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

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

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

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

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

A sampling:

Sadly No!

Steve Gilliard

Jesus' General

Pandagon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

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

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

2 That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are playing with the life of a man says everything that needs to be said, at least about you. It seems that the majority of your commentators would like you to keep the information to yourself. Not that I think it will matter one bit.

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

3 Isn't it ironic that these leftards are more concerned about the life of a terrorist supporting lying AP stringer, then they are about the troops? They would rather pass non-binding resolutions that mean nothing, but demoralize our boys on the ground, and whine about conservative blogs, than actually working to end the war. I say that this terrorist promoting propaganda pander has earned the right to have his life held by a string. How many people have joined the Insurgency because of his lies? How many of our boys have died because of his actions?

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

4 I'm not playing with anyone's life, but if you want to beleive what liberal bloggers say I wrote, versus what I actually wrote, I can't protect you from your own willful ignorance. Jamil's greatest "threat," if there ever was one, was in the publication of his name...something the Associated Press proudly proclaims it has done dozens of times since April of 2006. Funny how you can chose to overlook that little detail... providing of course, that you actually feel the AP was honest when it said his name was Jamil Hussein. As for who would be threatening his life... who would that be? It certainly wouldn't come from the Sunnis: his Hurriyah accounts play right into their propaganda playbook. That leave those he apparently libeled in his Hurriyah reporting, the Iraqi security forces. Want to take a wild guess how I got his real name? It was quite simple: bloggers made a simple information request, which was forwarded to those same Iraqi security forces, who just happened to have his full personnel records the entire time. They know who he is, know where he lives, and he still works for them. If they wanted him dead, he would be. Instead, they sent him back to work. So please, save your incoherent rantings. As is typical, they are based on a combination of factual ignorance and your willingness to trust the untrustworthy.

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

5 How about this take? If it's in the "public interest" for the MSM to make known top secret anti-terrorist information, why would the APs' informant be off limits? I don't care ether way. People will believe what they want anyhow.

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

6 As for who would be threatening his life... who would that be? It certainly wouldn't come from the Sunnis: his Hurriyah accounts play right into their propaganda playbook. That leave those he apparently libeled in his Hurriyah reporting, the Iraqi security forces. No, it doesn't. There's always the possibility of a private actor. If there weren't, outing people's real identities in the U.S. wouldn't be as big a deal, because there wouldn't be any potential physical threat associated with it. It's not like anyone thinks the U.S. government is going to go after outed bloggers or the like. You may not consider the possibility to be high, but it exists. Why increase the risk at all?

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

7 I have been following the matter closely, and posting my own comments on my blog as well. I thought you raised some interesting points for and against the release of Hussein's true identity. I think I'd side with maintaining the anonymity of the name as I wouldn't want to put the man's safety in danger any more than it already is. The onus on this whole matter is on AP, not you or the lefty blogs. They're the ones who set this whole matter in motion with the use of sources whose identities were pseudonyms in violation of their stated policies - setting up the Great Jamil Hussein Goose Chase. It's pretty difficult to catch a ghost when you don't even know the ghost's name. AP has to account for why it continues to stand by the Burning Six story and the other stories sourced to 'Jamil Hussein.' In other instances, where a media outlet has been burned by a source, they would out the source to show them to be a fake or fraud - or opening them up to legal action. That could be the route taken here, but AP doesn't seek to do that either. Instead, we get a situation where the AP has its cake and is eating it as well. They protect his anonymity while declaring that nothing was wrong, ignoring that the whole thing was an exaggeration and potentially induced by Hussein's loyalties that may lie elsewhere. It's also a sorry state of affairs when the AP and their supporters attack the messenger and not the assertions made (and sustained by the actual evidence).

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

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

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

9

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

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

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

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

11 Bill, I respectfully disagree. Much like the Sandy Berger story...the Ministry of Media would LIKE for the issue to simply go away. They wish to keep calling these "unimportant" "minor stories"...because, in point of fact...every time leftists get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they circle the wagons and adopt the leftist Code of Silence. I personally have had enough of Green Helmet Guy, Hadj fauxtography, faux-Jam, and all the rest to last a lifetime. Do NOT get tired of keeping their nefarious journalistic malpractice in the front lines of the blogosphere. It's precisely what they want to happen. The EXERCISE of brainstorming the pros and cons of making known faux-Jam's REAL name...is a useful one. It brings to the fore certain elements in the underlying story and the coverup aftermath that need to be addressed. I don't buy the notion that printing his REAL name...is akin to giving him a date with some amorphous executioner. But, I do fall on the side of not outing him...simply because it would cloud the issues and give ammo to a mendacious crowd that is currently ethically bankrupt. Their credibility account is seriously overdrawn. For that reason, I would keep the pressure precisely where it is. On the underlying issues which ALL fall on our side of the fence. The truth matters. The AP, Reuters, BBC, WaPo, NYTimes, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS...all of them...are co-conspirators after the fact...if they continue to play this game of silence when one of the left leaning members gets caught ..yet again...serving up tripe for truth. Don't get tired ...don't ever get tired, Bill...of being on the side of truth.

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

12 NYT Posts 4Q Loss: $648 Million (posted over at LGF) Bill, one more point. The left is losing....sometimes we can't see it, ....and sometimes we can.

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

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

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

14 But it seems that our liberal "friends" want to have their proverbial pie and eat it, too. They want to maintain on one hand that the Associated Press is being honest and truthful with their reporting, but they also want to rant and rave about this evil conservative blog. We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting. We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative, selective, nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks. If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview.

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

15 "We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting." Ahhh, in leftard world...being disingenuous is a virtue...but maintaining a coherent thought throughout an entire paragraph is a monumental task. "We refuse to take a position on whether the AP is BEING FAIR AND TRUTHFUL...in printing whisper campaigns and urban legends for the mindless lemmings of the left to gobble up..." HOWEVER... "We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative," What a crock. The EVIDENCE is that faux-Jam is not now, nor has he EVER been assigned to ANY of the districts in which he was used as a "source". The EVIDENCE is that faux-Jam was used as an "ubersource" more than 60 times outside of his district. The EVIDENCE is that NONE of the mosques were burned to the ground. The EVIDENCE is that there are NO supporting reports of six immolated Sunni's, civilian homes burned to the ground, 18 murdered civilians including women and children. None of that EVIDENCE is speculative. But the weak and lame apologies, excuses and alibis are certainly speculative. "... selective" How imbecilic can one be. Of course it's "selective", if the term is to mean that the utter failure on the part of the AP and their "ubersource" to report truth instead of tripe...isolates particulars in the story to show the holes. EVERY time we point to fake or staged photos...we pick the ones that show the lies. That's why it's "selective". Reuters fauxtography...it was selective to show the photoshopped ones and Green Helmet Guy it was selective to show the ones that pointed out the "staging" of news. With faux-Jam, the apologists point out the donut, we point out the holes. "nit-picking" Yep, that darn truth is so nit-pickable, isn't it? Much better that we mindlessly swallow the tripe for truth. If it carries the "message" that's all that matters. "self-fulfilling" The truth just stands there. It doesn't change. It is there to be found. If that fulfills the hypothesis that the AP and their "ubersource" were lying...then so be it. We don't adhere to the "truthiness" doctrine, where the "truth" is only as sustainable as it remains consistent with the "message" that is, of course, king. "often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks." You mean like the meaning of "is" and the "impeach Bush" crowd? By the way, where is Sandy Berger these days? "If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview." The issue, of course...is that AP knows his real name. And they know that he was not a trustworthy source, he was pushing whisper campaigns and urban legends...and the AP was a willing co-conspirator in foisting those on the public. His name, his stories, their coverup...were all...one big lie. But then again, you don't take a position on the AP or the truth of the story...so, since you miss the main point and don't take a position on it anyway...see ya. Good riddance.

