and the point should have been clear to you even the reference was not.
Not completely ignore, but you have to figure what its worth is as evidence of the intent of those rioting, and for that it's not too high. You on the other hand seem to ignore what was said by others, like Hamid Karzai, Lawrence DiRita, General Myers, and General Eikenberry, as I linked elsewhere, saying they didn't think Newsweek was the cause, but troublemakers used the riots for their own violent ends.
Michael Isikoff, the author of the article, wrote the Lewinsky article that was "torpedoed". He wrote another that would have broken the Paula Jones story that the Washington Post didn't publish, so he was not a member of any Clinton fan club. I don't know why any of these stories were spiked, or why this one wasn't.
I AM NOT SAYING NEWSWEEK DID NOTHING WRONG. I'm saying we don't know enough yet to make a judgment, and we sure don't know enough to prescribe a punishment. And I don't see myself as the one full of excuses here. Just keep polishing those apples and posting your increasingly feeble rationalizations, plus the occasional downright falsehood. Besides, you've shown often enough you never listen to anyone who disagrees with you anyway, so I doubt I'll notice a difference. |
