Bumped to the top
12/30/06 00:55 EST: I have it on good authority that Saddam was executed at 4:22 AM... and every media source on the planet is wrong about the 6:00 AM execution.

Previously:

1:54 EST: Just got a reconfirmation from my source minutes ago. Saddam Hussein has about two hours to live, with a midnight execution still scheduled.

2:20: EST: Corroboration.

3:04 EST: Source: "they're gearing up, but logistics could put it in the wee hours after midnight. Absolutely no later than dawn, which is close to midnight our time. The Iraqis are not always as punctual as the U.S. military."

3:08 EST: Source: "It's still entirely possible he'll be dead within the hour. The curtain of secrecy draws tighter as the hour draws nearer. "

Note: this will be my final update until the deed is done-- CY.

According to an anonymous source, the former President of Iraq will be executed by hanging at 12:00 AM midnight Baghdad-time on Saturday/4:00 PM EST Friday afternoon at an undisclosed location.

If my source is correct, Saddam Hussein is facing his final sunrise.

Update:

Sooner, Rather than Later?

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Update: What Saddam's impending death means to Jules Crittenden.

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

From--where else?--the Huffington Post (h/t Hot Air):

WELL HUNG! Saddam Hung To Prove Bush is BETTER Hung... (Than His Dad)

Brilliant headline, don't you suppose? I bet Martin Lewis used all 36 years of his experince as a "journalist, columnist, writer, humorist, monologist, comedic performer, radio host, TV host, TV correspondent," etc, etc to come up with that one. Such deep, cutting-edge humor.

1) To George W. Bush. It only cost $354 billion (and counting) and the lives of 3,000 very expendable US military to enable the President to demonstrate to his dad that he has a bigger Dick. Or is one...

Isn't it ironic - don'tcha think? Saddam hung so that Dubya can prove that he's BETTER hung...

Such nuance. Such depth. Such class. Arianna trotted out her best for this one.

2) To George H.W. & Barbara Bush for raising a child with such wonderful values.

Why not attack the parents? After all, if attacking children is right in line with liberal values, parents are obviously fair game as well.

3) To Dick Cheney. If it wasn't for his remorse about his part in the "failure" in 1991 to kill off Saddam (one of the most cherished allies of the Reagan-Bush administrations) - he might not have had his "fever" to expend thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American tax-payers' dollars getting Saddam this time around.

Quite right. After all, Saddam had only killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of his own people, triggered a war that left approximately a million dead, attempted at least partial genocides against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, invaded Kuwait and launched attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia, but they were all brown people. Or Jews.

4) To Gerald Ford. For pardoning Richard Nixon without securing any confession or even acknowledgement of wrong-doing - and thus laying the path for Presidential unaccountability; for promoting the careers of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld; and for having the courage to speak out against the Iraq war in June 2004 - and insisting that his criticism be held till AFTER his death. (Why risk hurting a GOP President's re-election prospects when the cost is just a few thousand American lives...) THAT'S why he deserves all the plaudits for his decency and courage.

How utterly gracious of Mr. Lewis to channel the latest missive from that greatest voice of Absolute Moral Authority. Were there any other comments you'd care to emulate of hers? We'll wait.

5) To Ronald Reagan. For unilaterally deciding in 1983 to end the 16-year international isolation of Iraq for its barbarity - and sending Donald Rumsfeld as his personal goodwill ambassador to befriend Saddam Hussein - during the exact same time when Hussein was committing the very crimes for which he was hung. Crimes that were publicized worldwide at the time by Amnesty International and others - and thus fully known about by Reagan, George W. Bush and their entire administration.

But just skip right on past any thought that this same barbarity might have been a decent reason to--you know--get rid of him. 'cause it's all about the dicks.

6) Spare a thought for Donald Rumsfeld. Tough week for him. He's just lost someone very close to him. And Gerald Ford as well in the same week...

See? I'm a humorist!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

Several days ago a soldier in Iraq email a picture back home to the United States, showing John Kerry eating in a mess hall in Iraq. Absolutely riveting content, right?

