February 02, 2007

"Screw Them" Again, or Set-Up?

Curt over at Flopping Aces found this little gem in the comments to William Arkin's blog entry which labeled American military personnel mercenaries:

We know that Kos has issued forth the words "Screw them" in the past when talking about the four private security contractors that were killed in Fallujah in 2004, hung from a bridge, and their bodies burned beyond recognition.

He even claimed to be proud of it... while trying to hide it.

But has Kos now gone so far as to agree with Arkin that all American soldiers are mercenaries, worthy of death?

Somehow I think that statement would be a "bridge too far," even for Kos.

Update: Fraud confirmed. I blame Diebold.

Update: Charles Johnson has a few thoughts on the subject as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:07 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Cincinnati: Best Place to be a Vigilante

So a 77-year-old Minnesota farmer and local Township Board member by the name of Kenneth Englund has been charged for taking the law into his own hands, chasing down a thief and holding him at gunpoint until police arrived.

A lot of us would like to do what the farmer did in this case, or are at least supportive of such actions, but civilians are simply not allowed to do what this man did.

As the sherrif said:

Sheriff Mike Ammend said people can't take the law into their own hands, and that Englund's actions were "an invitation to a shootout. There's so many things that could have gone wrong here."

Englund has been charged with second-degree assault.

Which brings me back to this.

Paul Hackett did almost the exact same thing in Ohio. The man who drove through his yard has already been sentenced.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters decided not to charge Hackett.

Apparently, vigilante justice is just fine in Hamilton County.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Martyr

Michael Yon offers a powerful account of the last act of a selfless Iraqi civilian in his latest dispatch, The Hands of God.

This is the kind of story you will not likely hear uttered by the New York Times or the Associated Press.

This is the caliber of the people that liberals would abandon to terror.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:39 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Appropriate Responses

William Arkin has garnered quite a bit of heat for some of his comments in a blog entry posted earlier this week that labeled those who wear the uniform of the American military "mercenaries," and stated, "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform..."

It was, in a word, disgusting.

Yesterday, Arkin offered up a response to the immense blowback his previous post generated, and Arkin, much to his dishonor, chose to single out the most angry responses to his initial post, while utterly refusing to engage the most thoughtful ones. In some ways, his response was more outrageous than his initial post, apparently labeling those serving in our nations military as fascists:

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

A very interesting point about his response was that it was not posted on his blog's main page; it was only available through a direct hyperlink. Was Arkin or WPNI (Washington Post Newsweek Interactive, the company running Washingtonpost.com) attempting to hide the post?

By early this morning, another oddity occurred: The second post was back on Early Warning, but as a sharp-eyed reader of Stephen Spruill's Media Blog noted:

Hmm, this is interesting. Now there's a third post sandwiched *between* the other two, offering a somewhat more sincere (but halfhearted, frankly) apology for the use of the term "mercenary".

That post simply wasn't there before, even when the "Arrogant and Intolerant" post was added to the table of contents.

By my account, the apology *followed* his second tirade. But now it's showing up before it. Is Mr. Arkin trying to reorder the timeline here, to make it look like his detractors are blowing right past it?

Sure enough, that is exactly what I found when I checked Arkin's blog around 9:00 AM, but minutes later, the posts had flip-flopped with his third screed now posted in a correct chronology.

I don't know if Arkin was playing as fast and loose with the posting order and the transparency of these articles as he played with the pejorative statements he aimed at our military in not one, but two separate posts, but it does bear asking.

On another front in this discussion, some bloggers are calling for a boycott of the Washington Post's advertisers over Arkin's inflammatory (and to my mind, unnecessarily vicious and indefensible) attacks, and still others are calling upon the Washington Post to flatly fire Arkin for expressing these opinions.

I don't agree with either approach.

Arkin is entitled to his apparent contempt for the military, and has the right to share his opinion, no matter how offensive we find it to be. If Arkin was misrepresenting facts, that would be another case entirely, but his posts were clearly opinion pieces.

That said, Arkin's rants—and I feel that his specific, intentional and acknowleged choice of wording justifies the term "rant"—along with the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts should be reviewed by both pundits and the Washington Post itself as two separate, but related issues.

The purpose of Arkin's blog Early Warning is stated to be this:

Starting Sept. 14, Early Warning will report daily on the comings and goings of the national security community -- military, special ops, intelligence, homeland security -- part blog, part investigative journalism (a jog!). Here I can post documents, go into great detail, stick with a story when others have moved on, and introduce one that has escaped the mainstream media.

There's no question that The Washington Post is mainstream media, but in this space of theirs, I'll have more freedom. Still, I won't fudge facts or feed an even more confused and conspiratorial picture of the secret agencies.

My basic philosophy is that government is more incompetent than diabolical, that the military gets way too much of a free ride (memo to self: Don't say anything bad about the troops), and that official secrecy is the greatest threat citizens actually face today.

Earlier this year, I wrote a book -- Code Names -- that not only lays out my views on secrecy, but also provides the goods (and thanks friends for keeping code names coming). As you'll find out, I'm an obsessive compulsive kind of collector - acronyms, code names, nomenclatures, events, dates, documents. For 30 years I've been putting together little pieces of information to try to produce the BIG PICTURE.

Early Warning is an opportunity to put my stockpiles to good use. As I dig into the hundreds of documents already in my possession, I'll be looking for your comment and dissent (and for those of you with your own stockpiles, for your contributions). I know I'm writing mostly for a hyper-informed world of national security geeks, but my larger objective is a more informed public and to demolish false authority, in government, in the special interests, and in the media. My target list, frankly, is too vast to even summarize. I also hope to have some fun in writing without the straitjacket of traditional journalistic conventions.

Calling those in our military "mercenaries," stating that we have "indulged" them through "every rape and murder," only to later imply they are fascists in a follow-up post, shows that Arkin has clearly failed in his memo to himself: "Don't say anything bad about the troops."

This is a failure on Arkin's part, but we all fail or contradict ourselves at some point if we write long enough; human beings are, unfortunately, often hypocritical beasts. If any blogger feels that they have not been hypocritical or contradictory at some point they are simply deluding themselves. This alone is not a firing offense. All he is sharing is an opinion, though an unpopular one.

What perhaps the Washington Post should perhaps consider in the future is whether or not Arkin is the best person to continue writing this particular blog. It seems quite possible that this series of rants has created an adversarial relationship with the very national security community he was apparently hired to cover. It might be that because of his opinions, he has poisoned the proverbial well, and that the editors of the Washington Post may find that his stated opinions have made him unsuited to continue this particular assignment. That decision, I hasten to add, is completely and wholly a decision to be made by the editors of the Washington Post. He either retains his ability to do his job effectively, or he doesn't, and that can only be determined by his future performance. If the editors determine in the future that his ability to continue in this position has been diminished, perhaps they will opt to find another person of equal or greater ability to continue writing on this subject, but in no way should Arkin's employment by the Washington Post be determined purely for the opinions stated in these two posts.

The separate but related issue of the rather questionable re-ordering and obfuscation of his posts is another matter entirely.

If it can be reasonably determined that this was merely a technical issue or an honest mistake by either Arkin or someone at WPNI, then this is quite understandably something that can be forgiven. If however, it is determined that Arkin or someone else purposefully kept his second post from appearing on the front page of Early Warning, or if someone purposefully re-ordered the post order to intersperse his second response in order to make his critics appear harsh, or unforgiving, then we are discussing an ethical matter which may require a more immediate and permanent response.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

It takes a Rodent to Know a Rodent

Punxsutawney Phil has emerged from his burrow and predicted and early spring. I can only surmise this means an early end to Chuck Hagel's presidential aspirations.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:37 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 01, 2007

Time to Purge

If there was ever a good time to consider purging elements of the Iraqi government that many see as being "in bed" with al-Sadr's militia and Iran, this might qualify (via Greg Tinti).

Two senior Iraqi generals are being questioned in connection with last week's attack in Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead, Pentagon officials told FOX News Thursday.

Military officials also said the level of sophistication of the attack — where militants posed as U.S. soldiers to pass a number of security checkpoints — suggested possible Iranian involvement.

The assault was carried out by nine to 12 militants wearing new U.S. military fatigues and traveling in black GMC Suburban vehicles — the type used by U.S. government convoys. U.S. officials said the imposters had American weapons and spoke English.

The raid, as explained by Iraqi and American officials, began after nightfall at about 6 p.m. on Jan. 20, while American military officers were meeting with their Iraqi counterparts on the main floor of the Provisional Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala.

The Pentagon said the investigation into the attack is ongoing and several Iraqis have been detained for questioning.

Because high-level generals were possibly involved, the Pentagon said, it raises questions about the loyalty and trustworthiness of Iraqi military officers at the highest levels.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the possibilty that the Karbala attack did involve the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps as some have suggested, and that these two Iraqi generals are in fact in some way complicit in this attack.

If this is indeed the case, then this would seem to be a case of treason by these two generals. A great deal of interest will be paid in seeing how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki deals with this situation, and if he is judged to mishandle it, it could be very detrimental to his government. Many already feel that al-Maliki is far too cozy with the Madhi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr, and are critical of his apparent disinterest in Iran's involvement within Iraq.

Should al-Maliki fail here, his government stands to lose trust already wearing thin.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

That Second America Comes with Gated Access

Recently Democratic Presidential candidate and North Carolina's non-favorite son drew quite a bit of grumbling for his $6 million, 29,000 sq/ft estate outside of Chapel Hill.

As noted at National Review Online: "There Are Two Americas; John Edwards' New House Takes Up Almost All of One Of Them" (h/t Instapundit).

But where is Edward's Other America?

According to the N&0 article cited above, it's here:

Welcome to Figure Eight Island.

According to Figure8Island.com:

Cross the private bridge to Figure Eight Island and you'll find a peaceful, seaside haven with sparkling blue waters and miles of sandy white beach. Nature lovers will delight in the endless occasions for bird watching, shell seeking and quiet strolls along the shore. And sports enthusiasts will discover ideal conditions for everything from kayaking and windsurfing to biking and tennis.

But the real beauty of this tranquil island lies in what you won't find...like hotels, shopping centers, traffic and tourists! With only 441 homes (and no condos!), this five-mile, 1,300-acre island offers the best of both worlds...a serene private oceanfront community just minutes from all the exceptional amenities of Wilmington, NC and Wrightsville Beach, NC.

You've got to love that private bridge. It helps keep those "Two Americas" separate... but equal, I'm sure.

We don't have picture identifying Edwards private island luxury beach estate, but we do know that it is quite cramped at only 2,778 sq/ft, and very economical, with a tax value of just $1.03 million.

