In response to the Iraqi Interior Ministry (MOI) confirming today that no man by the name of Jamil Hussein is employed in any capacity by the MOI or the Iraqi Police, the Associated Press has issued it own release.

Read both statements, press conference transcript where the story originated at Flopping Aces, where Curt has his own thoughts on the matter. I'll wait till you get back.

* * *

Frankly, I'm stunned at the outright arrogance of Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor of the Associated Press, and statements that she made in her release that—in my opinion—are willful, skillful, and purposeful subterfuge.

Carroll completely glosses over the fact that her news organization originally reported that four mosques had been burned according to their original story, an error for which she does not account for here, not one the Associated Press has ever printed a retraction for.

Carroll stands by the AP's reporting that states that six people were burned alive.

The AP is curiously unable to name five of the six alleged victims, even though they were reportedly killed in their own neighborhood. In this tightly-knit, often-interrelated communal neighborhoods, especially in what the AP itself describes as an "enclave," I find the inability of the AP's reporters to find witnesses who could name those who were reputably killed a most unlikely claim.

Carroll goes on to insist, though not by name, that Captain Jamil Hussein is too an Iraqi policeman, just not one approved to speak to the media.

That is also a deliberate deception, coming directly on the heels of MOI Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf Al-Kenani's statement that no Iraqi policemen by that name existed, in any capacity.

If Kathleen Carroll wants me to believe that the Associated Press knows better than the MOI who MOI employees are, she had better produce a (live) Iraqi Police Captain claiming to be Jamil Hussein to back her story. While she's at it, she can provide evidence that six people were burned alive, starting with their names, their graves, and any proof that these events were something other than an insurgent propaganda. No one else has evidence that these people ever existed or that they were burned alive, other than the two anonymous AP reporters.

The Associated Press is clearly attempting to duck the issue.

I want to see Jamil Hussein.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Rumors have long swirled that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was involved the 444-day Iran hostage crisis, with no less than five hostages coming forward to accuse him publicly of being one of the ringleaders. Other former hostages have said they were uncertain if Ahmadinejad was involved, while others deny his presence.

From time to time the story reemerges with a new twist, and this time that twist was provided by Russian online daily Kommersant, which ran an English-language article with accompanying pictures that seem to show a young Ahmadinejad leaning against the wall of the American embassy in Tehran the day it was stormed.

Texas Rainmaker is convinced that the man in the photo is Ahmadinejad, while Daniel Pipes isn't sure, and Allah flatly says it isn't the Iranian president.

Who's right?

I decided to see if I could get a professional to weigh in on the controversy, and so I sent a short email to several forensic photographers and biometrics experts asking their opinions, based upon the version of side-by-side comparison photo provided at Hot Air.

Certified Forensic Photographer Alexander Jason responded. His verdict?

With the one 1979 photo alone for comparison, it is not possible to make a strong conclusion about that man being the same man in the later photo. However, based upon an analysis of the 1979 photo and other, recent photos of Ahmadinejad, it is my preliminary conclusion that these are NOT the same person.

Some time ago, I was asked by a governmental group to perform an analysis of similar old and new photos. I still had a collection of the recent photos and I used some of them for my analysis.

While there are substantial similarities in the faces and hairlines, it is possible to have such similarities among different people, particularly when they are from a relatively homogenous racial population. The only significant difference I could detect was in the beard grown pattern: Specifically in the area beneath the lower lip. In the older photo, the man appears to have a dense, full beard in that area. In more recent photos of Ahmadinejad, he appears to have relatively sparse beard growth in that area. For that reason, based on the one old photo when compared against more recent photos, it is my opinion that they are two different people.

See the attached image.

Mr. Jason's well-trained eye caught what most of us would have missed. The armed man leaning against the embassy wall in November of 1979 has much more facial hair in the chin area than does Ahmadinejad in the present day photograph. And just in case anyone wants to speculate that Ahmadinejad could have suffered from male pattern chin baldness over time, Mr. Jason has that covered as well.

We may never know who the man with the battle rifle leaning against the U.S. embassy wall in 1979 was, but based upon the photo provided by Kommersant and Mr. Jason's analysis, that man is not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

* * *

On an unrelated note, Mr. Jason also has an interesting perspective on the JFK assassination.

Who says those working in forensics can't have a sense of humor?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 5 kb.

Hey, we've got our own show:

The first and only tradeshow, conference, and media event dedicated to promoting the dynamic industry of blogging and new media. If you are currently blogging, vlogging, podcasting, producing some other form of new media content, thinking about joining the exciting industry of new media or just want to know what this whole blogging phenomena is all about then you need to be at BlogWorld.

The inaugural event will take place in Las Vegas November 8th and 9th at the Las Vegas Convention Center with an exclusive corporate only conference November 7th.