Nonetheless, all sorts of people who should know better have gotten completely discombobulated about it, many to the point of calling it a fraud, or purporting that the photo showed some other sort of context.

If you want to get a good cross-section of what occurred (and apparently, is still occurring in some corners), start with the blog post that apparently got things going, accusations from those offended, a quite practical explanation from the guy who accidentally started the whole thing, and continued angst from lost souls that simply refuse to allow this excruciatingly minor story to die a natural death.

Jon Carry--uh, John Kerry-- was not shot nor stabbed nor completely shunned by our soldiers in Iraq, but thanks to his on-going contempt for our military he was not mobbed as most celebrities in a combat zone are. Instead, he got a "subdued reception."

He isn't popular with the troops for obvious reasons, but to our soldier's credit, they didn't act unprofessionally around him. Can we please just end this non-story there?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

In a photo taken several hours from now, Cindy Sheehan reacts to the death of Saddam Hussein... or news that her month-long supply of Jamba Juice supply may have been tainted.

Your call.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

It isn't likely that you needed a litmus test to gauge the widely divergent viewpoints on the Iraq War, but on the off chance that you did, Senator Joe Lieberman provided it in spades in an op-ed published in today's Washington Post calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq.

Reaction on both sides is as you might expect it, both from conservative bloggers, and from liberals.

Blogging from the right with a soldier-son in Iraq, Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard:

My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.

From Dan Collins at the libertarian-rightish Protein Wisdom:

In his opinion piece in the WaPo today, Independent Senator from Connecticut Joe Lieberman says the *gasp!* V-Word! HeÂ’s so over the line he's, he's . . . why, he's trans-neoconic! If you've no better source of entertainment today, you can watch the sinistrosphere go ballistic over the temerity of the man...

...If he runs for president, I think he's got my vote.

From Paul Silver at the moderate—what else?—Moderate Voice:

I agree with Senator Lieberman's commentary today in the Washington Post...

...Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can't support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.

From Steve Clemons at the reliably left-wing Huffington Post:

Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.

It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us...

...Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?

And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.

Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan...

...Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Glenn Greenwald sees this as a declaration of war on Iran:

In his Washington Post Op-Ed today, the Great Warrior Joe Lieberman predictably endorsed sending more troops to Iraq, in the process dutifully spouting (as always) every Bush/neoconservative talking point. But Lieberman had a much larger fish to fry with this Op-Ed, as he all but declared war on Iran, identifying them as the equivalent of Al Qaeda, as the Real Enemy we are fighting...

...One might question why someone who is one of the most vocal advocates of the Iraq Disaster would seek to expand the war to include Iran, a country much larger and more formidable on every level than Iraq. After all, things aren't going that well in Iraq, and it might seem to a simplistic and Chamberlain-like appeasing coward that the absolutely most insane idea ever is to try to expand "our war" to include Iran. So what would motivate Lieberman to do this?

He then goes on to make the snide, roundabout case—and no, I'm not be facetious—that Liebermann is doing this because the Israelis told him too:

Initially, it must be emphasized that whatever his reason is, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sentiments expressed by Israel's newest cabinet minister, Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) when he visited the U.S. earlier this month and gave an interview to The New York Times:

"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War." [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."

Joe Lieberman's desire for the U.S. to view itself as being at war with Iran also has nothing whatsoever to do with this:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president...

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s," Olmert said in his speech at the Yad Vashem memorial.

And yes, he's serious as Glenn Ryan Wilson Ellers Ellison Ellensburg Greenwald can be.

And for a final left-wing viewpoint, Matthew Yglesias:

And what about al-Qaeda? Lieberman appears to be arguing later in the article that Iran and al-Qaeda are collaborating in Iraq since otherwise it's hard to make sense of the claim that "If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." Needless to say, he's backing the Bush/McCain escalation plan.

One problem here is that to the extent you see the dark hand of Iran behind all events in Iraq, the situation should logically be viewed as more rather than less hopeless. The reason, of course, is that Iran can escalate every bit as much as we can. Whoever's equipping, say, the Mahdi Army clearly isn't equipping them very well -- Hezbollah is much better-armed. Suppose we escalate and the Iranians counter-escalate by giving our foes wire-guided anti-tank missiles, katyusha rockets, Iglas and so forth -- then you're talking about a really bad scene. Obviously, though, that's logic and hawks aren't into logic.