Here's picture of the neighborhood.

Nice Ferrari.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Changing Opinions

It seems that WaPo blogger William Arkin has created quite the firestorm with the most recent entry to his Early Warning blog, where he labeled those brave members of our military mercenaries, and suggested "it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people" and their opposition to winning the war in Iraq. Arkin also said that our soldiers should be grateful that the American people still support and respect them, and send them "obscene amenities."

I can only assume Arkin means such "obscene amenities" as body armor, bullets and MREs. I can hear the new Marine recruiting slogan now:

"The Few. The Proud. The Pampered."

I guess that is why Parris Island is considered quite the four-star resort. Allow me to introduce you to your leisure-time directors.

Why, it's just like a Disney vacation.

And so while my friends in the blogosphere have a slight difference of opinion with Mr. Arkin, let me suggest that getting angry with him is not the way to get him to change his opinion. In fact, he's libel to get quite defensive, and become even more firmly ensconced in his beliefs, which I've heard rumor that he first acquired while a Greenpeace activist, when other GPers once sent him to spend the evening on a cold, isolated beach to protect nearby sea-going mammals from the particularly evil U.S. Navy sport of "whale-tipping," before leaving him to go to a party in town. That Arkin's disgust for the military has only hardened since that night, where he was traumatically assaulted by a male sea lion, is perfectly understandable.

I think that perhaps what Mr. Arkin needs now, more than anything, is a supportive environment, where he can face his phobias and apparent disgust for our military. He would probably be much more willing to change his opinion were he to spend more time with those he derides, to better understand them.

But where could he find such an environment?

If recent dispatches from elsewhere in the blogosphere may be a worthy guide, I'd suggest that he partake of the opportunity shared by bloggers such as Bill Ardalino, Bill Roggio, Michelle Malkin, Bryan Preston, and of course, Michael Yon. Perhaps what would go the furthest in changing his opinion of our soldier is a simple, short embed with our military in Iraq.

Towards that end, and wanting to help out, I sent to the following emails to people that I am quite sure would be very hospitable towards the idea of helping Mr. Arkin find common ground with our soldiers in the field.

To embedded blogger Michael Yon, with whom I correspond regularly, I sent the following:

William Arkin of the "Early Warning" WaPo blog just called our soldiers mercenaries, among other pleasantries.

Michelle, Allah, Blackfive, etc are trying to reem the guy for his opinion, but I'd suggest another route.

Michael, how would you feel about offering Mr. Arkin a guided tour of the Iraq battlespace, so that he would actually get to know our troops, and then perhaps change his opinion? Can I ask him if he'd like to embed with you? Would that be okay?

As Michael is probably cavorting at a local-themed spa, he hasn't yet responded. I'm sure he will as soon as he has completed his mud bath.

I also contacted my friends at MultiNational Corps-Iraq PAO and asked them if they've be willing to help:

I'm probably sure by now you've heard of the controversial remarks made by Washington Post blogger William Arkin about the "obscene amenities" that our soldiers have in the field in the Middle East, and I was wondering if you could tear yourselves away from the hot tub and polo grounds long enough to post an invitation to Mr. Arkin to come experience these extravagances for himself as an embed. Posting an embed offer might just provide the feeling of warmth and acceptance he needs to come over and experience the posh resort lifestyle that all of you joined the military to enjoy.

Please consider extending Mr. Arkin such and invitation after your next tanning session.

Once Mr. Arkin has the opportunity to experience these posh amenities firsthand, I hope that this opinion he has harbored will be open to change.

Update: Arkin responds to his critics, in The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out:

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Update: The single most impressive response thus far to Arkin, by an injured active duty Army officer:

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:26 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 31, 2007

AP Re-Enters Hurriyah; Is Unable to Find Lost Credibility

I received an email from Linda Wagner of the Associated Press late this afternoon, alerting me that AP has posted a pair of new news reports by Sally Buzbee about Hurriyah, and that Wagner herself has issued forth a new statement. All three are available at the following link:

http://www.ap.org/response/response_112806a.html

As Linda was nice enough to contact me directly, we'll start with her statement first:

01/31/07

AP STATEMENT

From Linda Wagner
Director of Media Relations & Public Affairs
The Associated Press

All news organizations covering the war in Iraq have faced a severe security situation since the conflict began. The risks have risen dramatically in recent months as sectarian conflicts have escalated.

Some have criticized AP’s use of anonymous sources and its refusal to identify by name all AP staff members who have contributed to reporting about violent incidents in the Hurriyah district of Baghdad.

AP has already lost four staff members killed in Iraq. Upon the death earlier this month of the most recent AP staff member killed there, AP President and CEO Tom Curley said, "The situation for our journalists in Iraq is unprecedented in AP's 161-year history of covering wars and conflicts. The courage of our Iraqi colleagues and their dedication to the story stand as an example to the world of journalism's enduring value."

Without protecting the identities of many of its sources and staff members from the extraordinary dangers in Iraq, it is impossible to provide news coverage of many events in the violent conflict about which the public has the right to know.

AP’s use of anonymous sources and unnamed staff members adheres to its ethics and journalism guidelines, which are among the most thorough and strict in the news media profession.

You can see AP’s ethics and journalism guidelines from the home page of www.ap.org -- click on this link at the top right : The AP Statement Of News Values and Principles. (direct URL: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues)

You can learn more about AP’s concern for the public’s right to know about the war in Iraq and many other public issues by visiting another link from its www.ap.org home page: AP and the People's Right to Know. (direct URL: http://www.ap.org/FOI/index.html)

Iraq is indeed a dangerous place, both for it's residents, and for those attempting to cover the war for news organizations. In 2006 alone, 32 journalists died.

It has been a long-standing journalistic tradition to have anonymity to when naming the journalist or the source might place their lives in danger. All of this is understood.

But Wagner's release flatly dodges the elephant in the room, the Iraqi police source hiding behind the pseudonym Jamil Hussein. It is quite clear that using an undeclared* pseudonym is a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

As perhaps a few of you may be aware, Associates Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll has officially maintained, for over two months now, that the AP's primary source for it's Hurriyah reporting has been a man she insists is Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. We know, however, that Jamil Hussein is not his real name, according Iraqi Interior Ministry personnel records, as provided to this blogger and others via CPATT and Multinational Corps-Iraq/Joint Operations Command Public Affairs.

Wagner has been contacted multiple times to explain this discrepancy, and others. To date, she has refused to address the issue of the pseudonym. For that matter, she’s refused to answer almost all questions about Hurriyah, or problems with AP’s stringer-based reporting methodology, so this does fit a pattern.

And now to the news, brought to you by Sally Buzbee, AP's chief of Middle East News.

The leading story, "Mosques still show damage from attacks in Hurriyah" has been covered extensively by Bryan Preston, Michelle Malkin and Curt at Flopping Aces. I have very little to add, except this: it is very interesting that of the four mosques "burned and blew up," this new AP account does not speak of any apparent fire damage at either the al-Muhaimin mosque or al-Qaqaqa mosque.

The relative intactness of the al-Muhaimin mosque is quite important, as AP's reporting claimed that 18 people, including women and children burned to death in an "inferno" during the November 24 attacks.

This picture captures worshipers in al-Muhaimin the very next day.

Soot and corpse free. The claim is apparenty a complete falsehood.

al-Qaqaqa? I'll let AP tell it:

The fourth mosque named in the AP's original report, the al-Qaqaqa mosque, also known as the al-Meshaheda mosque, has a broken window and is closed, guarded by Iraqi army troops outside and adorned with a picture of al-Sadr's father. It also has Mahdi Army graffiti scrawled on its side, partially whitewashed over but still readable.

A broken window and graffiti. By that standard, several apartment buildings I've lived in have been "burned and blew up."

Buzbee's second article, which focuses more fully on the transition of Hurriyah from a mixed neighborhood to one populated almost entirely by Shiites and run by Madhi Army militiamen, is a very well-written article, perhaps the most informative article on life in these neighborhoods after it has been overrun that I've seen thus far.

That said, when the subject of the November 24 attacks came up, the reporting just. gets. weird.

The fighting included a Nov. 24 attack by Mahdi Army militiamen on a number of Sunni mosques. At one, the AP reported -- based on statements of residents, a local Sunni sheik and a police officer -- six men were doused with fuel and burned alive by Shiite militiamen.

Getting vague on the number of mosques... interesting. That broken window must be bothering them.

As for the witnesses, they've suddenly reversed their order of importance. Originally, Jamil Hussein was the primary source, with Sunni elder Imad al-Hashimi playing a supporting role. The accounts from anonymous residents were added in follow-up stories.

Now, the anonymous residents are suddenly more important Why? The "Sunni sheik" Imad al-Hashimi has renounced his statement. Funny how they neglected to mention that. As for the police officer, I doubt many will forget the name of their primary source for dozens of stories leading up to this one. Hiding the name of Jamil Hussein simply seems duplicitous at this point.

And so, a statement and two stories later, the following questions still remain purposefully ignored and unresolved:

Do Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and International Editor John Daniszewski intend to stand behind the AP-reported claim that 18 people died in an "inferno" at the al-Muhaimin mosque?

Do Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and International Editor John Daniszewski intend to stand behind the AP-reported claim that 6 men were pulled from the al-Mustafa mosque and immolated?

Whatever happened to the claim by AP that AP Television captured videotaped footage of the al Mustafa mosque after the attack? Why has (to the best of my knowledge) that film never been made public?

Do Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and International Editor John Daniszewski intend to stand behind the AP-reported claims that the four mosques "burned and blew up"?

Does the AP intend to issue any corrections or retractions based upon new evidence showing that the initial claims were over-exaggerated and inaccurate?

Does the AP feel it was responsible to refer to the Association of Muslim Scholars and an "influential" Sunni group, without revealing the fact that they are a radical Sunni group affiliated with the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda that reputedly derives their income from kidnapping?

The Associated Press has not used Jamil "Hussein" as a source since the Hurriyah stories became contentious. Why has the Associated Press quit using him as a source?

Did Associated Press reporters in Baghdad ever question why "Hussein" was able to provide accounts far outside of his jurisdiction?

As more time goes by and the Associated Press story continues to founder, it appears more and more that their emphasis has changed from credible journalism to corporate damage control.

*added later. Following the link would have made it clear that an undeclared pseudonym, that is, a pseudonym that the author fails to identify as such, is unethical.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

My Irony Meter Just Pegged

Barak Obama, Democratic Senator from Illinois: "The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact."

Mary Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana: "we 'would have been better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees.'"