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

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

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

17 You know, I've been through this before. You'll be like, "The EVIDENCE says X," and I'll be like, "Okay, so what's the evidence?" And then it'll be some triumphant mish-mash of speculation and discredited factoids, balancing on the definition of a word. So okay. The AP lied. What's one example that's both provable and significant? By this I mean an example that can be demonstrated not to be true, and that also has some definable, demonstrable real-world consequence. Here's an example that satisfies neither of these conditions: The raw AP feed that was visible for 20 minutes, and that never made it into a published news story, which used the word 'destroyed' instead of the words, 'burned and blown up.'

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

18 We don't take any position on whether the AP is being fair and truthful in their reporting. We say that the evidence presented against the AP in this Jamilgate thing has been wildly speculative, selective, nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks. If you know Jamil Hussein's real name, contact him and do an interview. As is sadly becoming the case, you once again have the particulars of this incident almost completely backwards. It is not speculative that AP uses a source hiding behind a pseudonym, a local malcontent that has since changed his story, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group as their basis for their reporting. It is not speculative that the overwhelming majority of Hussein's accounts happened far outside of his jusrisdiction, nor is it speculative that other news organizations have been unable to corroborate this account, or 39 of the other 40 stories we researched via both Google searches and Nexis. If my memory serves me correctly, even the NY Times' Edward Wong attempted to verify the "bruning six claim, and was unable to find any evidence corroborating it. It is not speculative that there is quite simply zero credible evidence that six Sunnis were burned alive as Jamil Hussein claimed, and the Iraqi Interior, Defense, and Health Ministries concur, as do U.S. forces that were in the area within an hour of the alleged attack. It is not speculative to say that there is zero evidence to support the AP-published claim that 18 people died in an "inferno" at another mosque. In fact, there is strong photographic evidence that the mosque in question was never set on fire at all, and the U.S. after action report concurs. As a matter of fact, were someone to mention any coverage of the Hurriyah story that would be most accurately characterized as "nit-picking, self-fulfilling, often based on word-play and semantics, and reminiscent of an irrational mob waving pitchforks," it would be Sadly No's own "debunking" of Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston's visit to Hurriyah, which conveniently and purposefully overlooked any and all evidence that did not agree with your pre-defined storyline. Or perhaps "irration mob" best describes the shared and purposeful mischaracterization of my previous post, where you, and other liberal bloggers, purposefully left out the fact that I stated specifically that I was leaning against identifying Hussein's real name, in order to accuse me of wanting to murder him. There is indeed a great deal of dishonesty and uninformed, hate-filled speculation, but those providing the overwhelming majority of it comes from you and like-minded souls who are far more interested in pettiness and miscasting other people's words, than in requiring accountability from the press in a story where they claimed 24 people were horribly murdered, and no credible evidence exists to show that their speculation was true.

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

19 So okay. The AP lied. What's one example that's both provable and significant? As has been mentioned repeatedly, the AP story claimed that the in al al-Muhaimin mosque, "18 people had died in an inferno." Some inferno. There was no fire at all, and they were open again for worship services the very next day, as photographic evidence readily attests. Well, that and the fact Jamil Hussein isn't Jamil Hussein...

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

20 That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are playing with the life of a man AP used him how many times?

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

21 Reply interspersed. I'll approach this in manageable stages. As is sadly becoming the case, you once again have the particulars of this incident almost completely backwards. It is not speculative that AP uses a source hiding behind a pseudonym, a local malcontent that has since changed his story, and an al Qaeda-affiliated group as their basis for their reporting. The AP may well be using a pseudonymous source. This could be because of the danger in Baghdad of sectarian death squads, or it could be a fault of the AP's (or Hussein's). However, 'Malcontent' and 'al-Qaeda-affiliated' are not evidentiary statements, but surmises. As we were discussing before, the fact that official US reports are contradicted by AP stories is not sufficient proof of 'lying' or 'terrorist affiliations.' US reports have often been proven incorrect, and continue to be. One example is the recent kidnapping and murder of several US troops, which was officially reported contrary to the facts. Even so, no official report exists -- to my knowledge -- that identifies 'Jamil Hussein' as a 'malcontent' or an 'al-Qaeda supporter.' This is, therefore, not evidence. It is not speculative that the overwhelming majority of Hussein's accounts happened far outside of his jusrisdiction, Yes. This is interesting and even somewhat suspicious. It makes me wonder -- immediately -- what might be the standard procedure for the Iraqi police inre: the giving of press statements. What is it? Do police in Baghdad use press spokesmen, as many US cities do? What has your research, if any, discovered? nor is it speculative that other news organizations have been unable to corroborate this account, or 39 of the other 40 stories we researched via both Google searches and Nexis. If my memory serves me correctly, even the NY Times' Edward Wong attempted to verify the "bruning six claim, and was unable to find any evidence corroborating it. Fair enough. I think it was Tom Zeller, not Edward Wong, but okay. I'll just take this at face-value. The problem here is with an elementary pillar of logic: The absence of evidence is not, prima facie, evidence of absence. That is, the method of proving something is not the same as the method of refuting something. I'll put it a little more plainly. A lack of corroboration on the burning-six story leaves your Jamil/AP/terrorist-supporters hypothesis in play, but doesn't advance it. It merely rules out possibilities. For instance, if six charred corpses were dumped in a ditch somewhere (as is common in Baghdad), but Edward Wong only contacted the local morgue, then we're back to square-one. And we still have nothing evidentiary (I mean nothing) about why the AP story diverges from the official reports. It is not speculative that there is quite simply zero credible evidence that six Sunnis were burned alive as Jamil Hussein claimed, and the Iraqi Interior, Defense, and Health Ministries concur, as do U.S. forces that were in the area within an hour of the alleged attack. Last one for now; I'm happy to rejoin later. Hypothesize if you will that Baghdad is a violent, chaotic place in which 'Jamil Hussein' is a press representative of an extremely busy, vulnerable, and overstressed police force that deals with dozens of murders a day, including murders of police officers. He gets a call saying that six people were burned alive, and relates this to the AP. In other words, what's the core piece of evidence that proves that this claim -- true or false -- was made maliciously?