And though I am a hawk—and therefore by definition "not into logic" according to Yglesias—I'll do my best to muddle through these divergent viewpoints and attempt to get to whatever apparent meat remains upon this proverbial bone.

From the center-right, the perspective seems to be that we did not go into Iraq with enough forces initially. We went in with enough military force to destroy Saddam HusseinÂ’s military dictatorship, but not enough military and non-military forces to occupy the country and create stability in which a fledgling democracy could be established. I think few will argue with this perspective, as current events indicate that is precisely what appears to have occurred, as we currently have an Iraqi dictatorship that was quickly toppled in just weeks in 2003, only to fall into a worsening chaos afterward.

From this perspective, many conservatives—but certainly not all, by any means—hope that a influx of American troops can be used in some way to stop the near-constant escalation of sectarian violence in several key Iraqi provinces, and also dismantle various elements of the Sunni insurgency, terrorist groups, the Shia militias, and various criminal gangs. I, for one, agree with something Senator Liebermann said in his op-ed, that, "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite." If it is possible to win in Iraq—and no honest person can claim to have God's knowledge and unequivocally say this war can’t be won, or is already lost—then providing stability is indeed a prerequisite, and sending in more soldiers is the only option to help achieve that goal.

The "reality-based community" maintains that it has a crystal ball and that the war is already lost. This, of course is a ludicrous position, speaking of the future as if it is known, but a popular and perhaps prevailing one on the left nonetheless. The fact is, though they are loathe to admit it, that the American left wants to lose the War in Iraq. If the situation is turned around in Iraq, stability is restored and Iraq becomes some sort of non-belligerent representative and economically viable Middle Eastern democracy, then the far Left's rhetoric of the past six years will have been proven false. To maintain the viability of their ideology, the Bush Doctrine, and therefore the U.S. military forces and Iraqi government, must fail. It is a sad position that the Left has backed themselves into, but they are campaigning against victory in Iraq, putting their own psychological and philosophical needs above the lives of 26 million Iraqis.

This most certainly is the case, as that is the only way that Greenwald go to such extremes as to “blame the Jews” in almost Sheehanesque shrillness, while purposefully ignoring the fact that Iran has escalated the disagreements between our two nations to the level of conflict, and on multiple occasions.

In Bob WoodwardÂ’s State of Denial, he states (via NRO):

Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

From the same column, former FBI director Louis Freeh:

It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."

As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."

According to ABC News, Iranian-made explosives of recent manufacture have been captured at the Iran-Iraq border. Iranian fighters have recently been captured northeast of Baghdad after a skirmish with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.

Greenwald is welcome to his own opinion, but he seems intent on creating his own reality as well, where Iran is not acting against us. Clemons takes the exact same approach, stating, Liebermann "inappropriately ties" Iran to some of the violence in Iraq. This takes a strong adherence to ideology over facts, and yet, this seems to be precisely their shared position. It is just one example of many they ignore or bend to bring "reality" to their "reality-based" community.

I offer only this.

I do not claim to have a crystal ball. I do not pretend to know where the war will lead. I do not pretend to know the outcome. What I do know, however, is that we further broke an already failing nation-state, and did much to create the situation in which the citizens of Iraq find themselves in. When someone creates a problem as we have done with the botched occupation we have witnessed so far, we have an obligation, a responsibility, to do everything within reason to help rectify that mistake.

If sending additional forces to Iraq in a so-called "surge" to attempt to break the militias, insurgents, terrorists and thugs is what the situation calls for, then we owe it—yes we owe it—to the overwhelming majority of the 26 million Iraqi people that simply want to live peaceful lives.

To do otherwise is to dishonor our nation, and the lives of those who fought and who are fighting in Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2322 words, total size 15 kb.

Saving lives--even fictional lives--it's just what we do:

BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec 28,2006 (AP) - Just hours after Conservative blogger, Bob Owens expressed concern over the disappearance and fate of Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein, the AP reported that a team of Iraqi police officers found Mr. Hussein inside a closet in a US military barracks, bound and blindfolded with severe lacerations over most of his body. Hussein was apparently beaten by American soldiers and will spend the next several weeks recuperating at his home in Baghdad.

