, and in fact, due to PC studpidity, we are releasing them.

Torturing and if necessary executing terrorists is necessary to save American lives. If that is morally unacceptable to you, too bad.

Newsweek is a central part of the liberal media. Its editors and correspondents are Democrat party activists who will lie, cheat and steal to win this election. They are openly, actively and consciously conspiring with other members of the elite media to that end. Please read this article.

One of the attendees at that meeting wrote a book last year in which he claimed that there was no such thing as a liberal media. Did I say they were willing to lie?

To # 63...Great post Robert ... and sadly true!!

You know the sad part is years ago I would have said you were committing hyperbole and over reacting...

My eyes too have been opened to the treasonous Press of North America and Western Civ in general...

And it has been going on at least since Vietnam...remember Uncle Walters treasonous lies about Tet???

Damn these wicked people!!

#60 Aw what the hell I haven't fed one yet

With that nick, I see progress. Thanks for being so forthcoming.

the censors are working overtime

It sucks when your nice post is lost because those in charge don't want your ideas to get out.

#62 darthmaul

My arguement about that prison business is not that we tortured terrorists (which we have a perfect right to do, under international law) but that we are not torturing them enough, and in fact, due to PC studpidity, we are releasing them.

Yes not wanting innocent people to get tortured is PC stupidity. The military itself admits that about 90% of the prisoners are innocent. Tortureing some iraqi you picked up off the street is alot different than tortureing a convicted terrorist.

If that is morally unacceptable to you, too bad.

Well you can send your mom over to my house, I have a surprise for her. If that is morally unacceptable to you, too bad.

FYI, I am in the USA. hahahaha
You can't write me off as a euro socialist. hahaha

Robert
Your article proves nothing, it would be easy to come up with a list of media bigwigs Bush has in his back pocket also. Like Rupert Murdoc, one of the most powerful media owners in the world.

There really is no liberal bias in the media, there may be a slight liberal bias on social issues but there is a conservative bias on fiscal issues.

#68

No liberal bias in the media? Wow... Denial is truly more than just a river in Egypt... Perhaps you are right about the "bias" stuff, as most of the big media outlets have gone into full left-wing propaganda mode... Biased is a kind way of describing ABD, CDS, NBC and CNN. Degenerate, America hating hacks would be accurate.

Anybody know where can I get some good crisp images from Abu Ghraib? I really need a new screen saver.

FYI, I am in the USA. hahahaha
You can't write me off as a euro socialist. hahaha

Doesn't change the fact that you're a first-class asshole.

What's wrong with these journalists? They're not being propaganda slags for the Neocons like you. How does it feel on the bottom?

A big part of the problem is that so much of the world has a nanosecond attention span and is totally ignorant of history. The big whiners never learned obviously, what really constitutes crimes against humanity, nor have they bothered to read about the Holocaust, Nazis, or communism. They want it all bite-size.

The people like Sontag, Dowd, Friedman, Chompsky et all are so jaded-so decadent. They live in the most free society ever, and hate themselves so much that any modicum of rational thinking and morality that they have is turned upside down and then drained from their bodies.

#68

There really is no liberal bias in the media

You are totally insane if you think there is no liberal bias in media. Or-you are a journalist. Or both. And your nic is a bit irksome IMHO.

Relax. The U.N.'s intrepid Human Rights Commission is coming to the rescue:

The U.N. Human Rights Commission will release a report this week assessing the state of Iraqis' civil rights under the Coalition Provisional Authority, a potentially critical accounting that could undermine U.S. authority on the commission and ignite renewed revulsion over Abu Ghraib.

[Link: www.washtimes.com...]

As I have said before, you can thank your fellow little green footballs for the nic. Since my first incarceration was locked out, I adopted this name as a premptive stirk against the numerous and active name callers posting here. It seems to have worked somewhat. Except I still get locked out at every opportunity. Guess there are some ideas the powers that be just don't want the masses to hear.

They live in the most free society ever, and hate themselves so much that any modicum of rational thinking and morality that they have is turned upside down and then drained from their bodies.