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

22 Where was all this angst, this sanctimonious hand-wringing and wailing and breast beating...when the AP declared via Steven Hurst...that Jamil Hussein was his actual name? If the leftards believe their own BS...why weren't they wrapping themselves in this cloak of faux concern for Jamil...when the AP was "outing" him...for the whole world? Steven Hurst made a HUGE display of the fact that "Jamil Hussein" was his real name...and that he had been a source for more than two years. This wasn't a DISCUSSION about "outing" him...because if the leftards believe their own BS...they would be all over the AP for "outing" the guy and setting him up to be instantly murdered. Where were they when one of their fellow traveling leftists was "outing" "Jamil"? Nowhere. Silence. Crickets chirping. Know why? Because they don't believe their own BS. There's no angst over a fellow leftist "outing" someone. (be he gay, or a phony source for phony stories with a leftist "message") When it comes to light that the "ubersource" indeed was NOT named "Jamil Hussein"...the AP clams up, Steven Hurst issues no retraction, the leftists disappear from sight and don't crop up again there's a discussion of whether it would be appropriate to even discuss the subject of using his real name. Then, and ONLY then...do we see this drama queen screen test by the left. "I'm ready for my blog test, Mr. DeMille". As far as I'm concerned the facts are indisputable. There is NO "Jamil Hussein", there is only a guy PLAYING "Jamil". The mosques were NOT destroyed, burned to the ground, in fact...there wasn't even enough damage to ANY of the four mentioned (which the AP conveniently reduced to ONE in follow up stories) to disrupt even a single service. NO persons were doused in kerosene, NO persons were immolated, NO persons were then summarily executed while they writhed on the ground in flames, NO persons were taken to a hospital morgue in an immolated condition, NO persons were taken to the cemetery in that immolated condition. NO civilian homes were burned to the ground, NO women and children were murdered in that spree, and the "police captain" outside of the district in which this DIDN'T take place had NO knowledge to the contrary. If someone has proof otherwise...they sure aren't bringing it forward. The police captain...as an "ubersource" is a fraud. The stories that he "sources" are nothing more than urban legends and whisper campaigns. Don't come back to me with any other tripe for truth, unless you have FACTS to dispute. Otherwise, keep the apologista BS for the lemmings who want to swallow the Kool-Aid. I'm not interested in substituting tripe for truth.

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

23 As has been mentioned repeatedly, the AP story claimed that the in al al-Muhaimin mosque, "18 people had died in an inferno." Some inferno. There was no fire at all, and they were open again for worship services the very next day, as photographic evidence readily attests. Fair point. This is one of the mosques that Malkin and Preston didn't visit. There's a time-stamped photo showing worshippers in the al Muhaymin mosque on Nov. 25th, and another showing RPG damage to the exterior of the mosque. Significantly, however, this was not one of the stories attributed to Jamil Hussein. link And the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques. It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.

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

24 Where was all this angst, this sanctimonious hand-wringing and wailing and breast beating...when the AP declared via Steven Hurst...that Jamil Hussein was his actual name? It was nonexistent, because Hurst is in direct contact with Hussein and is apparently halfway sane. As such, he would never in a million years 'out' an Iraqi police source unwillingly, especially under pressure from a bunch of blogs -- because no source or journalist in Iraq would ever trust or hire him again. I mean come on here.

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

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

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

26 'al-Qaeda-affiliated group' is the group of muslim scholors and it was not a right wing blog that called them al-Qaeda affiliated. Um, correct me if I am wrong, but the Iraqi's have an official list of qualified/authorized spokesmen and Jamil XX is not on it. That would mean he is an unqualified/unathorized spokesman would it not? The AP may well be using a pseudonymous source. Then they lied. If you say you will never do X without saying so first, then turn around and do X without telling anyone and in fact repeatedly deny that it is a pseudonym, you are lying. If you want people to believe you, you don't do something you say you will not ever do. ...the fact that official US reports are contradicted by AP stories is not sufficient proof of 'lying' or 'terrorist affiliations.' ... Even so, no official report exists -- to my knowledge -- that identifies 'Jamil Hussein' as a 'malcontent' or an 'al-Qaeda supporter.' This is, therefore, not evidence. Considering that 'Jamil Hussein' is not even his real name then NO REPORT WILL EXIST saying that. Especially since you are misreading what was said, 'al Qaeda-affiliated group' was not referring to Jamil Hussein. I also find it strange that you dismiss official reports as being potentially incorrect but then turn around and ask for official reports saying something else as proof you need (and that proof would be impossible to obtain if the name is fake). In other words, what's the core piece of evidence that proves that this claim -- true or false -- was made maliciously? A person who is not authorized to talk officially to the press, gives out 39 unsupported accounts that cannot be confirmed by anyone... not even 'Jamil Hussein' because Jamil XX says he is not that person who gave all the information. Lets see, no proof anything remotely resembleing the orginal claims of this or the other 38 accounts happened. The only proof the AP has is the unsupported word of an unknown person. Could be each and every one of the 39 unsupported accounts were all honest mistakes from an unauthorized person using a fake name was in fear of his job or a stringer with an agenda that made sure his butt was covered if any of the 39 stories were eventually proved as false. So if Jamil made 39 innocent mistakes and innocently regurgitated everything that insurgent propaganda has said and the AP published all of them without verified supporting evidence... that no other paper or news group reported, then that means the AP's reporting guidelines are at fault or just not being followed. Like the part of their guidelines that say they wont use a pseudonym without saying so. Any way you slice it, someone was not doing their job properly. Accounts 1 thru 5 may have been innocent, past that it turns into incompetence or downright maliciousness. Most would expect an institution that prides itself on trustworthyness would act to find out if a problem does exist and if so where it came from. Changing the story to one that no longer fits the discredited aspects does not fall into that catagory.

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

27 This is like arguing with people who claim the Apollo missions were staged. Ok, so if his name isn't Jamil Hussein, and CY hasn't revealed what he thinks his name is, then how do you know he isn't on the list of official sources? I'm not saying he is or isn't; I'm asking how you know.

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

28 Ok, maybe if we take this more slowly. The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source. Jamil Hussein is the name they give several dozen times as the "source" for the "reports on the ground" that they are passing off as "news". NOT ONCE did they detail...or even suggest, that Jamil Hussein was anything other than a reliable source for the "facts" that they were reporting. We come to find that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" doesn't exist, but some guy named JGXX exists. We also find that JGXX doesn't work in the district of a SINGLE story, for which he is the "source". We are told by authorities over there, that he is not an official police spokesman. He doesn't have any PERSONAL knowledge of facts outside his district. He doesn't have access to CENTCOM information, because he doesn't have clearance. The story he tells of a gruesome mass murder, including lighting six innocents on fire, dousing them with kerosene, blowing up and destroying four mosques, rampaging through civilian homes and burning them, killing women and children...is all completely, utterly, wholly discredited. And your answer is...the guy is a fake, his name is a fake, he doesn't have personal knowledge of any facts, the mosques aren't burned to the ground, they aren't even VANDALIZED enough to disrupt services, no houses are burned, no women and children are murdered...and this is a "fog of war" issue? Is that REALLY the argument you wish to stand on? AP reporter: JGXX we have heard of a story about four mosques being blown up and destroyed, burned to the ground and six men pulled out doused in kerosene and burned to near death, then summarily shot in the head, do you know anything about this? JGXX "Sounds good to me" AP reporter: "Can we quote you on that?" JGXX "Where did it take place, anywhere around here?" AP reporter: "Nah, it was in Hurriya, I think." JGXX "Yeah, sure. Just don't use my name". AP reporter: "Police captain, Jamil Hussein confirmed reports of 18 women and children, four mosques, six Sunni's........" Apologists: Well, maybe none of the facts are actually TRUE...but, they have that sort of "hot sourciness" we like to liberally spread on our phony stories...and, you know, it's like sort of ...you know...a caricature of a broader truth, man." Journalistic ethics...oxymoron of the year.