[snip]

Hussein told the Associated Press that he was abducted by a group of US soldiers over a month ago after he personally witnessed them blowing up an Iraqi school bus packed with scores of Iraqi school children. The soldiers, Hussein said, tied him up, blindfolded him and then beat him with lead pipes until he could no longer walk. He was eventually found by Iraqi police officers who quickly rushed him to the AP's main office in Baghdad where he was treated for shock and eventually sent home to recuperate.

According to the AP, Hussein will take a year off from his job as Iraqi police captain to recover from his latest ordeal, but, he'll continue to work part time as a stringer for the AP.

Meanwhile, Hussein said he owes his life to Owens who alerted the AP to look for him.

I'm just glad I could help.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

In a pre-execution embargoed Bob Woodward interview leaked to Confederate Yankee, Former President of Iraq Saddam Hussein made several shocking confessions, including once having his secret police, the Mukhabarat plot the murder of Maury Povich in hopes of one day possessing Connie Chung.

Saddam also confessed to a strong craving for bran... lots and lots of bran.

More as this develops...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

John Edwards (the pretty one, not the psychic) declared from New Orleans today that he would be running in the Democratic primaries for President in 2008.

Funny how Edwards, a former North Carolina Senator, life-long North Carolinian with a job at UNC-Chapel Hill, chose to announce his candidacy in New Orleans, Louisiana, instead of on his "home turf," surrounded by friendly North Carolina Democratic politicians.

The fact of the matter is, Edwards doesn't have much home state support, and had he chosen to announce in NC, it would have likely been overshadowed by who chose not to attend, both stealing his thunder and saying something about his "down home" reputation he'd rather not the rest of the country find out.

Edwards spent part of his New Orleans photo-op with a shovel in hand. For those of us who know him the best, that seems quite appropriate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein, used regularly as a named source by the Associated Press including a flurry of eight reports about four burning mosques and 24 burning Sunnis (including six immolated) between November 24-26, has been noticeably missing from AP reporting for 31 days, and hasn't provided fresh information to the AP in 33 days.

To give you an idea of how odd this is, Jamil Hussein was used as a named source for the Associated Press (and only the Associated Press) on average every 5.2 days between April 24 and November 26 of this year. His longest previous period of silence was a 34-day gap between mid-September and Mid-October.

All of us are deeply concerned about the fate of Captain Hussein, and I think it would be a nice gesture if the AP, which has visited him so many times at his office at the police station, would give him a call, just to see if he's okay.

As it stands right now, he seems to have disappeared as if he never existed.

CPT, phone home...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

The former President has died at 93:

Former President Gerald Ford, who became president in 1974 after the resignation of Richard Nixon, died Tuesday at age 93.

Ford, the oldest surviving former U.S. president, died Tuesday, his wife, Betty Ford said. The former first lady's statement did not say where he died or give a cause of death.

"My family joins me in sharing the difficult news that Gerald Ford, our beloved husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather has passed away at 93 years of age," she said in a statement from Ford's office in Rancho Mirage. "His life was filled with love of God, his family and his country."

The nation's 38th president spent several days in the fall of 2006 at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage for medical tests. At the time of his release, on October 16, his chief of staff, Penny Circle, said he would "resume normal activities."

In August, he was discharged from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, after undergoing an angioplasty procedure to reduce or eliminate blockages in his coronary arteries. Doctors also implanted a pacemaker to improve his heart performance.

He is survived by his wife; three sons, Michael, Jack and Steven; and a daughter, Susan.

President Ford was the only President to ever hold the office never having been elected President or Vice President, being elevated in the wake of resignations in the Nixon administration following the Watergate scandal.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

My wife got a Sandisk M240 MP3 player for Christmas. Though a blogger I be, a technophile I am decidedly not. We're trying to decide between different music subscription services, and CNET offered reviews of MTV's Urge, Rhapsody To Go, Yahoo! Music Unlimited and Napster To Go.