Its not about hate at all, its about love. They love their country enough to actually stand up and try to have it do the right thing. They actually believe we should be guided by morals and principles.

The big whiners never learned obviously, what really constitutes crimes against humanity

I see this argument here over and over. Because we better than the nazi's(i agree) and better than the islamic fundamentalists(i agree) then our actions don't matter. The only moral code that matters is that we are better than them. I find such sentiments sickening and against everything I believe America stands for.

You are totally insane if you think there is no liberal bias in media. Or-you are a journalist. Or both.

No, I for one believe that much of the media is to far to the right. The whole basis of the western democracyies IS LIBERALISM. Sorry to burst your bubble, but conservatism is the opposite. The islamic fundamentalists are the mosty extreme of conservatism.

I'm sick of liberal being a dirty word.

1. What is a liberal?

The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"; "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties"; "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends.

[Link: homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk...]

Re: Abu Grubby

There are many on the left coast that pay big bucks to be treated in the manner of the prisioners. They know that they deserve humiliation and they are willing to buy it.

Yes. But 'liberalism' was hijacked by collectivists and progressives (thats possibly redundant). You cannot simultaneously be collectivist (i.e. socialist, communist, etc...) and 'liberal' (individualist).

Classical liberals, which you refer to, are represented by modern conservatives and libertarians- today's right.

Today's liberals are highly illiberal.

And that stupid stump about 'conservative' being against the values we were founded on, just give it up.

I and most righties are closer to classical liberalism than today's left, and you would best be labeled as 'progressive'.

Here's the New York Times contribution to "Prison Abuse 2004":

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Which extends across 3 posts (there were actually too many NY Times front page prison headlines to fit into a single post).
 

Classical liberals, which you refer to, are represented by modern conservatives and libertarians- today's right.

I agree with you to a large extent about libertarians, but not by Bush conservatives thats for sure. They are extremely FAR from libertarians. I used to consider myself a libertarian republican, but the party has gone so far from that ideal its not even funny.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties"

Somebody forgot to inform Ashcroft on this one, maybe before he threw Tommy Chong in jail for selling Bongs. Forget about the terrorists, we need to get Chong.(crazy)

"favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"

Maybe if prayer in schools and government funding of religious institutions is your idea of progress. I'd say thats closer to the Talebans ideals of progress.

"open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."

rotflmao
Yea that represents the Bush/Ashcroft crowd all right!!

You cannot simultaneously be collectivist (i.e. socialist, communist, etc...) and 'liberal' (individualist).

To an extent you can. Its beyond the scope of the discussion right now but it is possible to strike a balance. Thats what we have right now anyways. We basically have socialism, but its primarily supporting the rich.

#78, I think you are looking for democraticunderground.com, where you find countless other Bush-haters, Ashcroft-haters, and other communist apologists/lovers like yourself.
 

Isn't it boring to sit around and talk to people who agree with you? Why even say anything? Are you just out in search of some ego boosting praise?

apologist, i love that term.

And yes I will always be an apologist for any innocent person who is being unjustly persecuted. Be it at the hands of Al Quida or at the hands of the US government.

Isn't it boring to sit around and talk to people who agree with you?

Most people who demonize Bush, Ashcroft, and capitalism are simply not very bright.

However, there are lots of DUmmies at democraticunderground.com who share your hatred of America's leaders, government, and culture.
 

And yes I will always be an apologist for any innocent person who is being unjustly persecuted.

Oh how noble.

There's some stupid talk show on the BBC every week where a bunch of lefty international journalists sit around agreeing with each other about how bad Bush and America are. There's always one American on the panel as well who also joins in the group wank. Last week he was from Newsweek.

"And yes I will always be an apologist for any innocent person who is being unjustly persecuted. Be it at the hands of Al Quida or at the hands of the US government. " -- 80

Given your concern for the unjustly persecuted, you must be particularly grateful that Iraq has been liberated from a mass murderer.

That dog won't hunt --- Dates on photos show two phases of abuse

I had the pleasure of cancelling a subscription to Newsweak months ago. Wish I could again.