January 26, 2007
WaPo Appalled at Concept of Killing the Enemy
You've just got to love how Allahpundit nailed the right level of near-hysteria in his headline about this Washington Post article: WaPo: U.S. declares war on Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine.
The actual lede seems to me as a "about damn time" directive but WaPo somehow figures this is front page news:I guess this is an example of the difference between those of us who desire to actually succeed in Iraq, and those of us who don't. Perhaps it is just my perception, but it seems to me that Dafna Linzer is gob-smacked at this idea that we would be targeting those training terrorists, and perhaps even filled with appropriate levels of self-righteous heartache, but my response is simply this: what took so freaking long? Iranian foreign policy is in direct conflict with that of the United States across the Middle East, and they have provided military support, training, and presumably intelligence assets in both Iraq and Lebanon. They seek not to just destroy the tenuous democratic governments in these two nations and (no doubt) hopefully install puppet regimes of their own beholden to Tehran, but hope to destroy both the United States and Israel. Of course, we can't been sure of that last claim... Ahmadinejad has only stated it publicly about a dozen times, so we might be missing some nuance there. I look upon this as a favorable development, but Allah has his full weltschmerz on:
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort. For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go. Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq. "There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back." Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.
He makes a very valid point; we've been very reactive in Iraq instead of pro-active, which to my mind, means we've still got far too much of the war-fighting decision-making coming out of the White House instead of in the theater of operations, where these decisions should be made. I have some hopes that nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to command American forces in Iraq will change how we fight there. Petraeus has been in Iraq twice, and has learned from the school of hard knocks what doesn't work, and also, hopefully, what might, as he helped draft the Army's new counterinsurgency manual. In the past, the United States Army has excelled at countering insurgencies and perhaps with the right leadership, it can do so again, but it remains to be seen if a lame-duck Administration and a mewling Congress will actually allow the military the time, resources, and rules of engagement necessary to win.
The aim, obviously, is to beat back Iran influence across the region until they’re back to this point and are ready to make a deal on nukes. Like the surge, it’s a good idea that’s years too late. Unlike the surge, which will be led by Petraeus, it’s being run by Bush’s same old crew. I have no faith in them at this point to anticipate contingencies or react effectively when they occur, so color me reluctantly, cautiously pessimistic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Thank You, President Bush
I just filled up my tank for $1.979/ gallon. Finally, the War for Oil is paying off!
Now, if it will just keep going down to the $1.679 a gallon I was paying before the invasion... Update: That really ought to help those Two Americas we've heard so much about.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:27 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 25, 2007
Sign the NRSC Pledge
Hugh Hewitt started the idea, N.Z. Bear whipped it into shape, Dean Barnett provided the FAQ and here it is, with over 12,000 signatories so far in the first full day.
What's it all about? It's simple, really:What did I think of it? Of more than 12,000 signatories, I'm #7. What are you waiting for; McCain to grow a spine?
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
I've Heard This Song Before
Salon.com, which I rarely read any more (and perhaps this is why), has published a historical account of how Democratic doves won their war in southeast Asia.
On the third page of this even-handed academic work (so even-handed it labeled President Bush as "war-mongering president" in the first paragraph of the post, but I digress) the author, Rick Perlstein, states:What Perlstein means, of course, is that there wouldn't have been subsequent American deaths if liberal doves had forced an earlier withdraw from southeast Asia. There are a number of deaths--just a few-- that Perlstein doesn't address that occurred after we ceded southeast Asia to communism.
...McGovern-Hatfield failed because of presidential intimidation, in the face of overwhelming public support. Nixon and Nixon surrogates pinioned legislators inclined to vote for it with the same old threats. A surviving document recording the talking points had them say they would be giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy seeking to "kill more Americans," and, yes, "stab our men in the back," and "must assume responsibility for all subsequent deaths" if they succeeded in "tying the president's hands through a Congressional Appropriations route." But isn't that interesting: There wouldn't have been subsequent deaths if they had had the fortitude to stand up to the threats.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:19 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 24, 2007
Partial Scores
According to a centcom.mil press release, 100 members of "The Council" in Diyala were killed and 50 more were detained in operations of the past few weeks. They were all terrorists.