Do you guys have any recommendations?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:11 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

I could really care less about the whole Duke Lacrosse rape trial, but today, Durham DA Mike Nifong finally dropped the rape changes. It's about damn time. They found plenty of DNA evidence, from five different men—we haven't seen that much sperm in North Carolina in one place since they stopped whaling—but none of it belonged to the lacrosse players.

And yet, he insists on prosecuting the kidnapping and sexual offense charges, which to my mind, hinged on the rape changes.

Why?

Answer provided by Durham native, Mary Katherine Ham:

ItÂ’s Durham. ItÂ’s full of a bunch of liberal white people who love to get yelled at by black people, and a bunch of liberal black people who are happy to oblige them. This story scratched that white guilt itch soooo good, they just couldnÂ’t let it go, even though it was pretty clear from the beginning that the story was a little off.

The national media liked the white, privileged, lax boys rape hard-working, exotic dancer, single mom story, and they ran with it, too. As a result, many lives, seasons, careers, and a successful sports program have been seriously messed with by a D.A. who couldnÂ’t back off on the narrative, either, lest he feel the wrath at the ballot box from those whom he denied their white guilt orgy.

I lived in Durham for two years.

That's about right.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Another Straw

In the detailed follow-up account to the initial "burning six" story AP insisted:

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.

This is a damn fine trick. According to Iraqi Brigadier General Abdul-Kareem, (via an email exchange with MNC-I PAO) their is no morgue at Kazamiyah Hospital. Any dead at Kazamiyah Hospital are transported by the police to the Medical Jurisprudence Center at Bab Almadham.

To sum up the "Burning Six" story so far:

Sources

• The primary source for the story doesn't apparently exist.
• The secondary source retracted his claim
• The tertiary source (Assn of Muslim Scholars) is suspected of being in league with the insurgency
• All other sources are anonymous, and in at least this instance, cite a factual impossibility.

• 6 men were pulled out of a rocketed mosque, doused in kerosene, and burned alive. No bodies have been recovered, and the mosque has curiously never been named.
• Those killed were seen by workers of Kazamiyah Hospital in the morgue. Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue.
• 18 people were burned to death in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque. Not a single casualty of any type has been found, and their is no evidence tha the mosque was set on fire.
• A total of four mosques-Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa were attacked "with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles," before being burned. There is zero evidence that any of the mosques were assaulted in such a manner, and only the Nidaa Allah suffered minor fire damage from a molotov cocktail. The fire was put out by local firefighters.

In short, four weeks after breaking this story, the Associated Press has no credible witnesses, nor any physical or photographic evidence, of a series of four terrorist attacks that they claimed killed as many as 24 people, six of them burned alive. To date, they refuse to issue a retraction.

Faith-based reporting is apparently the new Associated Press standard.

12/26 Update: I was offline over the past few days and so didn't check my email, but Michelle Malkin lets me know via email that according to her sources, Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue, but it does have a large freezer that can be used to store bodies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Since near the beginning of Jamilgate, the Associated Press has maintained that:

...Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then and he has been a reliable source of accurate information on a variety of events in Baghdad.

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.

The problem with the AP response, issued by none other than AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll herself, is that is it essentially states "You must trust us, because... you must trust us."

Now, exactly four weeks later, the AP has not provided a singe shred of evidence to show why we should trust them about the claimed existence of Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein.

As Michelle Malkin noted last night, teams of investigators working with her, CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Teams), the Iraqi Ministry of Interior (MOI), Marc Danzinger, and Eason Jordan, have all been unable to find any evidence of a Captain Jamil Hussein having ever worked at the Yarmouk or Al Khadra police stations as AP claims.

There is however, another Iraqi Police Captain in Yarmouk, and he has now been through a second round of questioning at Ministry of Interior Headquarters. This same police captain worked at both Yarmouk and Al Khadra, and his first name is Jamil. His last name, however, is not Hussein, and he denies ever having spoken with the Associated Press.

And so we are left with the official statement of the Iraqi government that Police Captain Jamil Hussein has never existed, and no one, AP or otherwsie, has shown evidence to the contrary. He is a ghost, an apparition, a Never Was.

