There’s lots of buzz around the deaths caused by Newsweek’s erroneous anti-American reporting of the unverified anonymous source’s claim of Koran descration at Guantanamo Bay, and editor Mark Whitaker’s response.

But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

Roger L. Simon and Michelle Malkin want to know Isikoff’s source.

Newsweek isn’t saying. Until they report such things as that, I won’t believe a word the magazine says. Why would anybody? - Simon

Newsweek has blood on its hands. Blood on its desks. Isikoff should cough up his source. - Malkin

Black Five guest blogger Cassandra asks rhetorically:

I do not want to see the press muzzled, nor anyone hauled off to jail. But I cannot help but wonder: who was served by publication of this story? In their exercise of that freedom of speech we hold most dear, was there no thought for those who guarantee that right?

Jerry over at Milblog:

I guess there’s a good reason why they figured an unconfirmed rumor need to be spread worldwide. At least, good for THEIR aims. But what’s funny is that the folks they seem to be most sympathetic towards would likely shoot or behead them if they had the chance. And I’m not sure why they don’t seem to realize that.

Neil Shah has a different take, and thinks the criticism of Newsweek is onesided.

John Dunshee:

Isn’t there something in those journalistic ethics you like to pretend to follow about publishing harmful information that you cannot confirm as true? Or does that only apply during Democratic Presidencies?

Our enemies don’t even have to bother putting out propaganda anymore. You guys do it for free.

The Anchoress jumps on board, reiterating the “Newsweek lied. People died.” line.

Got that? No source. No one to back that up, no accountability. Just a tremendously inflammatory rumor thrown into a major news magazine - a rumor that any reasonable person has to know will cause trouble - and not trouble, it must be said, with the supposedly “Theocratic Christians” who are accustomed to seeing their Holy Book DISRESPECTED by some quarters, (not that the press would choose to notice) but from the truly Theocratic Muslims, the ones whom Europe would appease and about whom the left will never find fault, because to do so might actually mean - in their sick, convoluted world of hate - supporting George W. Bush.

Scott at Powerline analyzes the situation and concludes with:

Is this how an elite newsmagazine confesses error and corrects the record when it makes a big mess?

Iowa Voice:

They had to know what would happen if this went public, that it would be a serious setback for the United States in the war, and turn possible friends and allies against us. To me, Newsweek knew exactly what they were doing when they printed this. Inexcusable.

Captain Ed is equally furious.

Remember this when the Exempt Media gets on its righteous high horse and instructs us on their superior system of checks and balances. Newsweek ran an explosive story based on a single, unnamed source that it knew would cause a huge effect on the Muslim world, at precisely the moment when we need to ensure that people understand that we’re not at war with Islam. It’s just a little late to say, “Oops, we’re sorry.” It’s a little late to unring the bell that Newsweek rang with its false story — it’s too late for the nine people who died because Newsweek couldn’t wait to run its story without checking it properly first.

And Marc at the USS Neverdock thinks…

Someone should get fired over this one.

Capitalism. Isn’t it great?

Jay Tea comes close to doing just that, but then defers to John Hinderaker for a bit of a different approach to the same question.

Jay:

Last night, I had a post almost all written out in my head. I was comparing the “insurgents” in Iraq to the Democrats in Washington, and it was not overly kind. The key element is that neither group seems to have any goals or plans or vision of its own, preferring to simply oppose whatever George W. Bush wants or says. Further, since both have failed when confronting him directly, they’ve turned their wrath on those who support him (Iraqi civilians, presidential nominees).

He then links to John’s posted critique of the NYT article, indicating he was beat to the punch.

Hinderaker posted commentary written by Dafydd ab Hugh which takes apart the inherent bias in the question the NYT is asking, namely “What is the goal of the unsurgents?”

The Times assumes that the killers in Iraq are, in fact, “insurgents.” But insurgents have a political plan; no matter how brutal they may be, they see their violence as leading to a political change — the government will be cast out to be replaced by a new government, typically themselves. Thus, they tend to create shadow directorates that mimic the functions of a government; they have spokespeople who explain their political goals; they try to seize territory to prove they can run it better than the current regime, solving for the people there whatever burning issue is driving the insurgency (land distribution, famine, whatever).

His conclusion?

Rather, the best historical precedents are the Aztecs, who turned mere human sacrifice into an art form by killing more and more and more people until they literally may have slaughtered an end to their own empire. Their intent was not to achieve some political goal; they already ruled. Rather, they developed the theological notion that the more people they butchered, the more pleased their bloody gods would be.

With that gloss, the Iraq “insurgency” comes suddenly into crystal-clear focus, like the beginning of the TV show the Outer Limits: the killers in Iraq have no political goal. That is not the point.

The point is to kill. They have invented a whole new kind of murder… they are serial spree killers.

Then Jay comes back around concluding:

While I’m a little annoyed at John for ruining my piece, I’m also a bit grateful to him. I was on the verge of drawing a comparison between the Democrats in Washington and the terrorists in Iraq, and that was a smidgen extreme, even for me. While I think they are myopic, obstructionist, contrarians, deluded, and wrong-headed, (and in a few cases, loathsome and despicable), to compare duly elected American officials with those who torture and behead innocents for no other real reason than to simply get their sick jollies is crossing a line I’d rather not.

The conclusion by Dafydd ab Hugh:

Widen your mind. Let’s not try to shoehorn every “mysterious” event into the gloss of twentieth-century liberal ideas about political revolution and leftist insurgency. In Iraq, we are not fighting Ho Chi Minh; we are fighting modern-day Aztec priests who want to kill their victims for no reason other than to cut their hearts out and offer their bleeding, still beating hearts to Huitzilopochtli… so let us set our strategy accordingly.

As a side note, since Powerline gives no linkage, I’m still trying to figure out who Dafydd ab Hugh is. It’s a bit of unique name in these parts, so assuming this is not the John Smith of another culture that I’m not familiar with, then it appears this may be the science fiction author by the same name.

And while Hugh thinks that a better analogy for Iraq than Vietnam is the Aztecs, Image Thief points to a piece in the NYT by Peter Maass who thinks it’s more like El Salvador.