F-f-fil-l-l-lmo-o-o-ore! Filmore Junior High! N-n-new-s-s-swe-e-e-eek!

So Newsweek is going to the mattresses for Isikoff, huh? Well, that's to be expected. His little venture into reckless disregard of the truth only cost 20 lives or so. I mean, it's not like he misspelled the word "potato(e)" or anything as egregious as that. And c'mon, are we really gonna fire Isikoff when it would make Rumsfeld happy? Not on your Abu Ghraibian keister, Mister!

Here was Newsweek's bitter defense of the indefensible:

"Mike was told he would not be sacrificed, we are standing behind him 100%. We do not, I repeat, do not let this White House, any White House, make our staff decisions for us."

This White House? Nice little Freudian there, eh? ("I mean uh...er...brruh...ANY White House...") You also gotta love the notion that they're saving Isikoff from being "sacrificed". As if he would have to be thrown into a volcanic pit to appease the gods of war. Let's not get crazy here, fellas. He would merely be given his walking papers with retirement compensation and a nice little cash-in on his 401k. As for the White House making your staff decisions, if Newsweek's decline in readership is any indication, maybe it wouldn't hurt to have someone else making the decisions around there.

Here's Isikoff himself:

"The big point that leaps out is the cultural one. Neither NEWSWEEK nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did. The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were. We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications."

The Pentagon didn't move you off the story? So if Rumsfeld had complained, you would have not run the story? But...I thought that guy up there just said that...you don't take orders from this White House? I'm confused. And now suddenly the Pentagon was in on the editorial decisions being made at Newsweek? And they're as much to blame as you are? (If this were a movie I would now turn to the camera and give the audience a rather perplexed "whatchutalkinboutWillis" kind of look). Also, do you really expect us to believe you didn't see the "potential ramifications" for running a piece that claims the U.S. military is flushing Korans down the john? This is Newsweek here, Mikey -- not the Fillmore Junior High Gazette.

Note to the Newsweek editors: Korans in the potty make Muslims mad.

Here's my last take on this story. Don't you find it funny that the media is always willing to give Muslims a free ride on their extremely dangerous fundamentalism? Even if this story were true, don't you find it sad and amusing that Newsweek looked far more disapprovingly on the person who flushed the toilet than on the rabid riots and killing which ensued? Can you imagine if some activist atheist flushed a bible down the toilet and thousands of Christians took to the streets in mob mentality and began killing? Who do you think the media would condemn in that scenario? Hint: It begins with "Chris" and ends in "tians."