Did U.S. media outlets cover this victory where 100 terrorists were killed and 50 were captured? No. They responded with hardly a whisper. They certainly found plenty of time to discuss it when 100 civilians were killed, however. 100 dead civilians is front page news around the globe, especially here in the United States, but 100 dead terrorists? It barely garners a mention. It seems it has become a fairly standard practice to report half the war in the American media, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that Americans are against a war where all that ever seems to occur the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. To use a metaphor of a basketball game (and I'm shamelessly stealing this from a local radio host by the name of Bill Lumaye), it is as if the media consistently reports that the local college team scored 70 points in Wednesday night's game after scoring 68 the Saturday before and 63 the Wednesday before that; you're only getting part of the story, and certainly not enough to know who won. Without knowing how the other team did, you don't know the whole story, and as the on-going saga of the Associated Press/Jamil Hussein scandal reminds us, it doesn't help when even that partial score is grossly exaggerated.
U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 100 terrorists, detained 50, and dismantled a large terrorist group in January during Operation Turki Bowl, the senior U.S. Army officer in Iraq’s Diyala province said yesterday. The operation, conducted from Jan. 4 to 13, occurred south of Balad Ruz in the Turki Village, Tuwilla and 30 Tamuz areas of the province. During the operation, U.S. Army and Iraqi soldiers isolated and defeated a terrorist group known as “The Council,” Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, told reporters via satellite connection from a news conference in Iraq. “The group, made up of former Baath Regime members, al Qaeda and Sunni extremists, refused to participate in any political dialogue and preferred attacking innocent civilians in the Diyala province,” Sutherland said.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:03 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 23, 2007
Live-blogging the State of the Union
You're kidding... right? Pardon me if I have better things to do than to listen to President Bush disappoint me once again on a whole raft of issues where he holds positions far from conservative (my first choice) or libertarian (my second).
The only thing tonight I'm anticipating less? Jim Webb's rebuttal. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that the Democrats would turn to another war veteran to do their dirty work, though perhaps Webb should wonder why liberals only turn to veterans when they endevour to find a beard to help them lose wars. Update: Using MKH's live-blogging as a guide, it looks like I didn't miss much, though it might have been mildly entertaining to watch Speaker of the House "Blinky."Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:40 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Dangerous? I'll Show You Dangerous
Glenn Reynolds links today to an Ed Morrissey article in the Washington Examiner stating that: "Richardson could be '08's most dangerous candidate."
Pshaw. You want a "dangerous" candidate?Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:10 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
CRACKDOWN: Iraqi PM Locks Down Official Media Access to Key Government Ministries
An anonymous source from within Baghdad's Green Zone has provided me with a copy of a document issued from the office of Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri Al-Malki, ordering the shutdown of contacts with the world press on "any topics that relate to security issues."
The document was directed to "the official speakers or the media advisors" within the Iraqi Interior and Defense Ministries. No context was provided. This will likely mean an increased reliance upon anonymous sources in regards to security-related news coming out of Iraq. This is not a good development for transparent government nor for Iraqi democracy. Copies of the document in it's original and translated formats are provided below. Copy of Original:
Copy of Translation:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Crittenden for White House Speech Writer
At Pajamas Media, Jules Crittenden delivers the State of the Union Address that President Bush should make tonight.
A taste:Granted, Bush won't make this speech, but he should have, and long ago...
I will engage evil directly where I find it, in Iraq and in Iran. With an aggressive and ruthless new strategy and a plan to build our army as we should have a long time ago, I will show the American people that we can fight and we can win. I expect that the American people, though misled by their press and many of their elected representatives, will see results and will get it. Because the American people are a people who in the end don't give up, don't stop fighting, refuse to lose, and will choose to win. I have faith in them. Oh, there's another one of those words you don't like.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Neigh Means Neigh
From Robert Redford's upcoming film, The Horse Whisperer: Saddled by Love*
, with the addition of the line Oh, Baby... implied from this.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 22, 2007
Redford's Next Film: "The Deer Humper?"
This is depraved:
We're real proud of ya there, Sundance. Now take off the saddle. Up next for Devor: Big Fish, Twelve Monkeys, The Silence of the Lambs, Raging Bull, and of course, Groundhog Day.