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

29 Ok, maybe if we take this more slowly. I'm trying, believe me. Malkin got all mad at us about the mosque thing. In fact, I don't remember her ever replying to a critic in such a way. Let's revisit that point for a moment. See, official US reports said that one mosque had been firebombed, while our Mr. Hussein claimed otherwise, saying four had been 'burned' and 'blown up.' I'm not counting the AP raw feed that existed for 20 minutes and was never published, btw, in which the term was 'destroyed.' There exists a language barrier between Iraqis and Americans, for one thing. Everyone called our Mr. Hussein him a liar, impugned his motives, etc. So Malkin and Bryan Preston go to one of these other mosques and find that it's been firebombed and raked with gunfire, and that there's a huge hole blown in the dome. This is somehow spun as 'confirmation' of the entirely different story that they'd been telling. This ought to have been the WTF! moment, when you guys started looking a bit deeper into the assumptions made in this case. But I see the same assumptions coming up again and again as 'proven facts.' Do you see where I'm coming from here?

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

30 Maybe if we take it even more slowly: 1) The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source. 2) Jamil Hussein is the name they give several dozen times as the "source" for the "reports on the ground" that they are passing off as "news". 3) NOT ONCE did they detail...or even suggest, that Jamil Hussein was anything other than a reliable source for the "facts" that they were reporting. 4) We come to find that "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" doesn't exist, but some guy named JGXX exists. (therefore....the AP is in a pickle...either Jamil Hussein is his name, or it isn't. IF, it isn't...what's the explanation...in light of the original statement by the AP AND their follow up statements? Aren't you even the least bit curious about why they continue to press the issue that they don't use pseudonyms? Why not just say that in the original story? Isn't that question even remotely on your radar screen? What about the follow up statement? You know...the one that leftists jumped up and down on their mattresses and screaming "gotcha" on? You know...Jamil Hussein is his REAL name...that one? Doesn't it make you the least bit sheepish for all those "nyah, nyahs" that turned out to be made complete fools by the AP getting caught not once, but TWICE in the same lie?) 5) We also find that JGXX doesn't work in the district of a SINGLE story, for which he is the "source". (doesn't this of its own odd circumstance, raise an eyebrow on the leftist side of the fence? How is he a "source"...outside his district? Have we ever been told? How does he know "facts on the ground" which he "verifies"...if he's not even in the area and is not an official spokesman? Have we ever been told? The absence of SUPPORT for "sourcing" a story...is, in fact...and absence of evidence and credibility. How he knows what he is "sourcing" is vital to his credibility. His credibility is in question, because his STORY is not backed up by known facts. These are all legitimate issues. All skirted by the AP and avoided by the rest of the left leaning media...in their code of silence.) 6) We are told by authorities over there, that he is not an official police spokesman. (if you have different information, bring it forward, otherwise...I'll believe this, since the AP has not suggested otherwise...in fact, they suggested he would be ARRESTED for giving out false information...he wasn't, but they must have believed he would be...BECAUSE he didn't have clearance to speak. DEDUCTIVE logic is not out of bounds, btw.) 7) He doesn't have any PERSONAL knowledge of facts outside his district. (if he does, please bring it forward how he does. I assume he is assigned to work his own district, any information he gets outside his district comes from sub-sources. That was never detailed in ANY of the reports using him as a "source". If, as logic indicates...he had no personal knowledge...then his stories that he is vouching for and "sourcing" are really simply composite "sources" for whom he is the mouthpiece. If you have other information, pleasr bring it forward.) He doesn't have access to CENTCOM information, because he doesn't have clearance. (they said this, but if you have information otherwise, please bring it forward.) 9) The story he tells of a gruesome mass murder, including lighting six innocents on fire, dousing them with kerosene, blowing up and destroying four mosques, rampaging through civilian homes and burning them, killing women and children...is all completely, utterly, wholly discredited. (a couple of mosques were vandalized...the rest of the story is a whisper campaign and urban legend. Is it ok with you...that the story is embellished to a point of being unrecognizable...and them passed off as "sourced and verified" news? How was it "sourced and verified"...if the very tenets of ALL of its import...are all false? The vandalized mosque story.... vs..... six kerosene soaked, burned alive, shot in the head while women and children are being murdered and burned out of house and home...hmmm, which story is more likely to grab attention???? And the FOLLOW UP...is to stand by a phony source and a phony story????? And the excuse is...."fog of war". Puhleeeeezzze. This doesn't pass the smell test.

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

31 For SNRL: Why are people so willing to believe an apparently unprovable story about Iraqis being burned and the "inferno," but not even consider that the story might be a total fabrication--regardless of the fact that it happens to be conservatives that did the digging? If it's a news story that's entirely sourced from someone "on the street" in a war zone, can you really be so sure it's objective and/or true? Honestly, it doesn't seem to have struck anyone as an important story in the greater context. There's enough verifiably bad stuff going on in Iraq (as well as in the media) that the 'burning six' incident, true or not, doesn't seem to make much difference either way. We're talking about a city in which a slow week has sectarian death squads killing a few dozen people. I don't think you'd find anyone who'd say that the AP has done a flawless job in Iraq, not to mention in its domestic electoral coverage. But there's a real point of contention in the idea that the AP getting X or Y details wrong in a minor story on sectarian violence in Baghdad means that there's no wave of sectarian violence going on in Baghdad -- that it's somehow invented or grossly exaggerated by the media in order to manipulate the American public. That's what I see as the 'purpose' of the Hussein/AP controversy -- to cast doubt on the veracity of any reporting from Iraq that doesn't fit a certain narrative. The specific details of X AP piece from November-whatever aren't necessarily that compelling out of context, if you know what I mean.

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

32 >blockquote>Maybe if we take it even more slowly: 1) The AP says that they would never use a pseudonym or composite source. Ok, let's start there. What did they say about this, and when/where did they say it?