Comedy gold.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:29 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Oh No, Joe!

It seems the Delaware Senator that Mark Levin long-ago named "the dumbest man in the U.S. Senate" has proven that point, with his own "macaca" moment. Via Drudge:

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said.

I wonder how long long it will be before the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a group Biden apparently considers marginalized, inarticulate, unintelligent, dirty, and ugly, issues a response.

Allah, as he often does, sums it up best:

Biden announces, immediately destroys presidential hopes.

Update: Even Kos agrees.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Oh, the Hysteria!

I'm rapidly losing faith in America's public education system.

I wrote a post yesterday titled The Case For Outing Jamil?, where I asked readers a rather simple rhetorical question:

Should I "out" Jamil Hussein, revealing his real, full, and complete name?

I stated specifically that I was leaning against publishing his name, but wanted to hear readers debate the pros and cons.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised at how so many of the middleweight liberal blogs decided to twist what I actually wrote to make the claim that I was attempting to get Jamil Hussein killed.

A sampling:

Sadly No!

Steve Gilliard

Jesus' General

Pandagon

Please keep in mind that many of the bloggers, and especially their commenters, seem to be afflicted with Tourettes, so if you don't desire to read truly foul language, you might want to skip these links.

There are probably other, more inconsequential liberal blogs feeding off their hysteria, but those links above provide a good cross-sampling of the willful ignorance they've displayed so far.

The delicious irony of all this, is that for their collective hysteria to have any merit whatsoever, then they would have to believe that the Associated Press is dishonest in this post where they claim Jamil Hussein's real name is... drumroll please... Jamil Hussein.

Even if I did theoretically find a compelling reason to release Hussein's real name—and just to remind you, I've said I'm leaning against it—then if the Associated Press account is accurate, then I'm just blowing smoke.

It is a simple "either/or" proposition: He's either actually Jamil Hussein as the Associated Press maintains, or he is who his personnel records say he is, which is definitively not Jamil Hussein.

But it seems that our liberal "friends" want to have their proverbial pie and eat it, too. They want to maintain on one hand that the Associated Press is being honest and truthful with their reporting, but they also want to rant and rave about this evil conservative blog.

They can't logically have both, but since when has logic ever been an impediment for them?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I think that in this case he is better "unouted"; the issue is more useful to our side than the resolution would be. Resolve it, they say "opps", and then find yet another way -- that we don't know at first -- to be on the other side.

Posted by: htom at January 31, 2007 10:16 AM (XK5dj)

2 That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are playing with the life of a man says everything that needs to be said, at least about you.

It seems that the majority of your commentators would like you to keep the information to yourself. Not that I think it will matter one bit.

Posted by: Dominion at January 31, 2007 10:17 AM (GDLPF)

3 Isn't it ironic that these leftards are more concerned about the life of a terrorist supporting lying AP stringer, then they are about the troops?

They would rather pass non-binding resolutions that mean nothing, but demoralize our boys on the ground, and whine about conservative blogs, than actually working to end the war.

I say that this terrorist promoting propaganda pander has earned the right to have his life held by a string.

How many people have joined the Insurgency because of his lies? How many of our boys have died because of his actions?

Posted by: Sniper One at January 31, 2007 10:37 AM (K/uDH)

4 I'm not playing with anyone's life, but if you want to beleive what liberal bloggers say I wrote, versus what I actually wrote, I can't protect you from your own willful ignorance.

Jamil's greatest "threat," if there ever was one, was in the publication of his name...something the Associated Press proudly proclaims it has done dozens of times since April of 2006. Funny how you can chose to overlook that little detail... providing of course, that you actually feel the AP was honest when it said his name was Jamil Hussein.

As for who would be threatening his life... who would that be? It certainly wouldn't come from the Sunnis: his Hurriyah accounts play right into their propaganda playbook. That leave those he apparently libeled in his Hurriyah reporting, the Iraqi security forces.

Want to take a wild guess how I got his real name? It was quite simple: bloggers made a simple information request, which was forwarded to those same Iraqi security forces, who just happened to have his full personnel records the entire time. They know who he is, know where he lives, and he still works for them. If they wanted him dead, he would be. Instead, they sent him back to work.

So please, save your incoherent rantings. As is typical, they are based on a combination of factual ignorance and your willingness to trust the untrustworthy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 31, 2007 10:41 AM (g5Nba)

5 How about this take?
If it's in the "public interest" for the MSM to make known top secret anti-terrorist information, why would the APs' informant be off limits?

I don't care ether way. People will believe what they want anyhow.

Posted by: Kurt P at January 31, 2007 10:52 AM (wWMQq)

6 As for who would be threatening his life... who would that be? It certainly wouldn't come from the Sunnis: his Hurriyah accounts play right into their propaganda playbook. That leave those he apparently libeled in his Hurriyah reporting, the Iraqi security forces.

No, it doesn't. There's always the possibility of a private actor. If there weren't, outing people's real identities in the U.S. wouldn't be as big a deal, because there wouldn't be any potential physical threat associated with it. It's not like anyone thinks the U.S. government is going to go after outed bloggers or the like. You may not consider the possibility to be high, but it exists. Why increase the risk at all?

Posted by: LS at January 31, 2007 10:55 AM (n4O5C)

7 I have been following the matter closely, and posting my own comments on my blog as well. I thought you raised some interesting points for and against the release of Hussein's true identity. I think I'd side with maintaining the anonymity of the name as I wouldn't want to put the man's safety in danger any more than it already is.

The onus on this whole matter is on AP, not you or the lefty blogs. They're the ones who set this whole matter in motion with the use of sources whose identities were pseudonyms in violation of their stated policies - setting up the Great Jamil Hussein Goose Chase. It's pretty difficult to catch a ghost when you don't even know the ghost's name.

AP has to account for why it continues to stand by the Burning Six story and the other stories sourced to 'Jamil Hussein.' In other instances, where a media outlet has been burned by a source, they would out the source to show them to be a fake or fraud - or opening them up to legal action. That could be the route taken here, but AP doesn't seek to do that either.

Instead, we get a situation where the AP has its cake and is eating it as well. They protect his anonymity while declaring that nothing was wrong, ignoring that the whole thing was an exaggeration and potentially induced by Hussein's loyalties that may lie elsewhere.

It's also a sorry state of affairs when the AP and their supporters attack the messenger and not the assertions made (and sustained by the actual
evidence).

Posted by: lawhawk at January 31, 2007 11:18 AM (a8MXW)

8 If he is to be held liable and accountable for his words and actions, let the Iraqi courts handle it. The info you posted on the AP is enough, they are the true bad performers here.

Posted by: Retired Navy at January 31, 2007 12:15 PM (BuYeH)

9
I just published what may be my last Jamilgate post. Part 47 of the series. What else is there to say? al-AP got caught in a lie and is never going to fess up. The truth's on the web where it's available to anyone who cares enough to track it own. Don't hold your breath waiting for our lefty friends to admit it.

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 31, 2007 01:39 PM (n7SaI)

10 "If it's in the "public interest" for the MSM to make known top secret anti-terrorist information, why would the APs' informant be off limits?" EXACTLY!!!! I believe in this information age if the press deems everything in the public interest I am part of the public and I want to know his name and I want Judith Miller to give up the name of person she warned about the FBI raid at the muslim charity, etc, etc, etc. The MSM cannot have it both ways but we can have it all ways with the new media.

Posted by: Rightmom at January 31, 2007 02:08 PM (0lpqx)

11 Bill, I respectfully disagree.

Much like the Sandy Berger story...the Ministry of Media would LIKE for the issue to simply go away.

They wish to keep calling these "unimportant" "minor stories"...because, in point of fact...every time leftists get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they circle the wagons and adopt the leftist Code of Silence.

I personally have had enough of Green Helmet Guy, Hadj fauxtography, faux-Jam, and all the rest to last a lifetime.

Do NOT get tired of keeping their nefarious journalistic malpractice in the front lines of the blogosphere. It's precisely what they want to happen.

The EXERCISE of brainstorming the pros and cons of making known faux-Jam's REAL name...is a useful one.

It brings to the fore certain elements in the underlying story and the coverup aftermath that need to be addressed.

I don't buy the notion that printing his REAL name...is akin to giving him a date with some amorphous executioner. But, I do fall on the side of not outing him...simply because it would cloud the issues and give ammo to a mendacious crowd that is currently ethically bankrupt. Their credibility account is seriously overdrawn.

For that reason, I would keep the pressure precisely where it is. On the underlying issues which ALL fall on our side of the fence. The truth matters.

The AP, Reuters, BBC, WaPo, NYTimes, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS...all of them...are co-conspirators after the fact...if they continue to play this game of silence when one of the left leaning members gets caught ..yet again...serving up tripe for truth.

Don't get tired ...don't ever get tired, Bill...of being on the side of truth.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 02:11 PM (V56h2)

12 NYT Posts 4Q Loss: $648 Million

(posted over at LGF)

Bill, one more point. The left is losing....sometimes we can't see it, ....and sometimes we can.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 02:34 PM (V56h2)

13 Just for the record;
rhetorical; used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
If you had already decided to "out" Jamil, or if you are incapable of "outing" Jamil, THEN your question would be rhetorical.
Thanks.

Posted by: HappyGrammatician at January 31, 2007 02:53 PM (AMR+E)

14 But it seems that our liberal "friends" want to have their proverbial pie and eat it, too. They want to maintain on one hand that the Associated Press is being honest and truthful with their reporting, but they also want to rant and rave about this evil conservative blog.

We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting. We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative, selective, nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks.

If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 03:06 PM (/ZGYc)

15 "We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting."

Ahhh, in leftard world...being disingenuous is a virtue...but maintaining a coherent thought throughout an entire paragraph is a monumental task.

"We refuse to take a position on whether the AP is BEING FAIR AND TRUTHFUL...in printing whisper campaigns and urban legends for the mindless lemmings of the left to gobble up..."

HOWEVER...

"We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative,"


What a crock. The EVIDENCE is that faux-Jam is not now, nor has he EVER been assigned to ANY of the districts in which he was used as a "source".

The EVIDENCE is that faux-Jam was used as an "ubersource" more than 60 times outside of his district.

The EVIDENCE is that NONE of the mosques were burned to the ground.

The EVIDENCE is that there are NO supporting reports of six immolated Sunni's, civilian homes burned to the ground, 18 murdered civilians including women and children.

None of that EVIDENCE is speculative. But the weak and lame apologies, excuses and alibis are certainly speculative.