The show floor will feature an abundance of products and services designed to help bloggers and new media entrepreneurs improve the look and functionality of their blogs, increase their readership, and monetize their blog. Bloggers will find suppliers like Broadband ISP's, Web hosting companies, blog publishing software, podcasting services, RSS syndication services, new media advertising networks, news readers, aggregators, computer hardware and software, widgets, badges and plug-ins, Wi-Fi services, affiliate program partners, and much much more!

Thousands of bloggers and other geeks let loose on Sin City... what could go wrong?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Aside from this? http://patterico.com/2006/11/11/5377/lap-dancing-illegal-in-vegas/

Posted by: Ric James at November 14, 2006 11:24 AM (X4IDg)

2 The place survived Comdex for many years, it's doubtful you can do more harm.

Posted by: Jeff at November 14, 2006 11:46 AM (yiMNP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The blogger that styles himself "Gen. JC Christian, patriot," surrendered intellectually early this morning, collapsing under the unbearable weight of his own ponderous ad hominem argument.

Apparently his disaffected Finchiness is highly disturbed--perhaps even gob-smacked--at this post, where I replicated an email I sent to the President, asking him to commit fully to winning the war in Iraq.

The good General was apparently unable to logically explain why we should engage in the rapid retreat favored by so many on the far left. Trying to explain an anti-humanitarian position that would lead to a far wider civil war or even genocide is obviously too difficult a task for a cynical faux diety. Much better to trot out the "chickenhawk" meme again instead.

We all know that one by now, don't we?

Essentially, the argument is that anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and join the military. But the messenger is not the message, dear General, and this tired dismissal falls apart miserably when poked with even the smallest twig of logic.

Do you really want to make the argument, General, that you cannot comment upon or have an opinion on any subject in which you aren't a paid professional?

That would certainly clear up much of the war-related controversy in the blogosphere and the media. Very few liberals have the professional background General Christian would require for commenting on war-related issues, including the good General himself. Only soldiers would be able to discuss the war, and they overwhelmingly support continuing the mission.

General Christian's post wasn't meant to be fair, just dismissive, and it should hardly be surprising that someone so intellectually lazy would be caught in his own poorly-constructed trap.

Update: As so many of my liberal "guests" can't seem to keep a civil tongue in their heads, comments are now closed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:45 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

The 2006 Weblog Awards is open and looking for you to chose your favorites in 46 categories.

Go forth and nominate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Arado-something-or-other has decided that he has to see the war for himself, and went and got embedded.

If you could, drop the guy a coin or two, and please tell him that this is not the kind of body armor he needs, no matter what Ace may say.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll be unavailable for several hours this evening as I'll be out suppressing the Democratic vote, but wanted to leave you with some good sites to follow the electoral action till I get home after the polls close.

My stablemates over at Pajamas Media are putting out a ton of good information, including early exit polling from Jeff Goldstein's breakfast table, as will the good folks at Powerline and Powerline News.

The Malkin Media Network will be firing on all cylinders at both Michelle's personal site and at Hot Air.

The Blogfather and Memeorandum.com should round all your needs as a political junkie until we have, you know, something actual to talk about.

You know, like the procession of torches and pitchforks to the Heinz-Kerry mansion if Waffles manages to torpedo this election for liberals like he did the last one...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:26 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Arthur Chrenkoff's new novel Night Trains is out, and apparently getting some good reviews.

Check it out.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Icebergs everywhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been a bad blogger.

John Hinderaker, Paul Mirengoff, and Scott Johnson over at Powerline graciously picked me to be their "Blog of the Week," and my RSS feed has been featured at the top of the page at Powerline News, sending me oddles of first-time readers that I hope will take this opportunity to bookmark Confederate Yankee and make this site a daily read.

While I haven't personally met John or Paul, I did get to spend Friday evening and part of the day Saturday with Scott (along with many other excellent bloggers) at Carolina FreedomNet 2006, and found him to be a delightful person I appreciate the opportunity they've given me to earn your trust and your readership.

Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't read John Cole's blog Balloon Juice in quite a while, but when his post This is No Fun popped up on memeorandum.com this morning, it piqued my interest enough for me to want to see what he had to say, especially as many of the more prominent liberal blogs seemed to be linking it.

Essentially, Cole provided his bona fides as a long-time Republican who feels that today's Republican Party no longer represented his views. I can respect that.

I don't think that any American should feel that they owe either political party, or even a larger ideology, a lifetime of dedication from the metaphorical cradle to grave. As we grow older and mature, our life experiences impact how we view the world and that affects our perspective, sometimes radically. In general, as people grow older they tend to grow more conservative, but there will always be those that started out as being more conservative who shift their viewpoints towards more liberal philosophies.