"Zoo" is a documentary about what director Robinson Devor accurately characterizes as "the last taboo, on the boundary of something comprehensible." But remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted. "Zoo," premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen "Police Beat") and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Fox Pulls an AP
And Captain Ed has the details:
I'm admittedly very late to the table on this one, but both Insight and Fox were well out of bounds in heaping such uncorroborated scorn upon Barack Obama. Politics is a hard-nosed business, but no child can control what school he goes to, and to imply that Obama is some sort of Islamist Manchurian candidate—the angle Fox seemed to be trying to promote across several shows—goes beyond the pale. Fox and Insight should either produce named sources to back their allegations—I find that doubtful—or they should retract their commentary during these same time slots by these same hosts and publicly apologize to both Barack Obama for making the slur, and to Hillary Clinton for stating her campaign was behind it. I disagree with the politics of both individuals, but there are certainly valid issues upon which someone can criticize either of these candidates without having to stoop to such scurrilous single-sourced accounts. Update: Insight strikes back. Ouch. Getting catty... Update: Allah has CNN's debunking.
The curse of single sourcing has bitten more than just the AP lately. Insight Magazine, a publication of the Washington Times, ran a single-sourced story last Friday about Barack Obama regarding the choice of school his stepfather made while they lived in Indonesia, and Fox News spent all day talking about it. In this case, Fox used the news item to hit at both Obama and Hillary Clinton without ever confirming anything about the sourcing. Howard Kurtz, in his indispensable media-watch column, explains:Kurtz reminds readers that reputable news agencies used to refuse to run stories from anonymous sources unless they could get independent confirmation. Those days are apparently over. Instead, we have the dynamic of one news agency running a story, and then other news agencies report on the reporting of that story, until everyone forgets that the basis of the entire issue came from one source, and one who refused to go on the record at that.
Insight, a magazine owned by the Washington Times, cited unnamed sources in saying that young Barack attended a madrassah, or Muslim religious school, in Indonesia. In his 1995 autobiography, Obama said his Indonesian stepfather had sent him to a "predominantly Muslim school" in Jakarta, after two years in a Catholic school -- but Insight goes further in saying it was a madrassah and that Obama was raised as a Muslim.
Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. ... On the morning show "Fox & Friends" on Friday, co-host Steve Doocy said that madrassahs are financed by Saudis and teach a radical version of Islam known as Wahhabism, though he said there was a question whether that was the curriculum in the late 1960s, when Obama attended the school. Another co-host, Gretchen Carlson, said that those on the show weren't referring to all Muslims, only "the kind that want to blow us up." ... On Friday afternoon, John Gibson, host of Fox's "The Big Story," began a segment this way: "Hillary Clinton reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama. The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassah past. That's right, the Clinton team reported to have pulled out all the stops to reveal something Obama would rather you didn't know -- that he was educated in a Muslim madrassah."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:22 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
George Bush Hates British People
Directly ignoring the pleas of police and other authorities, looters wade through debris-filled water to take away anything they could carry, despite warnings that toxic chemicals in the mix could pose a dangerous hazard.
New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina? Try England, today. Hell of a job.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:23 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Feed the Link Whore
He's hungry.
If this works for him, I might even try it...
When I first started taking money in the Bloviating Arts, I was working on a typewriter. Answering machines were exotic. You had to find someone with access to a printing press who would agree to pay you if you wanted to do this. That was a long time ago. A lot has changed. More or less everything. I think I stumbled on the Internet about the time Al Gore did, but he gets the credit. That was a while ago, and it was only last November that I started blogging. I don’t know what took me so long. This is like a candy store. It’s a playground. I love it. Now, I just need to figure out how to make money doing it. Please click on my ads.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Hurriyah: Where We Go From Here
As you well know by now, thanks to a n investigation launched by Curt of Flopping Aces and followed up on by Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston's visit to the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad as reported in the NY Post, Michelle's personal blog, and now via video at Hot Air, the Associated Press' reporting of massacres on November 24 were grossly exaggerated, and parts were apparently fabricated by a longtime Associated Press source they still call Jamil Hussein, even though we know otherwise.