"... selective"

How imbecilic can one be. Of course it's "selective", if the term is to mean that the utter failure on the part of the AP and their "ubersource" to report truth instead of tripe...isolates particulars in the story to show the holes. EVERY time we point to fake or staged photos...we pick the ones that show the lies. That's why it's "selective". Reuters fauxtography...it was selective to show the photoshopped ones and Green Helmet Guy it was selective to show the ones that pointed out the "staging" of news. With faux-Jam, the apologists point out the donut, we point out the holes.

"nit-picking"

Yep, that darn truth is so nit-pickable, isn't it? Much better that we mindlessly swallow the tripe for truth. If it carries the "message" that's all that matters.

"self-fulfilling"

The truth just stands there. It doesn't change. It is there to be found. If that fulfills the hypothesis that the AP and their "ubersource" were lying...then so be it. We don't adhere to the "truthiness" doctrine, where the "truth" is only as sustainable as it remains consistent with the "message" that is, of course, king.

"often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks."

You mean like the meaning of "is" and the "impeach Bush" crowd? By the way, where is Sandy Berger these days?

"If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview."

The issue, of course...is that AP knows his real name. And they know that he was not a trustworthy source, he was pushing whisper campaigns and urban legends...and the AP was a willing co-conspirator in foisting those on the public. His name, his stories, their coverup...were all...one big lie.

But then again, you don't take a position on the AP or the truth of the story...so, since you miss the main point and don't take a position on it anyway...see ya. Good riddance.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 03:32 PM (V56h2)

16

Couldn't agree more. But you forgot one possibility. He doesn't really exist. Just like the fire damaged and blown out roof of that mosque prove that those Mosques are a-OK.

Posted by: Marco at January 31, 2007 03:34 PM (NQgjz)

17 You know, I've been through this before. You'll be like, "The EVIDENCE says X," and I'll be like, "Okay, so what's the evidence?" And then it'll be some triumphant mish-mash of speculation and discredited factoids, balancing on the definition of a word.

So okay. The AP lied. What's one example that's both provable and significant?

By this I mean an example that can be demonstrated not to be true, and that also has some definable, demonstrable real-world consequence.

Here's an example that satisfies neither of these conditions: The raw AP feed that was visible for 20 minutes, and that never made it into a published news story, which used the word 'destroyed' instead of the words, 'burned and blown up.'

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 03:54 PM (/ZGYc)

18
We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting. We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative, selective, nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks.

If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview.


As is sadly becoming the case, you once again have the particulars of this incident almost completely backwards.

It is not speculative that AP uses a source hiding behind a pseudonym, a local malcontent that has since changed his story, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group as their basis for their reporting.

It is not speculative that the overwhelming majority of Hussein's accounts happened far outside of his jusrisdiction, nor is it speculative that other news organizations have been unable to corroborate this account, or 39 of the other 40 stories we researched via both Google searches and Nexis. If my memory serves me correctly, even the NY Times' Edward Wong attempted to verify the "bruning six claim, and was unable to find any evidence corroborating it.

It is not speculative that there is quite simply zero credible evidence that six Sunnis were burned alive as Jamil Hussein claimed, and the Iraqi Interior, Defense, and Health Ministries concur, as do U.S. forces that were in the area within an hour of the alleged attack.

It is not speculative to say that there is zero evidence to support the AP-published claim that 18 people died in an "inferno" at another mosque. In fact, there is
strong photographic evidence that the mosque in question was never set on fire at all, and the U.S. after action report concurs.

As a matter of fact, were someone to mention any coverage of the Hurriyah story that would be most accurately characterized as "nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks," it would be Sadly No's own "debunking" of Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston's visit to Hurriyah, which conveniently and purposefully overlooked any and all evidence that did not agree with your pre-defined storyline.

Or perhaps "irration mob" best describes the shared and purposeful mischaracterization of my previous post, where you, and other liberal bloggers, purposefully left out the fact that I stated specifically that I was leaning against identifying Hussein's real name, in order to accuse me of wanting to murder him.

There is indeed a great deal of dishonesty and uninformed, hate-filled speculation, but those providing the overwhelming majority of it comes from you and like-minded souls who are far more interested in pettiness and miscasting other people's words, than in requiring accountability from the press in a story where they claimed 24 people were horribly murdered, and no credible evidence exists to show that their speculation was true.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 31, 2007 04:01 PM (g5Nba)

19
So okay. The AP lied. What's one example that's both provable and significant?


As has been mentioned repeatedly, the AP story claimed that the in al al-Muhaimin mosque, "18 people had died in an inferno." Some inferno. There was no fire at all, and they were open again for worship services the very next day, as photographic evidence readily attests.

Well, that and the fact Jamil Hussein isn't Jamil Hussein...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 31, 2007 04:09 PM (g5Nba)

20 That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are playing with the life of a man

AP used him how many times?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2007 04:28 PM (LITKT)

21 Reply interspersed. I'll approach this in manageable stages.

As is sadly becoming the case, you once again have the particulars of this incident almost completely backwards.

It is not speculative that AP uses a source hiding behind a pseudonym, a local malcontent that has since changed his story, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group as their basis for their reporting.

The AP may well be using a pseudonymous source. This could be because of the danger in Baghdad of sectarian death squads, or it could be a fault of the AP's (or Hussein's). However, 'Malcontent' and 'al-Qaeda-affiliated' are not evidentiary statements, but surmises.

As we were discussing before, the fact that official US reports are contradicted by AP stories is not sufficient proof of 'lying' or 'terrorist affiliations.' US reports have often been proven incorrect, and continue to be. One example is the recent kidnapping and murder of several US troops, which was officially reported contrary to the facts.

Even so, no official report exists -- to my knowledge -- that identifies 'Jamil Hussein' as a 'malcontent' or an 'al-Qaeda supporter.' This is, therefore, not evidence.

It is not speculative that the overwhelming majority of Hussein's accounts happened far outside of his jusrisdiction,

Yes. This is interesting and even somewhat suspicious. It makes me wonder -- immediately -- what might be the standard procedure for the Iraqi police inre: the giving of press statements. What is it? Do police in Baghdad use press spokesmen, as many US cities do? What has your research, if any, discovered?

nor is it speculative that other news organizations have been unable to corroborate this account, or 39 of the other 40 stories we researched via both Google searches and Nexis. If my memory serves me correctly, even the NY Times' Edward Wong attempted to verify the "bruning six claim, and was unable to find any evidence corroborating it.

Fair enough. I think it was Tom Zeller, not Edward Wong, but okay. I'll just take this at face-value. The problem here is with an elementary pillar of logic: The absence of evidence is not, prima facie, evidence of absence. That is, the method of proving something is not the same as the method of refuting something.

I'll put it a little more plainly. A lack of corroboration on the burning-six story leaves your Jamil/AP/terrorist-supporters hypothesis in play, but doesn't advance it. It merely rules out possibilities. For instance, if six charred corpses were dumped in a ditch somewhere (as is common in Baghdad), but Edward Wong only contacted the local morgue, then we're back to square-one. And we still have nothing evidentiary (I mean nothing) about why the AP story diverges from the official reports.

It is not speculative that there is quite simply zero credible evidence that six Sunnis were burned alive as Jamil Hussein claimed, and the Iraqi Interior, Defense, and Health Ministries concur, as do U.S. forces that were in the area within an hour of the alleged attack.

Last one for now; I'm happy to rejoin later.

Hypothesize if you will that Baghdad is a violent, chaotic place in which 'Jamil Hussein' is a press representative of an extremely busy, vulnerable, and overstressed police force that deals with dozens of murders a day, including murders of police officers. He gets a call saying that six people were burned alive, and relates this to the AP.

In other words, what's the core piece of evidence that proves that this claim -- true or false -- was made maliciously?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 04:54 PM (/ZGYc)

22 Where was all this angst, this sanctimonious hand-wringing and wailing and breast beating...when the AP declared via Steven Hurst...that Jamil Hussein was his actual name?

If the leftards believe their own BS...why weren't they wrapping themselves in this cloak of faux concern for Jamil...when the AP was "outing" him...for the whole world?

Steven Hurst made a HUGE display of the fact that "Jamil Hussein" was his real name...and that he had been a source for more than two years.

This wasn't a DISCUSSION about "outing" him...because if the leftards believe their own BS...they would be all over the AP for "outing" the guy and setting him up to be instantly murdered.

Where were they when one of their fellow traveling leftists was "outing" "Jamil"?

Nowhere. Silence. Crickets chirping.

Know why? Because they don't believe their own BS. There's no angst over a fellow leftist "outing" someone. (be he gay, or a phony source for phony stories with a leftist "message")

When it comes to light that the "ubersource" indeed was NOT named "Jamil Hussein"...the AP clams up, Steven Hurst issues no retraction, the leftists disappear from sight and don't crop up again there's a discussion of whether it would be appropriate to even discuss the subject of using his real name.

Then, and ONLY then...do we see this drama queen screen test by the left. "I'm ready for my blog test, Mr. DeMille".

As far as I'm concerned the facts are indisputable. There is NO "Jamil Hussein", there is only a guy PLAYING "Jamil".

The mosques were NOT destroyed, burned to the ground, in fact...there wasn't even enough damage to ANY of the four mentioned (which the AP conveniently reduced to ONE in follow up stories) to disrupt even a single service.

NO persons were doused in kerosene, NO persons were immolated, NO persons were then summarily executed while they writhed on the ground in flames, NO persons were taken to a hospital morgue in an immolated condition, NO persons were taken to the cemetery in that immolated condition.

NO civilian homes were burned to the ground, NO women and children were murdered in that spree, and the "police captain" outside of the district in which this DIDN'T take place had NO knowledge to the contrary.

If someone has proof otherwise...they sure aren't bringing it forward. The police captain...as an "ubersource" is a fraud. The stories that he "sources" are nothing more than urban legends and whisper campaigns.

Don't come back to me with any other tripe for truth, unless you have FACTS to dispute. Otherwise, keep the apologista BS for the lemmings who want to swallow the Kool-Aid. I'm not interested in substituting tripe for truth.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 05:16 PM (V56h2)

23 As has been mentioned repeatedly, the AP story claimed that the in al al-Muhaimin mosque, "18 people had died in an inferno." Some inferno. There was no fire at all, and they were open again for worship services the very next day, as photographic evidence readily attests.

Fair point. This is one of the mosques that Malkin and Preston didn't visit. There's a time-stamped photo showing worshippers in the al Muhaymin mosque on Nov. 25th, and another showing RPG damage to the exterior of the mosque.