As the AP stands silent (probably on the command of their legal department), we are forced to consider at ths point the following most-logical possibilities:

1. Someone posing as "Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein" duped the Associated Press, from stringer to executive editor, for two years using a made-up identity, or;
2. The Associated Press made the decision prior to April of 2006 to create the pseudonym "Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein," as a cover identity for one or more sources, and had that cover compromised.

If the Associated Press has been duped by an false identity for two years, it should hardly come as a surprise that they would chose not to publicly admit to this embarrassing failure of basic journalistic fact-checking, a compromise that affects the integrity of all 61 stories in which Hussein was a source that are not corroborated by non-AP accounts.

If the Associated Press decided to use a pseudonym prior to the first "Jamil Hussein sourcing", attempting to defraud the public by using a made-up identity to mask the people behind one or more other sources, they are also guilty of compromising all 61 stories in which Hussein was a source that are not corroborated by non-AP accounts, and in addition, have compromised the reputations of all 17 reporters that have bylines to stories citing Hussein as a source, two of which have been promoted to new positions, curiously enough, since Hussein's identity came into question.

Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein was a named source for the Associated Press on 61 stories published between April 24 and November 26 of this year. AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll claims he was a well know AP source for two years. She and AP international editor John Daniszewski, newly-minted Baghdad News Editor Kim Gamel, and brand new Assistant Chief of Middle East News Patrick Quinn have had 29 days to prove Police Captain Jamil Hussein exists, and they have failed, utterly.

I propose that the AP and others in the news business—and make no mistake, it is a business—incorporate a version of the 30-day return policy so common to other businesses.

If a news organization cannot provide physical proof of a disputed story of stories, or the basic existence of sources within 30 days, they should then produce a full retraction of their story of stories using that source, and finance a third-party independent investigation into why their reporting methodology failed to come up with the evidence that should have been needed to take a story to press in the first place. Doing this would ensure that methodological failures can be addressed and lessons learned to keep these kind of failures from repeating in the future.

You've had 29 days to prove your case, AP, and you've failed, utterly.

You've got 24 hours, then I think we're entitled to at least one retraction, and perhaps as many as 61.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:16 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 5 kb.

If it is true that a negative and a negative make a positive, does that mean that a stupid comment made by a politician, and responded to ignorantly by a blogger, equate to good blog fodder?

Let's see.

BlueNC, a liberal blog apparently from the Concord, NC area outside of Charlotte, attacked Republican Congressman Robin Hayes yesterday for something the local newspaper reported he said in a speech to a local Rotary Club:

"Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior."

If that is an accurate reflection of what Hayes said (Blue NC provides no link, as the local paper, the Concord Standard and Mount Pleasant Times, has a web site, but does not have an online edition), then Hayes made an unwise comment.

I know the Concord area, and Hayes was certainly playing to his constituency in the heavily Christian audience, with no thought that his comments would get wider distribution around the world thanks to modern technology.

Were his comments careless? Certainly. Accurate? Only in that Christians don't have much of a track record of suicide bombings, nor do they typically use their electric drills for much other than home repair.

Typically.

Hayes, like many of our leaders in the House and Senate, seems far from savvy of how this series of tubes called the Internets, works. He doesn't get it.

Like too many public figures, he does not yet understand that anything you say, anywhere you say it no matter how small, can and will be used against you now in the court of public opinion. Does this make him evil or a "crusader?" No, just stupid.

Equally stupid, however, is this comment by the formatting and theologically-challenged blogger, LiberalNC (my bold):

So if we just turn our soldiers into missionaries everything will be okay, Mr. Hayes?
First we sent our men over there to take out the WMD’s, then it was to “spread democracy”, now you want them there to “spread the message of Jesus Christ”?
It so happens that people in Iraq already have a savior but unfortunately for Mr. Hayes itÂ’s Muhammed, not Jesus.
If we canÂ’t keep Muslims from killing each other over there, I donÂ’t think that trying to make them all Christian is going to be any easier.

This will undoubtedly come as a shock to "LiberalNC" and perhaps many liberals in general, but "Mo" isn't anyone's savior. Never has been, never will be.