It is also quite normal for those who have made a radical shift from one philosophical point of view to another to find tremendous fault in their former stablemates. David Brock certainly did so going from conservative to liberal, just as has former 60s radical David Horowitz did going from liberal to conservative. Their is also an apparent need for those making such ideological transitions to prove themselves to those they now find themselves aligned with.

I donÂ’t know when things went south with this party (literally and figuratively- and I am sure commenters here will tell me the party has always been this bad- I disagree with that, and so do others), but for me, Terri Schiavo was the real eye-opener. Sure, the Prescription Drug Plan was hideous and still gets my blood pressure pumping, and the awful bankruptcy bill was equally bad, and there were other things that should have clued me in, but really, it was Schiavo that made me realize this party was not as advertized.

[snip]

I am not really having any fun attacking my old friends- but I don’t know how else to respond when people call decent men like Jim Webb a pervert for no other reason than to win an election. I don’t know how to deal with people who think savaging a man with Parkinson’s for electoral gain is appropriate election-year discourse. I don’t know how to react to people who think that calling anyone who disagrees with them on Iraq a “terrorist-enabler” than to swing back. I don’t know how to react to people who think that media reports of party hacks in the administration overruling scientists on issues like global warming, endangered species, intelligent design, prescription drugs, etc., are signs of… liberal media bias...

And it makes me mad. I still think of myself as a Republican- but I think the whole party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills, and it frustrates me to no end to see my former friends enabling them, and I wonder ‘Why can’t they see what I see?” I don’t think I am crazy, I don’t think my beliefs have changed radically, and I don’t think I have been (as suggested by others) brainwashed by my commentariat...

[snip]

I feel like I am betraying my friends in the party and the blogosphere when I attack them, even though I believe it is they who have betrayed what ‘we’ allegedly believe in. Bush has been a terrible President. The past Congresses have been horrible- spending excessively, engaging in widespread corruption, butting in to things they should have no say in (like end of life decisions), refusing to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING, and using wedge issues to keep themselves in power at the expense of gays, etc. And I don’t know why my friends on the right still keep fighting for these guys to stay in power.

I disagree with Cole on many of the policy points in his post, but that does not make either of our opinions on these or other issues invalid, just different.

What I do find a bit perplexing is statements like this:

...the whole [Republican] party has been hijacked by frauds and religionists and crooks and liars and corporate shills...

I'm not quite sure what to make of this and related statements in his post.
Frauds and crooks and liars exist in both parties, far more than either side would like to admit. Criminal behavior is bi-partisan, and has been since this nation was founded, with the party in power at the time being more potentially corruptible simply because they are more powerful and therefore more attractive to those who would be corrupters.

As Republicans currently hold power across the board on the federal level, their influence makes them more of a target at this present time, just as even a cursory examination of history will reveal that when Democrats have held more power, they, in their own turn, have also proven to be quite corruptible to similar interests. Cole, I hope, won't be crushed yet again when the Democrats he has now apparently allied himself once more take power (which I hope will be later, rather than sooner) and prove that they are also far from pure.

I suspect that deep down, he is already aware of this truism, and that he is just using this temporary excuse as a cover for a deeper felt affront that seems to be tied more to an aversion for what he terms "religionists" (just a half-step from Andrew Sullivan's "Christianists").

By his own admission, the Terri Shiavo case which polarized many deeply affected Cole, and it seems fair based upon the comments in this post that Cole's version of what the Republican Party should be, is a party that should not embrace those people who are religious. If I misstate his views I apologize, but that is what he appears to say.

Cole, of course has other complaints: about fiscal responsibility, public policy, and the War on Terror under the Republicans, and most of these complains at least have debatable merit.

The sad thing, however, is that as Cole has rejected Republicans, he seems to have reflexively thrown in his lot with not the moderate middle where his stated interests would seem to reside, but with the most extreme elements of the political far left. From Oliver Willis to Daily Kos to Glenn Greenwald and others, Cole has apparently become the darling for those who hold political views that are also in apparent opposition to what Cole states he believes.

The Republican Prescription Plan may be bad, and yet his newest proponents support the boondoggle of socialized medicine. The Bankruptcy Bill was abhorrent, and yet his new allies support raising taxes, which also hurts those living on the financial edge. He disagrees with how the War in Iraq is being fought, and aligns himself with those who would prefer that we instead embrace defeat. What he states he believes and who he currently finds himself "in bed with" (metaphorically speaking) seem to be diametrically opposed.

He ends his post by saying that he doesn't know where it is going. It seems more likely that he knows his precise destination, but is unwilling or unable to realize how far past center to the other extreme he has gone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:58 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1235 words, total size 7 kb.