Significantly, however, this was not one of the stories attributed to Jamil Hussein.

link

And the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques. It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 05:23 PM (/ZGYc)

24 Where was all this angst, this sanctimonious hand-wringing and wailing and breast beating...when the AP declared via Steven Hurst...that Jamil Hussein was his actual name?

It was nonexistent, because Hurst is in direct contact with Hussein and is apparently halfway sane. As such, he would never in a million years 'out' an Iraqi police source unwillingly, especially under pressure from a bunch of blogs -- because no source or journalist in Iraq would ever trust or hire him again.

I mean come on here.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 05:36 PM (/ZGYc)

25 So, Sadly, it's OK for AP to lie in its reporting because if they don't one of their reporters might not get any more juicy lies.

Glad you cleared that up.

Posted by: Tully at January 31, 2007 06:06 PM (kEQ90)

26 'al-Qaeda-affiliated group' is the group of muslim scholors and it was not a right wing blog that called them al-Qaeda affiliated.

Um, correct me if I am wrong, but the Iraqi's have an official list of qualified/authorized spokesmen and Jamil XX is not on it.
That would mean he is an unqualified/unathorized spokesman would it not?

The AP may well be using a pseudonymous source.
Then they lied. If you say you will never do X without saying so first, then turn around and do X without telling anyone and in fact repeatedly deny that it is a pseudonym, you are lying. If you want people to believe you, you don't do something you say you will not ever do.

...the fact that official US reports are contradicted by AP stories is not sufficient proof of 'lying' or 'terrorist affiliations.'
...
Even so, no official report exists -- to my knowledge -- that identifies 'Jamil Hussein' as a 'malcontent' or an 'al-Qaeda supporter.' This is, therefore, not evidence.
Considering that 'Jamil Hussein' is not even his real name then NO REPORT WILL EXIST saying that. Especially since you are misreading what was said, 'al Qaeda-affiliated group' was not referring to Jamil Hussein.

I also find it strange that you dismiss official reports as being potentially incorrect but then turn around and ask for official reports saying something else as proof you need (and that proof would be impossible to obtain if the name is fake).

In other words, what's the core piece of evidence that proves that this claim -- true or false -- was made maliciously?

A person who is not authorized to talk officially to the press, gives out 39 unsupported accounts that cannot be confirmed by anyone... not even 'Jamil Hussein' because Jamil XX says he is not that person who gave all the information.

Lets see, no proof anything remotely resembleing the orginal claims of this or the other 38 accounts happened. The only proof the AP has is the unsupported word of an unknown person. Could be each and every one of the 39 unsupported accounts were all honest mistakes from an unauthorized person using a fake name was in fear of his job or a stringer with an agenda that made sure his butt was covered if any of the 39 stories were eventually proved as false.

So if Jamil made 39 innocent mistakes and innocently regurgitated everything that insurgent propaganda has said and the AP published all of them without verified supporting evidence... that no other paper or news group reported, then that means the AP's reporting guidelines are at fault or just not being followed. Like the part of their guidelines that say they wont use a pseudonym without saying so.

Any way you slice it, someone was not doing their job properly. Accounts 1 thru 5 may have been innocent, past that it turns into incompetence or downright maliciousness.

Most would expect an institution that prides itself on trustworthyness would act to find out if a problem does exist and if so where it came from. Changing the story to one that no longer fits the discredited aspects does not fall into that catagory.

Posted by: Gunstar1 at January 31, 2007 06:23 PM (zh8i1)

27 This is like arguing with people who claim the Apollo missions were staged.

Ok, so if his name isn't Jamil Hussein, and CY hasn't revealed what he thinks his name is, then how do you know he isn't on the list of official sources?

I'm not saying he is or isn't; I'm asking how you know.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 06:37 PM (/ZGYc)

28 Ok, maybe if we take this more slowly.

The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source.

Jamil Hussein is the name they give several dozen times as the "source" for the "reports on the ground" that they are passing off as "news".

NOT ONCE did they detail...or even suggest, that Jamil Hussein was anything other than a reliable source for the "facts" that they were reporting.

We come to find that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" doesn't exist, but some guy named JGXX exists.

We also find that JGXX doesn't work in the district of a SINGLE story, for which he is the "source".

We are told by authorities over there, that he is not an official police spokesman. He doesn't have any PERSONAL knowledge of facts outside his district. He doesn't have access to CENTCOM information, because he doesn't have clearance.

The story he tells of a gruesome mass murder, including lighting six innocents on fire, dousing them with kerosene, blowing up and destroying four mosques, rampaging through civilian homes and burning them, killing women and children...is all completely, utterly, wholly discredited.

And your answer is...the guy is a fake, his name is a fake, he doesn't have personal knowledge of any facts, the mosques aren't burned to the ground, they aren't even VANDALIZED enough to disrupt services, no houses are burned, no women and children are murdered...and this is a "fog of war" issue?

Is that REALLY the argument you wish to stand on?

AP reporter: JGXX we have heard of a story about four mosques being blown up and destroyed, burned to the ground and six men pulled out doused in kerosene and burned to near death, then summarily shot in the head, do you know anything about this?

JGXX "Sounds good to me"

AP reporter: "Can we quote you on that?"

JGXX "Where did it take place, anywhere around here?"

AP reporter: "Nah, it was in Hurriya, I think."

JGXX "Yeah, sure. Just don't use my name".

AP reporter: "Police captain, Jamil Hussein confirmed reports of 18 women and children, four mosques, six Sunni's........"

Apologists: Well, maybe none of the facts are actually TRUE...but, they have that sort of "hot sourciness" we like to liberally spread on our phony stories...and, you know, it's like sort of ...you know...a caricature of a broader truth, man."

Journalistic ethics...oxymoron of the year.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 07:19 PM (V56h2)

29 Ok, maybe if we take this more slowly.

I'm trying, believe me.

Malkin got all mad at us about the mosque thing. In fact, I don't remember her ever replying to a critic in such a way. Let's revisit that point for a moment.

See, official US reports said that one mosque had been firebombed, while our Mr. Hussein claimed otherwise, saying four had been 'burned' and 'blown up.'

I'm not counting the AP raw feed that existed for 20 minutes and was never published, btw, in which the term was 'destroyed.' There exists a language barrier between Iraqis and Americans, for one thing.

Everyone called our Mr. Hussein him a liar, impugned his motives, etc.

So Malkin and Bryan Preston go to one of these other mosques and find that it's been firebombed and raked with gunfire, and that there's a huge hole blown in the dome. This is somehow spun as 'confirmation' of the entirely different story that they'd been telling.

This ought to have been the WTF! moment, when you guys started looking a bit deeper into the assumptions made in this case. But I see the same assumptions coming up again and again as 'proven facts.'

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 07:46 PM (/ZGYc)

30 First, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Sadly No about this.

This is like arguing with people who claim the Apollo missions were staged.

Remember: Just because something is possible, using the information you have, doesn't mean it's factual. That's exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

CY, although I don't doubt that the Hurriya story is bullshi'ite, if it IS bullshi'ite, there must be more to prove it--or rather, refute the story--than just the ID of this Jamil guy. There are photos of people attending the mosque, so what about other photos?

For SNRL: Why are people so willing to believe an apparently unprovable story about Iraqis being burned and the "inferno," but not even consider that the story might be a total fabrication--regardless of the fact that it happens to be conservatives that did the digging? If it's a news story that's entirely sourced from someone "on the street" in a war zone, can you really be so sure it's objective and/or true?

I'm not saying YOU aren't being fair or intellectually honest about this--you are--I'm just asking the question about the others on "your side."

Posted by: Beth at January 31, 2007 07:50 PM (yqiXY)

31 Maybe if we take it even more slowly:


1) The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source.

2) Jamil Hussein is the name they give several dozen times as the "source" for the "reports on the ground" that they are passing off as "news".

3) NOT ONCE did they detail...or even suggest, that Jamil Hussein was anything other than a reliable source for the "facts" that they were reporting.

4) We come to find that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" doesn't exist, but some guy named JGXX exists.

(therefore....the AP is in a pickle...either Jamil Hussein is his name, or it isn't. IF, it isn't...what's the explanation...in light of the original statement by the AP AND their follow up statements? Aren't you even the least bit curious about why they continue to press the issue that they don't use pseudonyms? Why not just say that in the original story? Isn't that question even remotely on your radar screen? What about the follow up statement? You know...the one that leftists jumped up and down on their mattresses and screaming "gotcha" on? You know...Jamil Hussein is his REAL name...that one? Doesn't it make you the least bit sheepish for all those "nyah, nyahs" that turned out to be made complete fools by the AP getting caught not once, but TWICE in the same lie?)

5) We also find that JGXX doesn't work in the district of a SINGLE story, for which he is the "source".

(doesn't this of its own odd circumstance, raise an eyebrow on the leftist side of the fence? How is he a "source"...outside his district? Have we ever been told? How does he know "facts on the ground" which he "verifies"...if he's not even in the area and is not an official spokesman? Have we ever been told? The absence of SUPPORT for "sourcing" a story...is, in fact...and absence of evidence and credibility. How he knows what he is "sourcing" is vital to his credibility. His credibility is in question, because his STORY is not backed up by known facts. These are all legitimate issues. All skirted by the AP and avoided by the rest of the left leaning media...in their code of silence.)

6) We are told by authorities over there, that he is not an official police spokesman.

(if you have different information, bring it forward, otherwise...I'll believe this, since the AP has not suggested otherwise...in fact, they suggested he would be ARRESTED for giving out false information...he wasn't, but they must have believed he would be...BECAUSE he didn't have clearance to speak. DEDUCTIVE logic is not out of bounds, btw.)

7) He doesn't have any PERSONAL knowledge of facts outside his district.

(if he does, please bring it forward how he does. I assume he is assigned to work his own district, any information he gets outside his district comes from sub-sources. That was never detailed in ANY of the reports using him as a "source". If, as logic indicates...he had no personal knowledge...then his stories that he is vouching for and "sourcing" are really simply composite "sources" for whom he is the mouthpiece. If you have other information, pleasr bring it forward.)


He doesn't have access to CENTCOM information, because he doesn't have clearance.

(they said this, but if you have information otherwise, please bring it forward.)

9) The story he tells of a gruesome mass murder, including lighting six innocents on fire, dousing them with kerosene, blowing up and destroying four mosques, rampaging through civilian homes and burning them, killing women and children...is all completely, utterly, wholly discredited.


(a couple of mosques were vandalized...the rest of the story is a whisper campaign and urban legend. Is it ok with you...that the story is embellished to a point of being unrecognizable...and them passed off as "sourced and verified" news? How was it "sourced and verified"...if the very tenets of ALL of its import...are all false? The vandalized mosque story.... vs..... six kerosene soaked, burned alive, shot in the head while women and children are being murdered and burned out of house and home...hmmm, which story is more likely to grab attention????