The Associated Press released several very graphic versions of what they claimed occurred in Hurriyah on November 24, 2006. I'll now reproduce the relevant portions of two of those Associated Press accounts, so that you will know exactly what they claimed. On November 24, the day of the attack, the Associated Press ran this version of the story, as captured in the Jerusalem Post:A day later, on November 25, the Associated Press ran this version of the story, as captured for posterity on
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. The savage revenge attack for Thursday's slaughter of 215 people in the Shi'ite Sadr City slum occurred as members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques and several homes while killing 12 other Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood, Hussein said. [snip] Gunmen loyal to radical anti-American Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began taking over the neighborhood this summer and a majority of its Sunni residents already had fled. The militiamen attacked and burned the Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa mosques in the rampage that did not end until American forces arrived, Hussein said. The gunmen attack with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles. Residents said militiamen prevented them from entering burned structures to take away the bodies of victims. The Shi'ite-dominated police and Iraqi military in the area stood by, both residents and Hussein said. Later Friday, militiamen raided al-Samarraie Sunni mosque in the el-Amel district and killed two guards, police 1st. Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq said. Two other Sunni mosques in west Baghdad also were attacked, police said.
For those of you following this story closely, you know that Imad al-Hasimi quickly retracted his claim when asked for details by the Iraqi Interior Ministry, and that the Associated Press was perhaps deceptive in not noting that the Association of Muslim Scholars is "the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq" largely because of their deep suspected ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda itself:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Revenge-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking the Iraqi capital a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district. 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. [snip] But burning victims alive introduced a new method of brutality that was likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers. The gruesome attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq. In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said. [snip] President Jalal Talabani emerged from lengthy meetings with other Iraqi leaders late Friday and said the defense minister, Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi, indicated that the Hurriyah neighborhood had been quiet throughout the day. But Imad al-Hasimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, confirmed Hussein's account of the immolations. He told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were drenched in kerosene and then set afire, burning to death before his eyes. Two workers at Kazamiyah Hospital also confirmed that bodies from the clashes and immolation had been taken to the morgue at their facility. They refused to be identified by name, saying they feared retribution. 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.
Of course, we can't forget "Jamil Hussein," the long-time (two year) source for the Associated Press, who it is turns out, isn't Jamil Hussein at all.
The Association of Muslim Scholars ... ...also sometimes called Association of Muslim Clerics or Muslim Scholars Association), are a group of Sunni Muslim religious leaders in Iraq. The Association is believed to have strong links with Al-Qaeda terrorists... They did not recognize the U.S. appointed government as legitimate and have at times questioned any democratically elected government and democracy itself. They have previously asked for withdrawal of American troops, who they accuse of causing the deaths of over 30 000 Iraqis since the war began. They publicly support Al-Qaeda and support the car bombs and the sectarian violence. The group has negotiated (along side with the Iraqi Islamic Party) the cease-fire for the city of Fallujah and the release of several hostages for money. They have poor relations with nearly all Iraqi groups, most notably Shia groups, including followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The Association claims dozens of its members have been killed by US troops, Sunni militants and Shi'ite militias. [snip] It was formed on the 14th of April 2003, only four days after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad by a U.S.-led invasion in 2003 by a group of former regime loyalists who oppose any democratic changes and consider democracy as and ant-Islamic concept. They finance their activities through the ransoms they get from the kidnapping activities in Iraq.
Is it now time to serve AP and their defenders a nice, heaping serving of you know what? Perhaps, but what, precisely, would that accomplish? I'm not absolving the Associated Press of their faulty response by any means—I still think the manner in which AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in particular handled this incident requires her organization to ask for her resignation, and perhaps some AP reporters and local editors deserve dismissal—but I am far more interesting in fixing what I first postulated was a terminally-flawed methodology for gathering the news way back on November 30, 2006, when this story was in its infancy:
Am I attempting to say that all AP reporting, or all news media reporting in general coming from Iraq, is fraudulent? Of course not. There is a great deal of violence occurring in the city, a fact buttressed by verified and corroborated news accounts every day. But what is strongly suggested by Jamilgate is that the media in general, and the Associated Press in this instance, are simply unable to account for how sectarian, tribal and political biases may shape the information passed from source to reporter, from reporter to editor, and editor to publication. It seems at readily apparent that due to the dangers of reporting in a warzone, and the language barriers that are in place, that it is very difficult for the Associated Press and other news organizations to verify the facts of stories before they are published using their current fact-checking methodologies. They are, in many instances, apparently reduced to "faith-based reporting, " where sources who have been reliable in the past are taken at their word once they have established a certain degree of credibility. This leads us to a situation where those with biases can entrench themselves as credible sources, and then use their trusted relationship with the media to disseminate agenda-based information after that credibility has been established. Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll herself based her defense of Jamil Hussein thusly (my bold):
In short, we aren't questioning all of AP's stories based upon a single story, we are questioning a broken methodology that lead to such a story. There exists in the media’s reporting in Iraq no effective editorial checks at the very root level of reporting, to verify that the most basic elements of the story are indeed factual, much less biased. This is not just about one questionable story, or even one questionable source. [snip] The flawed methodology that weakens the essential credibility of the news-gathering process effects the overwhelming majority of stories printed and broadcast about Iraq each week. This weakness, this inherent and unchecked instability and inability to verify the core facts and actors in the most basic of stories, points out a methodological flaw in the news gathering efforts common to every major news organization reporting in Iraq.