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

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

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

34 "Honestly, it doesn't seem to have struck anyone as an important story in the greater context. There's enough verifiably bad stuff going on in Iraq (as well as in the media) that the 'burning six' incident, true or not, doesn't seem to make much difference either way." Therein lies the whole of the problem. The fact that the AP could violate nearly every journalistic ethical rule without as much as a sideways glance, because the "message" is consistent with the worldview that leftists wish to advance...is repugnant to virtually every objective observer. IF, you conclude as I do, that the AP willingly and wilfully foisted intentionally exaggerated and sometimes wholly untrue stories upon the reading public, then intentionally covered up the use of pseudonyms, composite characters and unreliable sources when a correction or retraction was due...then their entire credibility is at stake. To suggest that this story was "minor" is a crock. The fact that there is sectarian violence is Iraq is one thing. To suggest that it is a "minor" story when six men are alleged to have been pulled out of a place of worship, doused in kerosene, lit on fire, allowed to burn in agony and then were summarily executed...is NOT in any way, shape or form..."just more of the same". The story was gripping...and IF, you conclude, as I do...that the story was an urban legend, a whisper campaign...then the SOURCE for that story comes under greater scrutiny for bias. The fact that the AP and their apologists are twisting themselves into pretzels to try ANY way to deflect criticism on this "source", makes me want to dig even deeper. It is a NATURAL consequence to begin to ask how this police captain came to know, what he alleges he "knew". It is a NATURAL consequence to this ongoing story to begin to question how he would know facts outside his district. The apologists "don't look here" attitude STOKES the flames of the curious, it doesn't put them out. "But there's a real point of contention in the idea that the AP getting X or Y details wrong in a minor story on sectarian violence in Baghdad means that there's no wave of sectarian violence going on in Baghdad -- that it's somehow invented or grossly exaggerated by the media in order to manipulate the American public." This is a canard. NOBODY has said that there is NO sectarian violence in Baghdad. But if there is a constant drumbeat of negativity that tells HALF a story, if it is ALWAYS pointed in the direction of the "message" that Iraq is "lost", if it IS "grossly exaggerated" or if whisper campaigns and urban legends are being passed off as news...then this is consistent with the PATTERN established with Green Helmet Guy and Reuters' fauxtography...that gross exaggerations, false details, staged events, phony sources, faked pictures...will be used with complicity to paint the picture consistent with the "message". The truth doesn't matter...only the "message" matters. If that's your position...then fine, you are entitled to it. If you think this pattern is merely a "minor" breach of ethics, then in my opinion...you don't have enough ethics to make that call. "That's what I see as the 'purpose' of the Hussein/AP controversy -- to cast doubt on the veracity of any reporting from Iraq that doesn't fit a certain narrative." Quite the contrary. The purpose of Green Helmet Guy being exposed, fauxtography being exposed, the phony sourcing of the fake "Jamil" being exposed...is to say that wilfully breaching journalistic ethics inor order to FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE...is unacceptable. The "story" isn't minor....and the continuing wilful breaching of journalistic ethics isn't minor. The truth matters. " The specific details of X AP piece from November-whatever aren't necessarily that compelling out of context, if you know what I mean" The specific details of Green Helmet Guy...if nefariously taken out of context and placed in the "larger scheme of things"...isn't that compelling either. And the Hadj phony photos are really not all that compelling, when taken out of context and isolated either. Of course, the point of taking them out of context is to make them not "compelling". The BREACH of journalistic ethics IS compelling. The intentional telling of false stories, greatly exaggerated half-truths, intentionally misleading the reading public...IS compelling. And the PATTERN that has developed in the Mideast...and with Rathergate...and continues unabated...is that leftist leaning media members will lie, cheat, steal, exaggerate, intentionally mislead...until they get caught...and then the apologists will circle the wagons and say none of this is a big deal...and the rest of the Ministry of Media will adopt a code of silence and sit on their hands. The truth matters. Journalistic ethics matters. And if neither of them matter to you...then I suggest you take a long look at what you have become. All to protect a dogma and ideology...that allows a guy like William Arkin to be your bedfellow.

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

35 Therein lies the whole of the problem. The fact that the AP could violate nearly every journalistic ethical rule without as much as a sideways glance, because the "message" is consistent with the worldview that leftists wish to advance...is repugnant to virtually every objective observer. Yeah, but your response really doesn't touch on any of the substantive points I made. We're a bit down on the page at this point, so I'll stop back some other time.

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

36 We are told that we cannot simply accept the word of the government as true -- why should we simply trust the AP? We are also told that leaking secret information is patriotic, even if it might lead to the death of soldiers -- wouldn't it be equally true that leaking this identity is patriotic, even if it gets this proven liar killed?

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why, of course they do.

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

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

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

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

Burned and blew up:

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

Not burned and blew up:

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

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

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

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

Sadly, no.

Update: Bryan guts Sadly No! further.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

He's hungry.

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 donÂ’t know what took me so long. This is like a candy store. ItÂ’s a playground. I love it. Now, I just need to figure out how to make money doing it. Please click on my ads.

If this works for him, I might even try it...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Update & Bump: My interview on Melanie Morgan's show regarding the Associated Press and Hurriyah is online:

Part 1 (MP3)
Part 2 (MP3)

If you happen to be in the San Francisco area this morning, I'll be discussing Jamilgate with Melanie Morgan on KSFO 560 AM at 7:35 AM PST.

You can listen live here, and we'll try to get up a version in MP3 format later today.

Update: Welcome KSFO listeners. To catch up on the Jamilgate scandal, please go to this link and read the collected accounts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Far too often, we tend to oversimplify things, especially when demonizing out ideological opposites. I am as guilty as anyone (my own tagline of "Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state" is a prime example), and yet, that in no way excuses the practice.

I mention that introducing two blog posts that have come to my attention over the course of the past week, one from someone who solicited comment, and one I stumbled across on Memeorandum.com yesterday evening.

Jay Rosen runs NYU's PressThink blog, and sent along a link to his January 9 post Grave and Deteriorating for the Children of Agnew, asking for comment and discussion. I hadn't the time to read it in any detail until yesterday evening, and once I'd completed it, I must admit I was disappointed. Go read it for yourself. I'll wait.

Back? Good.

As a media commenter, educator and critic, I was hoping that Rosen had decided to tackle, at least peripherally, the subject of the Associated Press' questionable (to put it mildly) coverage an apparent cover-up of the Hurriyah incident, that he would approach the problem critically, perhaps looking at the many inconsistencies in AP's ever-evolving storyline, such as the fact that they cited a group with strong ties to the insurgency and al Qaeda (the Association of Muslim Scholars) as a source without disclosing what their ties were or finding a single account corroborating their claim of 18 men, women and children burned alive at the al-Muhaimin mosque, that four mosques were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), heavy machine guns and assault rifles before being "burned and blew up,", and that AP Television shot video of one of the attacked mosques. All of these claims have quietly disappeared from the AP's subsequent coverage without correction or retraction... and yet Rosen seems interested in none of it. Nor does he seem to have any interest in the fact that the overwhelming majority of stories sources to Jamil Hussein had no independent verification from other news agencies.

No, Rosen was only interested in the Hurriyah story in that it served as an excuse to vilify those conservative bloggers he calls "the children of Agnew," referring to a man who last cast a long shadow on politics most of a decade before many of us commenting on this story were even born.

To pt it mildly, Rosen's post was a whitewash on one hand, and a smear on the other. Quite intent on shooting messengers, he was far more interested in making caricatures of conservative bloggers than objectively looking at the reason for our complaints. To say I was disappointed puts it mildly.

Likewise, I was a bit disgusted by Why the right doesnÂ’t get Martin Luther King on The Carpetbagger Report, a blog run by Steve Benen. The blog post attacks conservatives, as you might guess by the title, for "not getting" Dr. Martin Luther King, and apparently attempting establish that only liberals have the ability to claim credit to any part of Dr. King's legacy.