And the FOLLOW UP...is to stand by a phony source and a phony story????? And the excuse is...."fog of war". Puhleeeeezzze. This doesn't pass the smell test.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 31, 2007 08:16 PM (V56h2)

32 For SNRL: Why are people so willing to believe an apparently unprovable story about Iraqis being burned and the "inferno," but not even consider that the story might be a total fabrication--regardless of the fact that it happens to be conservatives that did the digging? If it's a news story that's entirely sourced from someone "on the street" in a war zone, can you really be so sure it's objective and/or true?

Honestly, it doesn't seem to have struck anyone as an important story in the greater context. There's enough verifiably bad stuff going on in Iraq (as well as in the media) that the 'burning six' incident, true or not, doesn't seem to make much difference either way. We're talking about a city in which a slow week has sectarian death squads killing a few dozen people.

I don't think you'd find anyone who'd say that the AP has done a flawless job in Iraq, not to mention in its domestic electoral coverage. But there's a real point of contention in the idea that the AP getting X or Y details wrong in a minor story on sectarian violence in Baghdad means that there's no wave of sectarian violence going on in Baghdad -- that it's somehow invented or grossly exaggerated by the media in order to manipulate the American public.

That's what I see as the 'purpose' of the Hussein/AP controversy -- to cast doubt on the veracity of any reporting from Iraq that doesn't fit a certain narrative. The specific details of X AP piece from November-whatever aren't necessarily that compelling out of context, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 11:23 PM (0+YPU)

33 >blockquote>Maybe if we take it even more slowly:


1) The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source.

Ok, let's start there. What did they say about this, and when/where did they say it?

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at January 31, 2007 11:27 PM (0+YPU)

34 FABRICATIONS:
"Nothing in our news report – words, photos, graphics, sound or video – may be fabricated. We don't use pseudonyms, composite characters or fictional names, ages, places or dates. We don't stage or re-enact events for the camera or microphone, ..."

Posted by: cfbleachers at February 01, 2007 03:26 AM (5RM9g)

35 "Honestly, it doesn't seem to have struck anyone as an important story in the greater context. There's enough verifiably bad stuff going on in Iraq (as well as in the media) that the 'burning six' incident, true or not, doesn't seem to make much difference either way."

Therein lies the whole of the problem. The fact that the AP could violate nearly every journalistic ethical rule without as much as a sideways glance, because the "message" is consistent with the worldview that leftists wish to advance...is repugnant to virtually every objective observer.

IF, you conclude as I do, that the AP willingly and wilfully foisted intentionally exaggerated and sometimes wholly untrue stories upon the reading public, then intentionally covered up the use of pseudonyms, composite characters and unreliable sources when a correction or retraction was due...then their entire credibility is at stake.

To suggest that this story was "minor" is a crock. The fact that there is sectarian violence is Iraq is one thing. To suggest that it is a "minor" story when six men are alleged to have been pulled out of a place of worship, doused in kerosene, lit on fire, allowed to burn in agony and then were summarily executed...is NOT in any way, shape or form..."just more of the same".

The story was gripping...and IF, you conclude, as I do...that the story was an urban legend, a whisper campaign...then the SOURCE for that story comes under greater scrutiny for bias.

The fact that the AP and their apologists are twisting themselves into pretzels to try ANY way to deflect criticism on this "source", makes me want to dig even deeper.

It is a NATURAL consequence to begin to ask how this police captain came to know, what he alleges he "knew". It is a NATURAL consequence to this ongoing story to begin to question how he would know facts outside his district. The apologists "don't look here" attitude STOKES the flames of the curious, it doesn't put them out.

"But there's a real point of contention in the idea that the AP getting X or Y details wrong in a minor story on sectarian violence in Baghdad means that there's no wave of sectarian violence going on in Baghdad -- that it's somehow invented or grossly exaggerated by the media in order to manipulate the American public."

This is a canard. NOBODY has said that there is NO sectarian violence in Baghdad. But if there is a constant drumbeat of negativity that tells HALF a story, if it is ALWAYS pointed in the direction of the "message" that Iraq is "lost", if it IS "grossly exaggerated" or if whisper campaigns and urban legends are being passed off as news...then this is consistent with the PATTERN established with Green Helmet Guy and Reuters' fauxtography...that gross exaggerations, false details, staged events, phony sources, faked pictures...will be used with complicity to paint the picture consistent with the "message".

The truth doesn't matter...only the "message" matters. If that's your position...then fine, you are entitled to it. If you think this pattern is merely a "minor" breach of ethics, then in my opinion...you don't have enough ethics to make that call.

"That's what I see as the 'purpose' of the Hussein/AP controversy -- to cast doubt on the veracity of any reporting from Iraq that doesn't fit a certain narrative."

Quite the contrary. The purpose of Green Helmet Guy being exposed, fauxtography being exposed, the phony sourcing of the fake "Jamil" being exposed...is to say that wilfully breaching journalistic ethics inor order to FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE...is unacceptable.

The "story" isn't minor....and the continuing wilful breaching of journalistic ethics isn't minor. The truth matters.


" The specific details of X AP piece from November-whatever aren't necessarily that compelling out of context, if you know what I mean"

The specific details of Green Helmet Guy...if nefariously taken out of context and placed in the "larger scheme of things"...isn't that compelling either. And the Hadj phony photos are really not all that compelling, when taken out of context and isolated either.

Of course, the point of taking them out of context is to make them not "compelling". The BREACH of journalistic ethics IS compelling. The intentional telling of false stories, greatly exaggerated half-truths, intentionally misleading the reading public...IS compelling. And the PATTERN that has developed in the Mideast...and with Rathergate...and continues unabated...is that leftist leaning media members will lie, cheat, steal, exaggerate, intentionally mislead...until they get caught...and then the apologists will circle the wagons and say none of this is a big deal...and the rest of the Ministry of Media will adopt a code of silence and sit on their hands.

The truth matters. Journalistic ethics matters. And if neither of them matter to you...then I suggest you take a long look at what you have become. All to protect a dogma and ideology...that allows a guy like William Arkin to be your bedfellow.

Posted by: cfbleachers at February 01, 2007 03:51 AM (5RM9g)

36 Me thinks my comment has been removed...

Posted by: Frederick at February 01, 2007 09:00 PM (m7NeX)

37 Therein lies the whole of the problem. The fact that the AP could violate nearly every journalistic ethical rule without as much as a sideways glance, because the "message" is consistent with the worldview that leftists wish to advance...is repugnant to virtually every objective observer.

Yeah, but your response really doesn't touch on any of the substantive points I made.

We're a bit down on the page at this point, so I'll stop back some other time.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at February 01, 2007 10:40 PM (hurx6)

38 We are told that we cannot simply accept the word of the government as true -- why should we simply trust the AP?

We are also told that leaking secret information is patriotic, even if it might lead to the death of soldiers -- wouldn't it be equally true that leaking this identity is patriotic, even if it gets this proven liar killed?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at February 01, 2007 11:08 PM (rwVGN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 30, 2007

Keeping Enemies Close

When a CBS News reporter Lara Logan uses an al Qaeda propoganda film as part of her story, and refuses to identify it as such, do you begin to wonder just how credible and trustworthy of a journalist she is?

I do.

Update: Comments back open (mu.nu was under huge influx of comment spam last night, so I instituted a manual shutdown). I'd direct new visitors to read the comment policy before posting.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:13 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Case for Outing Jamil?

I'm presenting working on what will likely be my last post on the Jamil Hussein/Hurriyah mosque attacks debacle. I've got some emails out to several sources and the AP itself attempting to tie up loose ends, and I won't write a final draft until those addressed have a reasonable amount of time to respond.

I did, however, have one question I addressed to all of those I queried, that I'd like to ask my readers as well:

Should I "out" Jamil, revealing his real, full, and complete name?

I'm generally quite opposed to the concept of outing. Interestingly enough, this is the entennial of outing as practiced by the leftist press. It is typically used typically to attack politicians for their sexual preferences, but occasionally to hurt celebrities as well. According the Wikipedia entry on outing linked above:

Gabriel Rotello, once editor of OutWeek, called outing "equalizing"...

If outing is an acceptable method of equalizing the gay and the straight, can't it also be applied to "equalize" claims made by the honest and dishonest?

A key contention made by "Jamil Hussein" and never retracted by either Hussein or the Associated Press is that Iraqi Army units were aware of the attacks on November 24, and stood by and did nothing.

According to an AP story printed in the Jerusalem Post on the day of the attack, Hussein claimed:

Revenge-seeking Shi'ite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post. The soldiers did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

Further down in the same article:

The Shi'ite-dominated police and Iraqi military in the area stood by, both residents and Hussein said.

Of course, AP never identifies these anonymous residents, nor does it mention that other anonymous area residents disputed these accounts, so with the anonymous residents canceling each other out, we're back to Jamil, once again.

In another, more detailed account, Hussein's statement attacking the Iraqi military are replayed:

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

let’s overlook for a moment the fact that not a single soul died, and look at Jamil's claim about the IA "failing to intervene."

Interestingly enough, official accounts from the U.S. Army's Dagger Brigade and the 1/1/6 unit of the Iraqi Army indicate that IA soldiers were on a scheduled patrol in Hurriyah early in the morning, received word of the attacks late in the morning, and were on-scene within the hour and started securing the area. The exchanged fire with the militiamen in the vicinity of Nidaa Allah mosque, and drove them from the neighborhood.

Jamil's story does not match up with what American and Iraqi forces reported.

So...

Do you trust the single policeman hiding behind a pseudonym who lied to his superiors about his involvement with the AP, and who lied about other key elements of this story? Or is it much more likely that the dozens of involved American and Iraqi soldiers, policemen, and fire department personnel are telling the truth?

As someone involved with the story noted this morning, while playing devil's advocate:

Jamil is a proven bad source whose stories do seem designed to help the Sunnis and the insurgents at the expense of the Iraqi Army. That part in the original AP Hurriyah story about the IA doing nothing about the attacks is blatantly wrong and apparently an intentional smear. The unit that responded, which included an IA general, did what it was supposed to do according to the official report--it helped with the fire and it tried to catch the attackers. It is fair game to out sources who lie like that.

So should Jamil be outed, and why or why not? I'm leaning towards not, but would like to hear arguments either way.

Update: Comments back open (mu.nu was under huge influx of comment spam last night, so I instituted a manual shutdown). I'd direct new visitors to read the comment policy before posting.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:46 PM | Comments (89) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 29, 2007

Walkback?

In the wake of my January 25 26 letter to the Board of Directors of the Associated Press concerning the news organization's inaccurate reporting of the November 24 Hurriyah assault by Shia militias on Sunni mosques--a letter in which I provided to the Board of Directors the real name of AP source "Jamil Hussein"--the official Associated Press web site containing all of AP's official responses regarding Hurriyah has curiously withdrawn the January 4 article by AP reporter Steven R. Hurst claiming that Jamil Hussein is Jamil Hussein.

A screen capture of the AP web page from January 8 containing the Hurst article is captured here.

A screen capture of the AP Web page, minus the Hurst article, as captured this morning, is online here.

Is the Associated Press beginning a walkback of it's Hurriyah coverage? If so, quietly attempting to scrub their reporting to date is perhaps not the best way to do so.

Perhaps they should start with a formal retraction acknowledging their comedy of errors.

As I have stated from the very beginning of this debacle, what we are witnessing in action via the Hurriyah scandal and the 39 of 40 AP stories attributed to Jamil Hussein that cannot be corroborated by a rudimentary search of other English-language news organizations of the same events, what we are witnessing is a flawed methodology for gathering the news that places far too much credibility in the words of questionable sources and local stringers with dubious allegiances, and no readily apparent internal mechanism for fact-checking the reports provided.

The advice I issued on December 18 is looking better all the time.

Update: Curt at Flopping Aces notes (via email) that while the AP has scrubbed the one file linked above where AP has been consolidating their Hurriyah reporting, they still have the Hurst claim posted here. Don't worry... if they attempt to scrub that, I have a screen capture of that page, as well.

Update: By the way... notice anything funny about the image used by AP in their "Freedom of Information" section? It appears to be a photo of terrorist detainees at Guantanemo Bay.

Does the Associated Press consider capturing terrorists a violation of AP's freedom of information?

It certainly does not apply to Jamil Gulaim XXXXX XX-XXXXXXX, who is presently back at work as an Iraqi police officer.

Update: Confirmed. The picture was of detainees arriving at Camp X-Ray in 2002.

Update: Linda Wagner, Associated Press Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs, states that the disappearance of the Hurst article is "purely a technical issue." It has since been restored to the AP web site.

Does anybody here with an IT background want to explain precisely how AP's "technical issue" would delete just the one post on the page, and not all of the posts on that page? I assume it could be a technical glitch, but my experience tells me that human involvement is a far more likely culprit.

Update, for the kids over at Sadly No!: who apparently can't figure out how to click a link. A whole indignant post, dedicated to something that did not happen... how sad. No?

As for CMS systems, they are typically set to default to a set expiration after "X" days. This was not in evidence here, nor was this what AP's Linda Wagner alleged happened.

While you are at it, why won't you discuss the other mosques (not that you've finally learned to spell Nidaa Allah correctly), particularly how it is impossible for AP's al Qaeda-linked source of the Association of Muslim Scholars to be correct that one mosque was gutted in an "inferno" that left 18 dead, only to have the same mosque open for regular services the next day, and soot free at that?

Why, that might require independent thought and actually looking at facts instead of reflexively attacking any evidence brought forth by a conservative, and we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Bad Day For the Bad Guys

300 terrorists--including Afghans, Saudis and one Sudanese--were killed in a pitched battle near the Shiite holy city of Najaf, after Iraqi forces were tipped to a planned raid on Najaf that sought to kill Shia pilgrims and leading clerics at the Imam Ali Shrine. Among the targeted clerics was Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered of Iraq's Shia clerics.

The terrorists seemed to be composed of both Sunnis and a radical Shia sect. The goal of the attack seems clear: to plunge Iraq into a direct and all-out civil war along sectarian lines, dwarfing the present sectarian conflict and perhaps pre-empting the goals of the surge of American troops that hopes to stabilize Baghdad.

As Captain Ed notes:

The post-battle assessments should be interesting. Intelligence forces must be wondering why insurgents would attempt a straight-up fight against the Iraqis, and whether that indicates overconfidence or desperation.

Jules Crittenden brings up the very interesting point that the goal of the Shia sect involved in the attack, the Army of Heaven or Army of the Sky" depending on the translation, hoped to kill the assembled Shia Grand Ayatollahs to clear the way for the arrival of the Hidden Imam, also known as the Madhi.

It bears noting that this seems to be almost exactly in line with the goals and desires of the Hojjatieh sect of Shia Islam in Iran, the sect of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahcracy of Iran.

While I've seen no accounts of the battle that explicitly or implicitly state and Iranian involvement in either the planning nor the pre-empted execution of the attack to date, I'll be very interested to see if any evidence emerges that indicates Iran may have either had advance warning of the attack, or if they had a role in its planning. Considering Iran's probable involvement in the Karbala attack nine days ago that saw American soldiers kidnapped and killed is a sophisticated attack that may have directly involved the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, I'd say anything is possible at this point.

If it can be proven that Iran was behind this disastrous (for the bad guys) raid, it seems likely that Iran’s plans to expand its role in Iraq is far from benign, and may be setting both of our nations on a path towards a more direct conflict.

I sincerely hope that the Iranian leadership is not intent of forcing our nations into a direct conflict, but they seem increasingly willing to take that risk.

Iran is not nearly as strong militarily, economically, or diplomatically as they would like to appear, and we have two branches of our military—the Air Force and the Navy—which are quite capable of leveling Iran’s infrastructure, their fledging nuclear weapons program and their military (mostly composed of conscripts) before they penetrate the Iraq border, should it come to a direct confrontation between our nations.

I don’t think anyone in this country wants to fight in Iran and Iraq simultaneously, but as long as we don’t desire to physically invade Iran and hold ground (and we have no reason to want to do so), we can wreck far more havoc in 2007 with our assembled regional air power than we ever brought to bear in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

Then again, you cannot ascribe rational motives to a group so radicalized that it was once outlawed by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983. The Hojjatieh do not think in mortal terms and are obsessed with bringing about their sect’s "End of Days" to usher forth the Hidden Imam. What we would see as an irrational escalation that could only bring about their defeat on the battlefield, may be exactly what they hope would trigger their hoped-for apocalypse.

Strange days, indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 28, 2007

Clinging to Truthiness

It is quite amusing to see the braintrust at liberal blog Sadly No! go after Michelle Malkin's debunking of the AP's Hurriyah reporting.

First, if you are going to claim to link to the original AP report, make sure that you are, in fact, linking to the original AP report.

SN! links to an ABC News report that was released sometime on November 25, in a report that appears to be no better than the third version of the story. The best I can determine, this report is a day ahead of Sadly's "original" post, and this account published at 6:01 AM on November 25 claimed that:

In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said.

"Burned and blew up," said Captain Jamil not-Hussein.

There is quite a bit of difference between Sadly No!'s hand-picked "original" article saying mosques were "burned" and the earlier article's claim that the mosques were "burned and blew up." Cherry-pick much?

Why, of course they do.

They focus almost exclusvely on the fact that the abandoned Nidaa Allah mosque took an RPG round which collapsed much of the dome. I'd like to make two points about this.

First, "Allah" is not spelled "Alah," you morons. We've been at war with radical Islam for five years, and you can't even spell the name of their God right?

Second, a partially collapsed dome does not a destroyed building make. To be sure, Nidaa Allah took some serious damage to its dome and some fire damage to several rooms, but this damage is still quite a stretch from what I picture when I hear that a building has been "burned and blew up."

Let me break it down to something even Sadly No! readers can understand... pictures.

Burned and blew up:

This was a building in Lebanon before Israel took exception to it. Notice most of it is rubble. This is what most people think of when they hear burned and blew up.

Not burned and blew up:

This mosque, the al-Muhaimin, looks pretty good for one of the four "burned and blew up" mosques. This specific mosque is where the AP uncritically relayed a report from the al Qaeda-affiliated Association of Muslim Scholars that "18 people had died in an inferno." Some inferno. To date, the AP still officially stands behind the claim of this terrorist-related group over that of coalition forces.

Of course, Sadly No! doesn't want to discuss this mosque's inconvenient intactness, any more than they want to look at any of the other AP claims about their Hurriyah reporting that simply doesn't stand up to further scrutiny.

The Associated Press claimed that 24 people died when four mosques were "burned and blew up." More than two months later, the damage they've claimed to the mosques has been conclusively proven to be exaggerated, and the Associated Press has been completely unable to substantiate one death, much less the 24 deaths they claimed.

But Sadly No! has little interest in presenting any of the other evidence that does not support their narrative. Instead, they side with the media and their terrorist-supplied storyline over that of American forces and our Iraqi allies. Does that surprise me?

Sadly, no.

Update: Bryan guts Sadly No! further.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:50 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 27, 2007

Careful what you wish for

Since C.Y. isn't around and I found my spare keys to this joint I figured I'd try them out, at least 'til they get repossessed.

This can't be good, can't be good at all.

It really looks like the Democrats and Ma Pelosi are going to be able to keep that promise of a "new direction" they made to the American people. I give it six weeks tops before we start that "phased redeployment" they've been after for so long.

Too bad they weren't specific enough.

If I were a betting man I'd say we'll start dropping bombs in the next couple of months, if Israel doesn't beat us to it.

update: Of course we'd learn about Iran building Centrifuges as John Kerry's making nice with the Iranian President and blaming Americans for the world's problems. Mr. Kerry for one welcomes our new Muslim overlords.

Posted by: phin at 04:40 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 26, 2007

Right to the Top

One thing I've learned over the course of my 35 years, is that when you have a customer service issue and the lower level support staff won't help you, it helps to go to their supervisors to get a satisfactory resolution. So what do you do when the person blocking your attempted to remedy the situation is senior management?

You go straight to the Board of Directors.

Julie Inskeep

Publisher

The Journal Gazette

Fort Wayne, Indiana

jinskeep@jg.net

David Lord
President
Pioneer Newspapers, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
dlord@pioneernewspapers.com

R. John Mitchell
Publisher
Rutland Herald
Rutland, Vermont
john.mitchell@rutlandherald.com

Jon Rust
Publisher
Southeast Missourian
Co-president, Rust Communications
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
jrust@semissourian.com

William Dean Singleton
Vice Chairman and CEO
MediaNews Group Inc.
Denver, Colorado
deansingleton@medianewsgroup.com

Jay R. Smith
President
Cox Newspapers, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
Jay.Smith@coxinc.com

Dear Publisher Inskeep, President Lord, Publisher Mitchell, Publisher Rust, CEO Singleton, and President Smith:

I write to you today as members of the Board of Directors for the Associated Press, asking you to write a wrong that Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll has steadfastly refused to address, even after being confronted with the evidence.