Jamil Gulaim "XX" sold himself to the AP, and Carroll's apparent defense is that no one questioned his reporting before. Of course, not. He was establishing his credibility in the period before AP started using him as a named source, and afterward... well, that is where we stand now. The current situation, where we know that the overwhelming majority of reporting coming out of Iraq is more than likely accurate, but because of such egregious failures as evidenced by AP's Hurriyah reporting (and perhaps other "Jamil Hussein" stories that I am still following up on) and pattern of denials and ignoring valid criticism to the point of attacking those that dare question their methods and accuracy from top AP officers, we find it difficult to trust even this mostly accurate reporting for fear another Hurriyah is lurking just outside the headline. It is past time for an independent investigation to determine how AP not only fell for a story with elements both grossly exaggerated and in parts falsified, but to come up with a new and more rigorous methodology to verify the factual accuracy of its reporting. I begrudge no one their view of what the think of the success or failures of the Iraq War thus far may be, but they have the right to base those opinions upon factual, transparent reporting, something that the Associated Press under Kathleen Carroll's "stonewall and deny" leadership cannot apparently provide.
No one – not a single person – raised questions about Hussein’s accuracy or his very existence in all that time. Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:48 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 21, 2007
Hussein of Cards
And finally, we get to the truth of the matter:
There is more, much more, in Michelle's NY Post article, and I suggest that you take the time to read it all, but the heart of the matter is that AP's reporters seem to have greatly exaggerated what took place in Hurriyah on November 24. Not a single mosque was "burned and blew up" as AP reported, though they did come under some small arms fire and two were attacked with primitive Molotov cocktails. Not a single soul died in an "inferno" at the al-Muhaimin (var. al Muhaymin) mosque, much less the 18 including women and children, as reported by an al-Qaeda-aligned group (the Association of Muslim Scholars) that the AP wouldn't even identify as extremists as other news organizations have done. AP's most graphic element, missing from all other news organizations' coverage of Shia attacks in Hurriyah and elsewhere, was a single-sourced report by longtime AP source Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein (an apparent pseudonym) that six men had been pulled from the al-Mustafa mosque, doused in kerosene, and burned alive. While al-Mustafa was subject to small arms fire and an attack with a crude incendiary device, no one was pulled into the street and immolated. The Associated Press reporting of the incident in Hurriyah doesn't stand up. And did I mention that this wasn't the only account sourced to Jamil Hussein that cannot be corroborated?
AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll indignantly attacked those who had questioned the global news organization's reporting: "I never quite understood why people chose to disbelieve us about this particular man on this particular story," she told Editor and Publisher. "AP runs hundreds of stories a day, and has run thousands of stories about things that have happened in Iraq." Well, Bryan Preston and I visited the area during our Iraq trip last week. Several mosques did, in fact, come under attack by Mahdi Army forces. But the "destroyed" mosques all still stand. Iraqi and U.S. Army officials say that two of them received no fire damage whatsoever. Another, which we filmed, was abandoned and empty when it was attacked. WE obtained summary reports and photos filed at the time by Iraqi and U.S. Army troops on the scene. They contain no corroborating evidence of Hussein's claim that "Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene."