I don't claim to understand everything Dr. King means to most people, and I'd lay for the argument that no-one can claim to understand that legacy and what it really means unless you happen to be an African American born prior to 1958, or thereabouts.

I say that, in the simple understanding that only African-Americans who were at least ten years old (and I think I'm being very charitable with the maturity of 10-year-olds) at the time of Dr. King's assassination can have any claim to understanding what Dr. King really represented in the context of the civil rights struggle that occurred in this country at that period in history.

To hear a white male 33-year old from Miami representing a group that is 83% white and young claim to be some sort of ideological heir to Dr. King's legacy with a Clintonesque "I feel your pain" screed would be merely laughable if it wasn't so disgusting.

It is sad we so often we try to reduce our ideological opposites to caricatures and cartoons. Now that I see how pathetic the practice is (one I've clearly participated in myself, I readily admit), perhaps I'll do a better job of shying away from such buffoonery in the future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 5 kb.

1 "The idea that the liberal press has to be overcome for conservatives truly to take power started with the Goldwater campaign in 1964, and todayÂ’s bias warriors are the inheritors, through Agnew, of that idea." This opening salvo says all I need to know about Jay Rosen and his credentials as an objective "critic" of the "liberal press" and those who stand against their arrogant and toxic malfeasance and bastardization of a quasi-public trust. Goldwater and Agnew? Perhaps instead I am the inheritor of Samuel Johnson or Jefferson. I appreciate a free press, I just don't withhold my contempt for a corrupt one. To write news in its perfection requires such a combination of qualities, that a man completely fitted for the task is not always to be found. In Sir Henry Wotton's jocular definition, 'An Ambassador is said to be a man of virtue sent abroad to tell lies for the advantage of his country; a news-writer is a man without virtue, who lies at home for his own profit.' To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither industry nor sprightliness; but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely necessary. He who by a long familiarity with infamy has obtained these qualities, may confidently tell today what he intends to contradict tomorrow; he may affirm fearlessly what he knows that he shall be obliged to recant, and may write letters from Amsterdam or Dresden to himself." Samuel Johnson: (November 11, 175 And for Jefferson, who wrote that he only read the advertisements, because that was the only place he might find the sole remnants of truth out of the entirety of the newspaper. I, like those men before me...stand firm in my resolve that a free press is a cornerstone of exacting freedom from tyranny...but firmly believe that a corrupted press is the cornerstone for exacting tyranny from freedom. Each day I pray for the former, yet feel that it is even more clear that we are in the eye of the hurricane of the latter.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 16, 2007 11:59 AM (5RM9g)

2 The Right doesn't "get" Dr. King? Who was it that led an 83-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Which side forced President Clinton into signing Welfare Reform into law by making it THE hot item in his re-election year? For a more current example: What would Dr. King say about the Duke Lacrosse case? Somehow I doubt he would be on the side of Democratic DA Mike Nifong. Despite all of this (and much more), it's the Right that doesn't "get" Dr. King? Yeah. Right.

Posted by: Bard at January 16, 2007 05:37 PM (tJnnl)

3 no-one can claim to understand that legacy and what it really means unless you happen to be an African American born prior to 1958, or thereabouts. I think this is proof enough. I'd say a decent reading of the Declaration of Independence is the chief prerequisite for understanding King's legacy. The problem with Americans who don't get King is that they see him as a black hero, and not as an American hero. Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." King: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice."

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at January 16, 2007 10:08 PM (uAxaL)

4 Yeah... Republicans just don't get what Martin Luther King was about. These are the same dumb Republicans that didn't get slavery, so they pushed for the abolishion of it in 1866 and pushed for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I do know that the Democrats did get the idea of wiretapping and spying on Martin Luther King in 1966 (*cough* Attorney General Bobby Kennedy *cough*).

Posted by: Yiddish Steel at January 17, 2007 12:58 PM (TjL02)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via SFGate.com:

For the past year, Spocko has been e-mailing advertisers of KSFO-AM with audio clips from its shows and asking sponsors to examine what they're supporting. Some sponsors have pulled their ads, after hearing clips like one of KSFO's Lee Rodgers suggesting that a protester be "stomped to death right there. Just stomp their bleeping guts out."

Now, bloggers and media freedom advocates are concerned about the legal reaction from Disney/ABC-owned KSFO. Shortly before Christmas, an ABC lawyer demanded that Spocko remove audio clips from his blog on the grounds that Spocko's posting of KSFO content was illegal. Digital freedom advocates counter that the clips constitute fair use and worry that critical voices could be silenced by corporations threatening legal action for violation of copyright law.

I agree.

Stop the Censorship!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

With any luck, John Seery, a Pomona College professor and Huffington Post contributor, will die a horrible, painful death-by-eel-bite in the next year... preferably on Tuesday, March 13.

Why?

Irony.

HuffPuffer Seery seems absolutely giddy at the prospect of calculating the deaths of American soldiers over the next year, which--let's face it--is a game his base doesn't mind playing...

Greg Gutfeld is, well, less than amused with Seery's sick game:

The more that die, he understands, the smarter he looks. As a college professor, he's hoping for an invite to a cocktail party where he doesn't have to serve the drinks.

It only leads me to ask: When, and how, will John Seery be killed?

I'm just curious, of course, in the same manner Mr. Seery is. He's asking you to submit a number - the larger the better - which is perfectly appropriate for the Huffington Post - where hoping for the worst is the only hope allowed.

So certainly, me asking the same question about John should be treated with the same respect - don't you think? I mean, of course - the Huffpo won't dare remove me, or hide my post, when I ask for such a somber prediction. After all, Seery is practically lubricating over expected casualties - his summer will be awash in misery if American blood doesn't flow. What if I feel the same way, about him?

While I might not "lubricate" over Seery's impending death this year, I do have to ask:

What dates and methods are you guys picking?

As Seery himself says:

I'm not sure, however, what you'll win, or even if you could call it a victory. But Americans like to play to win, we've been told.

And though we do love to play, and get things when we win, I'd suggest against a pool... once it gets to a certain point, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

After contributing to Jamil Hussein's imminent date with a drill, I don't know if I can have that on my conscious as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

The overwhelming majority of liberal bloggers were dead silent from late November throughout the month of December, and into January in regards to the Jamil Hussein affair, with the rare exception of those who feverishly insisted upon misconstruing what conservative bloggers were attempting to discover about Husseins' dubious track record, and those who hoped these same bloggers would go to Baghdad unescorted and get gunned down.

Now that the Associated Press has come forth with an admission from the Iraqi Interior Ministry that Hussein does exist, and precisely where AP said he was, many of these same bloggers that refused to comment on the situation before are now bravely attacking those who questioned the AP and accepted to competency of the MOI to be able to read a list.

My favorite emerging narative from the left on this are the sudden woeful claims of concern: "What happens to Jamil Hussein now that you've exposed him? He's going to be arrested, tortured, and killed, and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!"

Get a grip.