The very concept of a Savior, someone both God and man who sacrificed his earthly life to take up the burdens of our sins, is uniquely Christian.

There is nothing even similar to the concept of a savior in Islam. Mohammed did a lot of interesting things, like zipping around Heaven and Hell on guided tours, but he was never a savior, nor did he ever claim to be.

Maybe that is why I find it so amusing when liberals try to comment on the War on Terror.

They don't understand even the basic underlying cultural and philosophical differences between western societies based upon Judeo-Christian thought and those societies based upon Islamic philosophies, and ignorantly assume that Islam is some sort of flip-side to Christianity, that Mohammed is a direct analog to Jesus.

Hayes made a mistake pandering to a local audience, but certainly understands he comments were just hot air, with no hope of being implemented or even seriously discussed. LiberalNC, however, was quite serious, making a comparison based upon a vast ignorance of the gulf between two of the world's major religions.

The later is assuredly more ignorant than the former.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:08 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

...Shouldn't throw stones:

[Ahmadinejad] toured cities in western Iran, telling the crowds that Iran will not be intimidated by Western demands to dismantle its nuclear program, and scolding Bush.

"Oh, the respectful gentleman, get out of the glassy palace and know that you are the most hated person in the eyes of the world's nations and you can't harm the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, according to the official Iranian Republic News Agency.

Glassy. Iranian nation. Ahmadinejad.

Barring a major change in Iranian politics and rhetoric, I think we'll see all three of those in a sentence again in the near future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

And he's soooo AP.

h/t Insty.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I think this is generally why they prefer to ship nuclear fuels by rail:

A fully loaded tractor-trailer carrying about 6,600 pounds of powdered uranium has overturned on part of Interstate 40 in Johnston County, authorities say.

All eastbound lanes of I-40 are closed at exit 325 (N.C. Highway 242 to Benson). Traffic is being rerouted through Benson.

The accident occurred shortly before 9 p.m. when the vehicle overturned on the Interstate 95 northbound ramp to I-40 east.

Johnston County's emergency communications director says the threat level is low because the uranium is packed securely. The only threat is if the radioactive material breaks through the reinforced container it is in.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

BTW... what color is "Carolina Green?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Did you hear about "American concentration camps for brown people?"

It come from this extended wet fart in an post from Firedoglake's Pachacutec (my bold):

Latina Lista has been doing fantastic work on the story of the truly evil ICE roundup of immigrant children and families, which has in many cases left American citizen children effectively orphaned. Now, we learn of American concentration camps for brown people, holding hundreds of children, just in time for Christmas, here on mainland American soil. As allied forces liberated Europe after defeating Germany, the undesirables of the Nazi regime were set free. Who will liberate these people?

It has to be you.

Nazis? Illegal Aliens? You know what that means... FIRE UP THE OVENS!!!

And be sure to leave some for Santa... con leche.

Does that illustrate just how stupid you sound, Pachy? Good.

The Nazis efficiently murdered between 9-11 million people because of no other reason than they were "undesirables"of the wrong religious, cultural, or social minority, or they were gay, crippled, or mentally handicapped, or prisoners of war.

To compare such a barbaric event to the incarceration of people into undoubtably stressful and uncomfortable but safe and heated facilities for ignoring this nations laws, is beyond the pale. Get a sense of perspective, and perhaps, an education.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

Via the Blotter:

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."

Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.

Well, isn't that just peachy.

Terrorism isn't rocket science, folks, and al Qaeda has a track record of loving the classics. If al Qaeda is plotting to hit London over the holidays with suicide bombers, figure on trains, planes, and TATP.

TATP, shorthand from triacetone triperoxide, is a powerful and unstable "homebrew" explosive used in the successful subway and bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005, and four failed bombings exactly two weeks later where the TATP used, thought to come from the same batch of explosives, failed to detonate.

I question the timing, and I mean that quite seriously. If these rumored terrorists are indeed plotting a Christmastime attack, it would seem that at least part of the goal would be to drive a deeper wedge between British Muslim "other" and the overwhelming majority of a too-politically correct and predominately Anglo-Christian nation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.