* * *
Unlike most of Hussein's rather vague claims, this one provided specific detail I could attempt to follow up on. We know the name of the victim, who he worked for, where he worked, and at what rank, and even know how and where (in general terms) he was killed. Unlike all of AP's other stories sourced to Jamil Hussein (including the Hurriyah attacks), this story even has a picture associated with it.
Elsewhere in the capital, police Capt. Amir Kamil, who provided security for Yarmouk hospital, was shot to death Tuesday at a bus station, Capt. Jamil Hussein said.
A caption provided with the picture in a sidebar here reads:
It seems like this story could be easily verified, doesn't it? Alas, that is not the case. As I noted previously, I was unable to find any English-language stories from other news agencies corroborating the AP's claim of Captain Kamil's assassination. A reader with Lexis-Nexis access reported the same. Hoping to run it down through other channels, I asked CPATT and MNC-I to also try to verify this account, and turned it over to a journalist with solid ties to the Arab Press (the journalist wishes to remain anonymous) to see if any local Iraqi or Middle Eastern Press agencies might have corroborating accounts. Previously, they (CPATT, MNC-I, Arab media contacts) were able to confirm the assassination of Iraqi Defense Ministry employee Mohammed Musaab Talal al-Amari. To date, the al-Amari murder remains the only Jamil Hussein account of 40 I investigated that was conclusively corroborated. Two sources, CPATT and MNC-I PAO, often work together on MOI related issues, and this is what MNC-I PAO Lt. Michael Dean was able to relay to me via email about police deaths reported to MNF-I in Baghdad on June 20:
Two friends of police Capt. Amir Kamil comfort each other at al-Yarmouk hospital after he was shot...
He adds:
Mr. Owens: On June 20, 2006, MNCI has reports of only 2 incidents that
involved the deaths of Iraqi Police. 1) At 11:28 a.m., the Iraqi Police reported murder of 1 civilian (unknown employment) and 2 National Police officers. Mehmond Hamade's corpse was reported to be located at the Kadhimiya Hospital (northern Baghdad on east side of Tigris). Also, the heads of two 1-1 National Police officers, NOC Monsa Uttawi and SGM Mehmond Muter Lefta, were discovered in the Tigris. 2) A 4.5-hour small arms fire incident in Al Rasafah in eastern Baghdad (Yarmok is on the western side of Tigris) during the afternoon of June 20 beginning at approximately 1:30 p.m. resulted in one Iraqi Police officer killed, one Iraqi Police officer wounded, 2 Iraqi soldiers wounded, 5 civilians killed and 5 civilians wounded. The incident consisted of small arms fire being received from nearby building. No mention of the name of the Iraqi Police officer killed.
Vr,
LT Dean
Neither event even remotely describes the bus station assassination described by Jamil Hussein, though Lt. Dean mentions that they do not collect all information regarding police casualties and deaths. A report from my journalistic source indicates that his Arab media contacts could not easily turn up Arab-language accounts of Captain Kamil's assassination as they had been able to in the al-Amari murder, and that they would attempt to dig deeper. He also cautioned that there might be no "definitive answer." No definitive answers, and no corroborating accounts. Stop me if you've heard this one before. Update: Michelle has photos of the not-quite blown up mosques at MichelleMalkin.com.
Please keep in mind that MNCI is not the collector of all information regarding incidents involving Iraqi Security Forces, including police.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:59 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 20, 2007
AP: The Art of the Dodge
Almost two months after the Associated Press ran the story that six Sunnis were pulled from a mosque in the Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriyah, doused in kerosene and set ablaze, the Associated Press continues to dodge a series of very simple questions surrounding their alleged deaths, and the deaths of 18 other Sunnis their reports claim were murdered.
Four days ago, I sent a simple series of direct questions to Linda M. Wagner, Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for the Associated Press.Late Friday afternoon, Wagner finally offered a response... just no direct answers to any of my questions:
On November 24 and 25, 2006, AP reported four mosques--al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa mosques--were attacked "with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles," before being "burned and blew up." These allegations were directly attributed to Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Successive AP coverage has dropped all mention of three of the mosques. Does the Associated Press still maintain that four mosques were attacked in Hurriyah on November 24, 2006 with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles, and that these four mosques were burned and blown up? The AP also cited the Association of Muslim Scholars as a source for a claim that at one of these mosques (al-Muhaimin) "18 people had died in an inferno" as a result of these attacks. Do you think it was responsible of the Associated Press to run these allegations considering that the Association of Muslim Scholars is alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda? Should AP have mentioned these ties to terrorist groups when it cited the AMS as a source? These 18 claimed dead have also disappeared for subsequent AP reports. Does the Associated Press still stand behind this claim they reported? In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges? Further, I have seen written claims shortly after the first AP claims of an attack that AP Television has video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque, where AP source Jamil Hussein claims six men were pulled from the mosque and immolated. Does the Associated Press indeed have such footage? If so, why has it not been mentioned since November 30, and can I obtain a copy of that footage? If the Associated Press does not have the video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque from the attack that left six men immolated, the why has the Associated Press not acknowledged this, and printed a retraction or a correction for this claim? As you can see, my primary line of questioning is wondering why the AP has back of claims made in the first several days of reporting, without printing a correction or a retraction of these claims. I'd also like to know if the Associated Press still stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein by the Associated Press between April and November of 2006.
Wagner also provided a list of other news sources that wrote about mosque attacks in Hurriyah on November 24. Despite providing some interesting reading, Wagner still avoided answering the questions I asked. Stripped of the background information, I asked Wagner a total of 10 questions:
When following up on past reports that feature new information, news agencies do not repeat all of the details that were in their original breaking news reports. This does not mean that they are retracting what they had published previously unless a new report, correction or clarification states that explicitly.
A search of news reports in Nexis and Reuters shows that reporters for numerous news agencies, including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah (also spelled Hurriya) and additional sites elsewhere in Baghdad on Friday, November 24, 2006. As may happen in breaking news reports from active combat zones, the precise toll of death and injury can be difficult to establish.
Below are relevant passages from several news accounts of the incidents in Baghdad on that date. I have sent your questions to our International news desk. If any new information about this topic becomes available, I'll let you know.
- Does the Associated Press still maintain that four mosques were attacked in Hurriyah on November 24, 2006 with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles, and
- that these four mosques were burned and blown up?
- Do you think it was responsible of the Associated Press to run these allegations considering that the Association of Muslim Scholars is alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda?
- Should AP have mentioned these ties to terrorist groups when it cited the AMS as a source?
- These 18 claimed dead have also disappeared for subsequent AP reports. Does the Associated Press still stand behind this claim they reported?
- In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges?
- Further, I have seen written claims shortly after the first AP claims of an attack that AP Television has video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque, where AP source Jamil Hussein claims six men were pulled from the mosque and immolated. Does the Associated Press indeed have such footage?
- If so, why has it not been mentioned since November 30, and can I obtain a copy of that footage?
- If the Associated Press does not have the video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque from the attack that left six men immolated, the why has the Associated Press not acknowledged this, and printed a retraction or a correction for this claim?
- I'd also like to know if the Associated Press still stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein by the Associated Press between April and November of 2006.
- When following up on past reports that feature new information, news agencies do not repeat all of the details that were in their original breaking news reports. This does not mean that they are retracting what they had published previously unless a new report, correction or clarification states that explicitly.
- A search of news reports in Nexis and Reuters shows that reporters for numerous news agencies, including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah (also spelled Hurriya) and additional sites elsewhere in Baghdad on Friday, November 24, 2006.
- As may happen in breaking news reports from active combat zones, the precise toll of death and injury can be difficult to establish.
- Wagner does not say that the Associated Press still maintains that four mosques were attacked with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles.
- Wagner does not say that the AP still maintains these four mosques were burned and blown up.
- Wagner does not address whether or not it was responsible of the Associated Press to run allegations made by the Association of Muslim Scholars, a group alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda, or
- whether or not the Associated Press should have mentioned these terrorist ties to their readers
- Wagner does not answer whether or not AP television captured video footage showing damage to the al-Mustafa mosque as the previously claimed
- Wagner does not mention whether or not the Associated Press stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein
Wagner appears to avoid any direct statements saying that the Associated Press stands behind their Hurriyah reporting, does not acknowledge the existence of the AP television video AP once claimed to have, and most noticeably, refuses to state whether or not they stand behind the stories sourced to the man they call Jamil Hussein. These are not what I would consider encouraging answers.