The Associated Press "exposed" Jamil Hussein 61 times between April and November using him as a named police source in articles published around the world. It was the Associated Press that provided Husseins' full name, and the Associated Press that named his past and present duty stations. Blaming anyone other than Jamil Hussein himself (he did, after all, decide to go on the record to begin with) and the AP for "exposing" him is especially dim, yet perfectly predictable leftist rhetoric.

As for the sudden liberal concern for this one Iraqi police officer, I find it laughable.

This sudden compassion for Jamil Hussein's is coming from the very liberals that so desperately want us to withdrawal immediately and precipitiously from Iraq, further endangering not one, but 26 million people. This same sudden concern for Jamil Hussein's well-being is coming from the same people opposed to a surge that we hope may help slow or halt the the daily sectarian and terrorist attrocities occurring across Iraq. These same people who now suddenly care so much about the life of a single police captain whine almost daily about the cost of the war, never caring that cost includes the price of arms, ammunition, training. body armor, and other equipment for these same policemen.

Bloody Joseph Stalin is credited with saying, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Based upon today's faux outrage from those who wail for one man out of one side of their mouths, and the abandonment of the entire nation of Iraq on the other, it becomes painfully obvious that the radical left wing apple never falls very far from that same rotten tree.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:30 AM | Comments (113) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

1 CY, are you sure it isn't this guy they arrested? http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/jamil-hussein-saga-continues_21.html

Posted by: Ali at January 05, 2007 08:21 AM (hDlfX)

2 Sure they didn't arrest this guy? http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/jamil-hussein-saga-continues_21.html

Posted by: Ali at January 05, 2007 08:22 AM (hDlfX)

3 Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types... http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

Posted by: MinorRipper at January 05, 2007 08:31 AM (NeFIG)

4 My advice to you is to start drinking cough syrup heavily.

Posted by: zudz at January 05, 2007 08:59 AM (JZnKv)

5 I dunno, zuds. It doesn't seem to produce a pleasant outcome when you guys do it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 05, 2007 09:16 AM (g5Nba)

6 Bloody Joseph Stalin is credited with saying, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Based upon today's faux outrage from those who wail for one man out of one side of their mouths, and the abandonment of the entire nation of Iraq on the other, it becomes painfully obvious that the radical left wing apple never falls very far from that same rotten tree. Yep. That's called "hitting the nail squarely on the head."

Posted by: Tully at January 05, 2007 10:03 AM (kEQ90)

7 You're just mad because you and your cokehead alcoholic President are out of favor.

Posted by: jules at January 05, 2007 10:30 AM (CfyWy)

8 we want withdrawal because our own people's lives are not worth it... we are clearly not making things better - why lose more Americans? why do you hate our own people so much you want more of them to die over there? liberals seem to be the only ones speaking out about this... some consternatives believe this way, too, but politics doesn't allow them to speak up.. PS - a self-avowed and proud liberal, I've never heard about this Jamil person...

Posted by: Pete Bogs at January 05, 2007 10:49 AM (5p0p6)

9 C'mon, did you really believe the guy didn't exist? Did you really believe the entire MSM is in some sort of conspiracy to make it look like Iraq is not going well? This poor guy, Jamil Hussein, is going to be put in jail (hopefully not tortured or killed) and have his life ruined because some right-wing bloggers, lacking the courage to fight in the war they claim to believe in, would rather sit home and attack anyone who dares print the truth.

Posted by: steve ex-expat at January 05, 2007 10:52 AM (rJLFg)

10 If the guy's body is found on a Baghdad street one of these days, it will be on your head, you malevolent idiots.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 10:55 AM (lY4Sr)

11 AP and Jamil Hussein himself created this scenario, not the blogosphere.

Posted by: hmm at January 05, 2007 11:07 AM (QK5mq)

12 hmm, That's really rich! Now it is AP and Hussein's fault that MalKKKin and her evil ilk unleashed their venomous witchhunt. If you, chickenhawks, did not always try to fit the facts around your demented fiction, this would not have happened. Don't try to wriggle of your responsibilities -- although that is a habit that all the rightnutters have. If the guy is thrown in jail, tortured, or killed, it will be your fault. Given the hell that is Iraq, it is actually more than likely that Captain Hussein's days are numbered. Rest assured that you will never hear the end of it.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 11:14 AM (lY4Sr)

13 Its right for me, kill the guy and be done with it Thats what I says about it Evan

Posted by: young warrior at January 05, 2007 11:25 AM (v1hiI)

14 You let your partisan longings lead you down the primrose path. Now you're busted. Instead of having any sort of dignity you write screeds about how the left is awful/incompetent/hypocritical/etc. Sorry, bud. The story in this is not the left's response to this faux scandal. You and your cabal own this, were humiliated by it and grow more laughable everyday you refuse to take any responsibility. Just ask yourself: if the AP had spent two or so months trying to discredit a conservative blogger (all in the screechingest, most high-minded of tones) only for that blogger to present cold hard evidence disproving those claims, how would you expect them to act? (This is the point where you cling to some vague argument that AP is making this up, or that this latest is just an assertion; when you do that we can tell that you are embarrassed even if you won't admit it) Given that it is a requisite to have no shame as a rightwing blogger, I can imagine that you'd expect them to apologize and admit their mistake. That action, of course, is beneath you and yours when the tables are turned. Pathetic.

Posted by: Jacob M at January 05, 2007 11:26 AM (PrpvM)

15 Excellent follow-through, Bob. I excerpted and linked at Jamil identified, facing arrest? -- Day 2 (CENTCOM says AP's "Iraqi police source" isn't Iraqi police -- Part 30)

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 05, 2007 11:33 AM (n7SaI)

16 i'm liberal blogger who hasn't written at any time about the so-called jamail hussein affair, in november, december or january (and i still haven't yet). the reason why is because, right from the start, the whole faux controversy could only be explained as madness. the whole thing aways was and still is incredibly ironic. i mean, the idea that a bunch of bloggers sitting in a room in the u.s. could accurately fact-check what was going on thousands of miles away as reported by people who were there is simply absurd. there are a ton of reasons why an iraqi source would not want to step forward and be indentified publicly as an informant to foreign news sources, and they were all obvious from the beginning. the reason so few liberals wrote about it from the start is because it never made any sense. anyone who wasn't desperately searching for a way to gloss over the problems in iraq could see that from the very beginning. for me, the right's obsession with the story was an ongoing amusing side-show. one that i would occasionally take a peek at and laugh at how stupid the other side could be. i still think it's a non-story. but the inability of the bloggers who have committed so much to this matter to just admit they were wrong and move on, promises to be another continuing source of amusement. keep it up!

Posted by: upyernoz at January 05, 2007 11:34 AM (CVdJ+)

17 I don't necessarily subscribe to the heated rhetoric above, but it does appear that the controversy driven by the right about his existence is ultimately resulting in his arrest. Yes, he took that chance by being quoted repeatedly in AP stories, but he wasn't arrested following those repeated quotes, only after someone loudly proclaimed he wasn't real and got the Iraqi Interior Ministry and U.S. military involved in resolving the question. Let me put it this way. There's a large universe of people serving as sources for stories in Iraq. There's another pretty sizeable universe of Iraqis receiving special attention of some kind from the Interior Ministry or Iraqi police. Those two sets of people don't overlap that much, most likely. The Interior Ministry doesn't concern itself with sources for newspaper stories very often. The fact that they have in this case is a fairly direct result of your investigation. You can't really claim no responsibility here.

