Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newsweek Offices Protest Report (May, 16, 2005)
Newsweek Freep Action | May 16, 2006

Posted on 05/16/2005 4:30:59 PM PDT by TFine80

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: SkyPilot
The first things that strikes you is: the damn signs are in English...The second thing that strikes you is: which issue do you guys want? Bush to apologize ???? (for a story that isn't true--as stated by the first sign!)

#1: The guy on the left, I've seen him in other news photos. He or one of his buddies shows up wearing a dirty/smelly nightshirt whenever there are signs in English or some protester catches himself on fire after torching a US flag.


Can you just imagine the stench emanating from all those armpits? Ewwwwww.

#2: Yes. Because it could have happened, and it's Bush's fault!


61 posted on 05/18/2005 6:30:42 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: boop
They should agree to turn over the "anonymous source" who made up the lie. Why is he being protected?

Interesting question, let's speculate. Remember in Rathergate when CBS claimed their 4 faxed memos were backed by "um impeachable sources"? It turned out that there was only 1 source, Bill Burkett, a wackjob twice committed to stays in mental hospitals, and who was also a rabid left-wing Democrat that had been after the Bush family for over 30 years. "Impeachable", my derriere!

Whatever source they had in the Pentagon was obviously a flake because even Newsweek said that on further questioning he/she couldn't back up his/her Koran flushing story.

They hung their whole story on one person that couldn't verify his/her claim afterward, and Newsweek claimed that they had earlier approached two other "sources" for confirmation, but one "source" wouldn't answer, and the other denied it. And those jackasses still ran with the story.......they must have wanted it really bad.

62 posted on 05/18/2005 2:50:04 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xJones

Exactly what I thought of. CBS protected the source, even though they were deceived. Why? No doubt that in both of these cases the source will turn out to have links to the democrats.


63 posted on 05/18/2005 6:36:54 PM PDT by boop (Testing the tagline feature!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: TFine80

Great Freepin!!! Thanks for speakin' and freepin'.


64 posted on 05/19/2005 7:52:55 PM PDT by harpo11 (Only You Can Stop Dems Unprecedented Filibuster Against A President's Duty to Appoint Judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson