Copyright 2005 Ben S. Pollock
Sunday, May 22, 2005. So
- … if the International Red Cross says some Americans in some way desecrated the Koran in front of Iraqis, Afghans or other Muslims (with comparable incidents already reported months ago as part of the Abu Ghraib initial and follow-up reports — and now somehow forgotten)
- … and if a British and an American newspaper publish photos of the imprisoned Saddam Hussein naked except for a pair of briefs
- … does Newsweek magazine deserve the derision for reporting an impossibility — flushing an entire book down a toilet with no details like crumbling a page at a time — on the basis of an anonymous but official source?
It’s shooting fish in a barrel, taking photographs of a captured man. Sure Saddam was a butcher, but one who shook hands years ago with current U.S. officials. Would the world regard Stalin in his skivvies differently? The Allies didn’t leak photos of Adolph Eichmann in his longjohns. Or Rudoph Hess — Spandex in Spandau? Am I hosen you? Leder, man.
Here, the photos were taken by someone with access, thus likely an American Authority. And the photos got out. And if the Pentagon and White House only make a Casablanca outcry (Capt. Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”), as they have, it sure sounds like this is a leak meant to be leaked.
If there hadn’t been rioting, Washington never would have demanded a retraction from Newsweek. The magazine would not have known that its source had backed down on the allegation. If violence had occurred over Saddam’s pictures, wouldn’t the Western press face comparable pressure? Oh, yes. -30-