In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 19, 2007
Hot Air: Tomba Kids
Bryan could have--and I'll argue he should have--named this post something else.
How about Why We Fight. This is what I want you to think of when you hear Democrats in the House and Senate (along with the Republicans defectors) talking about defunding the troops and argue against the very surge of troops so many of them supported until Bush agreed with them.
Photo courtesy of Michael Yon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:46 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
January 18, 2007
My Three Jamils
Right idea, wrong Jamil(s). Well, maybe not.
Jamil Hussein—all three of them—have been arrested in the West Bank:Up to 150 of them are Jamil Hussein... actually, I'm just making that part up. That said, if there were more of the Iraqi Jamil Hussein's—the guy we now know is actually Jamil Gulaim "XX" (not Hussein), despite AP protestations to the contrary followed by their sudden silence—it would go a long way towards describing how one of the Associated Press' most prolific sources could possibly be reporting from almost everywhere in Baghdad except his own location as shown in this map (red areas indicates Jamil XX's assigned neighborhoods, orange areas neighboring neighborhoods, and the red sunbursts indicating the location of the attacks he alleged occurred):
In the town of 'Azzoun, Israeli forces arrested three brothers: Mahmoud Mohammed Jamil Hussein, Bilal Mohammed Jamil Hussein and Maher Mohammed Jamil Hussein. Palestinian security sources report that Israeli forces have intensified its military operations in the city of Qalqilia in recent times. The number of military operations has risen and the number of political prisoners from Qalqilia in Israeli prisons is currently around 600.
As senior members of the Associated Press continue to claim they stand behind their Jamilgate reporting on one hand while rewriting it on the other, it appears that Reuters is not the only news agency needing to have staff members dismissed.
The agency had tightened editing procedures to ensure that only senior photo editors dealt with sensitive images, invested in more training and supervision and strengthened its code of conduct for photographers, Schlesinger said. He named Stephen Crisp, a Briton who has worked for Reuters in a variety of senior positions since 1985, as the new chief photographer for the Middle East and said he had taken up his assignment in Dubai this month. "His predecessor in the Middle East role was dismissed in the course of the investigation for his handling of the case," Schlesinger wrote. A company spokeswoman, Eileen Wise, said Reuters would not provide further details, citing staff confidentiality.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Who Bent? Who Cares?
It certainly seems tough to tell exactly what transpired as the NSA terrorist communication intercept program is once again back in the headlines:
Bush Retreats on Use of Executive Power (Washington Post) Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases (NY Times) Administration to let court monitor domestic spying (CNN) Attorney General Gonzales to Brief Senate Panel on Oversight of Domestic Spying Program (Fox News) So what really took place? As legal expert Orin Kerr notes at The Volokh Conspiracy:While some pundits seem content to label this as a defeat of sorts for the Bush Administration (see the WaPo headline above) and some conservative legal experts are inclined to agree, I'm not sure. I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but this seems to be a case of We Don't Know What We Don't Know, and I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. Perhaps Mark Levin is right, and Bush ceded the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch when he should not have. If so, it would not be the first time President Bush made a mistake. On the other hand, what little we can discern from all the posturing and spin is that the NSA program not only lives, but the FISA court appears to have possibility modified itself in such a way as to be more compatible with the goals of the program... or vice versa, or maybe a little bit of both. The end result is that the program will continue, and that terrorists attempting to communicate with their allies within the United States will continue to be watched, tracked, and eventually, captured or killed. Isn't that what really matters?
What's going on? As with everything about this program, we can't be sure; we don't know the facts, so we're stuck with making barely-educated guesses. But it sounds to me like the FISA Court judges have agreed to issue anticipatory warrants. The traditional warrant process requires the government to write up the facts in an application and let the judge decide whether those facts amount to probable cause. If you were looking for a way to speed up that process — and both sides were in a mood to be "innovative" — one fairly straightforward alternative would be to use anticipatory warrants. An anticipatory warrant lets the government conduct surveillance when a specific set of triggering facts occurs. The judge agrees ahead of time that if those facts occur, probable cause will exist and the monitoring can occur under the warrant. The idea is that there isn't enough time to get a warrant right at that second, so the warrant can be "pre-approved" by the Judge and used by the government when the triggering event happens.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0904 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0763 seconds, 88 records returned.
Page size 112 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.