On November 24, 2006, a series of stories was published by the Associated Press concerning a series of Shia militia attacks upon Sunni mosques in the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq. Two these reports have been attached as PDFs, as they were published by Gainesville.com and the Jerusalem Post (gainesville11_25_26.pdf and jeruslampost11_24_06.pdf, respectively).

These reports allege that four Sunni mosques were "burned and blew up" and that 24 Sunni civilians (18 at one mosque, six at another) perished as a result of these attacks as nearby Iraqi Army units looked on. A particularly gruesome detail of the attacks were claims made by a long-time Associated Press source, Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein, that when the al-Mustafa mosque was attacked, six Sunni men were pulled outside by Shia militiamen, doused in kerosene, and immolated—burned alive.

From that time until today, Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and International Editor John Daniszewski have officially held the position that these attacks occurred just as they have described.

These claims are:

The Associated Press originally claimed four mosques were "burned and blew up" in Hurriyah according to Police Captain Jamil Hussein, along with several houses.
That 24 people were burned to death. Six were pulled from the Ahbab al-Mustafa as it was attacked, the were doused and set on fire, according to AP source Captain Jamil Hussein. The AP also printed a claim by the Association of Muslim Scholars (a group suspected of strong ties to al Qaeda, a detail the AP left out of their reporting) that 18 more people, including women in children, were burned to death in an "inferno" resulting from a Shiite militia attack at the al-Muhaimin mosque.
The Associated Press initially claimed that Associated Press Television had video showing damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque where they claim these six men were immolated.
Executive Editor Carroll insists that their long-time source, Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, is exactly who they said he is.
The problem I've written to you to address, as the Board of Directors of the Associated Press, is that every single claim listed above is highly questionable; some have been proven to be exaggerated with photographic and videotaped evidence, and it is quite likely that some of the claims were fabricated entirely.

Once you read the evidence compiled below, I hope that you will consider having the Associated Press run an article correcting the mismanaged Hurriyah coverage issued so far, and perhaps several other issues as well.

To begin with, the Associated Press has never retracted nor corrected the claim that four mosques were "burned and blew up" (see the attached Gainesville article), even though photographic evidence was taken the following day (November 25) shows that all four mosques are still standing. Information about all four mosques are available for your review here:

Print:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/
destroyed___not_opedcolumnists_michelle_malkin.htm?page=0

Pictures from the day after the attacks took place:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006728.htm

Video from two weeks ago:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/22/hurriyas-mosques-still-standing/

All four mosques sustained small arms fire. One abandoned mosque was fired upon with a rocket-propelled grenade that damaged its dome and a firebomb did burn two rooms. Another mosque had two rooms damaged by a firebomb. Of the two remaining mosques, neither one suffered any fire damage, though one had exterior damage due to an RPG strike.
In addition to grossly exaggerating the damage inflicted upon these four mosques, the Associated Press accounts of 24 deaths attributed to these attacks may have been entirely fabricated.

The largest number of casualties in the Associated Press accounts of the Hurriyah attacks was a claim sourced by the AP to the "influential"Association of Muslim Scholars, which claimed that 18 people burned to death in an "inferno at the al-Muhiamin mosque."

The Association of Muslim Scholars is a group deeply involved with the Sunni insurgency, including elements of al Qaeda. The Associated Press accounts conveniently skipped over that fact in order to carry their allegation, which is completely fabricated.

I return you once again to the pictures provided by Michelle Malkin in the link to her site above, which shows RPG and rifle fire damage to the exterior of the mosque, but also shows that Sunni worship service in that mosque the very next day. For the Associated Press claim to be true, there must have been a fire; there was none, and this account has conclusively been debunked. Even with this conclusive evidence, Kathleen Carroll stands behind the AP's reporting, and refuses to issue either a correction or a retraction.

In addition to these 18 AP-reported deaths that categorically did not happen, there is exactly zero corroborating evidence to support the AP-run claim of Jamil Hussein that six Sunnis were pulled from the al-Mustafa mosque, doused in kerosene, and burned alive. the AP account hangs squarely upon the word of Jamil Hussein; a "Sunni elder" the AP chose to cite as a secondary witness recanted his statement almost immediately, and AP reporters flatly buried denials made by other areas residents, including two local imams, that these alleged immolations never occurred.

And what of long time AP source Captain Jamil Hussein, the man who broke the story of the immolations, and still the only source saying the immolations occured?

He has been cited as an Associated Press source by name on 61 stories between April and November of 2006, and Editor Carroll claims that the AP has been using him as a source for up to two years. Interestingly enough, I did an English language Google search of the first 40 of the 61 accounts attributing Hussein as a source, and was able to verify just one of the 40 with corroborating accounts from other news organizations. Of those 39 accounts that were not corroborated by any other English-language accounts from other news organizations, research into both English and Arab language accounts of one assassination, along with Iraqi Police casualties accounts provided to Multinational Corps Iraq (MNC-I) and relayed to me for the day of June 20, 2006, seems to suggest that one story, the assassination of Iraqi Police Captain Amir Kamil, may have been fabricated entirely.

Jamil Hussein is not a source who's stories have been easy to corroborate, and the fact that his accounts came from all over Baghdad, mostly well outside of his jurisdiction, should have thrown his veracity into question months before Hurriyah became and issue.

Two variations of a map showing Hussein's duty stations and the locations of his alleged accounts show just how suspicious accounts are, and are located here:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/211760.php

By way of comparison, this is the equivalent of a New York Police Department officer based in Staten Island being used as source in Brooklyn, Long Island, the Bronx, Queens, and Harlem. Would you allow the reporters in your own organizations to get away with this? Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and International Editor John Daniszewski apparently did.

Another point of contention is that she still maintains that "Jamil Hussein" is, in fact, the name of her source. This is patently untrue.

According to MNC-I, there is no police officer named Jamil Hussein, despite a January 4, Steven Hurst article (surprising enough, an AP-written article by someone who used Hussein as a source repeatedly) saying otherwise. According to a MNC-I email, Interior Ministry personnel records show that "Jamil Hussein" is actually Jamil Gulaim XXXXX XX-XXXXXXX [name redacted for blog publication]. If this is true--and MNC-I has been right on almost everything so far--then one of two things has occurred.

Either the Associated Press is guilty of extremely shoddy reporting, and has been duped as to XX-XXXXXXX's identity for two years, or the Associated Press reporters and editors involved, in direct violation of the organizations own code of ethics, used a pseudonym for their source.

Considering how rapidly Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for the Associated Press Linda Wagner contacted me with a denial after I attempted to confirm to XX-XXXXXXX's identity with Steven Hurst (within 1.5 hours), I feel the second is more likely.

Let me now take a moment to review the case I've made:

The Associated Press reported 4 mosques were "burned and blew up." the physical evidence shows that this claim was greatly exaggerated, as all four building still stand.

The Associated Press claims that 24 people died as a result of these attacks. The same photographic evidence cited above flatly debunks the claim of 18 people dying in an inferno, as there was no fire. As for the claim that six people were immolated, there has never been the first bit of evidence to suggest this is true, and local civilians dispute that such an event ever occurred, as does all involved Iraqi Ministries (Interior, Health, Defense) and American military units in the area.

Jamil Hussein, who Kathleen Carroll would seem to imply is a rock-solid source, is not even Jamil Hussein, but Jamil Gulaim XXXXX XX-XXXXXXX. Jamil Hussein seems to be an unacknowledged (and therefore unethical) pseudonym. Only one of 40 accounts provided by Hussein can be readily verified, and it appears that one account, the assassination of Amir Kamil, may have been fabricated.

With all of this known, I hope that you act to restore integrity to the reputation of the Associated Press by correcting the inaccurate Hurriyah stories, and consider investigating how "Jamil Hussein" could have been allowed to be a source for AP for so long when his accounts seemed almost always uncorroborated and well outside of his jurisdiction.

I hope that you also take steps to assure that this kind of journalistic malpractice and "faith-based" reporting does not happen again.

Thank you very much for allowing me to present this matter to you.

Respectfully,

Update: Heh. I take it somebody read it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:06 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Nothing to See Here: Move Along

It's only the attempted trafficking of weapons-grade uranium:

A top official at a Russian state scientific institute confirmed Friday that Georgia had sent Russia a sample of uranium allegedly seized in a sting operation and that it was weapons-grade, Russian news agencies reported.

However, Igor Shkabura, deputy director of the Bochvar Inorganic Materials Institute, said the size of the sample provided by Georgia was too small to determine its origin, the RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass news agencies said.

At least this buy last year was a sting; other developments make me wonder of other attempts to sell weapons-grade uranium were successful:

The standoff between Iran and the West over its alleged clandestine nuclear programme looks set to increase with a report emerging on Wednesday in a British newspaper asserting that Tehran has been acquiring North Korean assistance in preparation for its first underground nuclear test, which European officials believe could take place as early as the end of the year.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Tehran and Pyongyang have expanded their traditional military ties to the nuclear level, with the reclusive Stalinist state sharing with Iranian nuclear scientists all data and information pertaining to the first-ever North Korean underground nuclear test conducted last October.

The news is set to exacerbate tensions between Tehran and western capitals. However, it appears that Iran was aware that the development would soon be made public. Just two days earlier, it barred 38 nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from operating on its territory, in a move that has already been slammed by France as evidence of Iranian discrimination against westerners from the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s inspection team.

This is of course merely speculation (that's what you guys pay me the big blogging bucks for, isn't it?), but it would appear to make quite a bit of sense.

If Western intelligence agencies are correct then Iran's own nuclear weapons program should not have yet been able to yet develop weapons-grade uranium from the cascade of centrifuges they currently have in their possession, why is Iran seeking help to prepare for a nuclear weapons test now, unless they either have, or anticipate having, a warhead ready to test in the near future?

If Iran was angling for foreign weapons-grade uranium, it might also be worthwhile to imply a far more nefarious purpose... plausible deniability. Nuclear weapons have signatures that can be traced back of their country of origin. Should a nuclear weapon be smuggled overland into the target area, a la the "neo-con" episode of 24 and then detonated, then it would be more difficult to conclusively prove who was behind the blast.

Were Tel Aviv or San Diego to suddenly disappear in a blinding flash and the uranium signature trace back to Georgia instead of Iran, then it is much less likely that the United States would have the immediate justification for a nuclear counterstrike.

This of course, is all idle speculation. Right?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.7903 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7691 seconds, 201 records returned.
Page size 242 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.