Posted by: William Swann at January 05, 2007 11:39 AM (SN1xT)

18 They are like little children...aren't they. I smelled a rat when EJ offered Michelle that trip and boy, are those rats coming out of the woodwork now. Eason Jordan, by the way...has just written a weasel worded "we ALL can learn from this" article, that almost COMPLETELY avoids talking about the seminal point. It still (more than ever) looks like the work of a shill in a three card monte game. (It goes like this: "Boy, AP...you really, really are bad for not telling us where to find Jamil [sotto voce: and...um about the underlying stories that may or may not be true, we should believe you, of course and we want to] so you better tell us if he exists sooner next time!) Now, EJ is saying...AP you were very naughty in not bringing him forward and he was naughty for not stepping forward and the MILITARY was naughty because they knew or should have known of his existence...now it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that everything will be set right...but, you have to answer these creampuff questions: 1)Why didn't you bring him forward sooner? ("Because, my stars and little garters, it would have put him in mortal danger") 2)Why didn't you work with CENTCOM to identify him? ("because we feared he would be arrested, tortured, killed and made to watch 400 straight hours of Keith Olbermann, not necessarily in that order") 3)Why were you so defensive, secretive and dismissive instead of being forthcoming and open? (we are members of the Ministry of Media, you get the "truthyness" we deem valuable...we are protected by the leftist nutjobs and we can frame the issues any way we want, create any strawmen we want and you'll like it...because...it's not YOUR information stream, it's OURS) Of course, nobody in the lemming loony bin wants to look at the elephant in middle of the room. For over a month, Michelle, Bob, Charles, Glenn have all been asking..."If Jamil exists, is he this guy Gulaim? WHAT ABOUT HIS DETAILS IN THE STORIES THAT DON'T EXIST????" EJ apparently is quite eager to gloss over this point...because after all...it's the ONLY point that ever existed in the three card monte game. Get this point straight, so you don't miss it again. Jamil's existence is secondary to whether the STORIES he "sourced" existed. The burning mosques. The immolated bodies. All 61 stories...are they Jason Blair redux? Where's the proof for any of them? Especially the one that started this inquiry. The leftists don't "get" this point, because it causes them cognitive dissonance. (and a massive migraine) "Why are you asking whether the stories are true...the MORAL is true. That's enough for us, it should be enough for you". If I wanted fables and fairy tales...I would get them from children's books...not from adolescent screeds. "Iraq is a dangerous place". No shia, Sherlock. But it does NOT give the Ministry of Media the right to rape our information stream with photoshopped photographs, staged scenes with Green Helmet guy as choreographer, NOR PHONY STORIES ABOUT 6 INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING DRAGGED INTO THE STREETS AND DOUSED WITH KEROSENE. The cognitive dissonance with lemmings and parrots as they are in full choir now...is that the TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER to them. We only deserve "truthyness" or caricatures of truth. "Why all this fuss over whether the story was completely fabricated, it reflects what we want you to believe, so why don't you simply just believe it the way we do?" Now, quit thinking for yourselves, here's your hymnal and here's the playbook...go back and rote memorize it so you can mindlessly puke it back when we call upon you to do so, just like we do" Let me give it to them in a way they can understand: The STORIES were fabricated. The SOURCE was unworthy and unreliable. The EVENTS in the reports didn't exist. How they came into existence as phony reports, is secondary to the issue of WHY WOULD I EVER FIND THIS ACCEPTABLE? YOU may not care that the information stream is being raped, but some of us still do. YOU don't care, because it's in line with your leftist view of the world. Some of us care, because YOU don't own the truth. I want my information to be based on actual facts, whatever they are. THEN, and ONLY THEN...will I make up my mind. I believed from the instant that EJ made his offer to Michelle...that somebody was going to "be Jamil". I smelled a rat, but, I STILL don't believe the underlying stories attributed to him, whoever he is. I believe they are false, phony, exaggerated, perhaps wholly untrue and unworthy of belief. And therefore, the SYSTEM is corrupted, and these phony stories are further proof. You can shout and scream and form into the Bulge and Spittle Corp and read from your playbook and sing from your hymnal...and it won't change a thing. Our information stream is being raped. And you don't give a damn. Timeshare Americans. COW's. World Populists. You have no shame. You have no honor. You have no principles. But you do have your Kool-Aid.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 11:47 AM (V56h2)

19 Young warrior, Since you are so full of bloodlust, why don't you enlist and go to Iraq? You could be part of the "surge" that your Decider is decidering. Or are you just another chickenhawk?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 11:53 AM (lY4Sr)

20 Cfbleacher, You assert that "the STORIES" were fabricated; that "the SOURCE was unworthy and unreliable"; and that "the EVENTS in the report did not exist". Would you care to PROVE your assertions? Please provide links to verifiable and impartial sources. Malkin, and the rest of the rabid right-wing nutjobs do not qualify as sources. Thank you. By the way, your psychiatrist really needs to increase the dosage of you anti-psychotic medication.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 12:04 PM (lY4Sr)

21 Being a radical, Islamofacistcommieloving sort of guy (in other words - not a wingnut), I love this stuff... I recall some rather well-known bloggers from the left weighing in on this topic (I'm sure if you used 'teh google' you would find the same), but, as usual, reality based thinking has no place in CY land. And, by the way, this does not relieve MalKKKin of her duty to roam the beautiful streets of Bagdad on her own to prove what a wonderful gift we have given the savages.

Posted by: smike at January 05, 2007 12:08 PM (DWC/t)

22 Sorry, but there won't be any turning this back on liberal bloggers. This is your bag. Deal with it.

Posted by: Xanthippas at January 05, 2007 12:08 PM (GwDrh)

23 So liberal concern for this one policeman is laughable, hey? How about the utter lack of concern from the right-wing authoritarians for the 3,006 dead U.S. soldiers and their families, and the 20,000+ wounded and/or maimed? How about your advocating sending more troops to be IED fodder? That, I find despicable and repugnant. I would say that the dead and maimed soldiers are on your conscience, if you had a conscience. Clearly, your ilk has no moral compass. You are noxious lower forms of life. U.S. soldiers are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, with both sides aiming at them. Get that into your thick skull.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 12:14 PM (lY4Sr)

24 Satan's spawn You apparently don't get how this works, so let me slip in some reality into your world. We don't need to "prove" that a phony story is phony. The Ministry of Media has a de facto duty to not feed us lies. It's up to them to source the stories properly, to not photoshop photos, to not stage events with Green Helmet guy, to not Jason Blair events. (all PROVEN faux news, from your beloved left wing propaganda farm) I don't visit any mental health counselor, I don't need one. But if you would like to give us the name of yours, we can make note of it when you start frothing at the mouth again. I'm a centrist, but I really, really, really hate the leftists. And the reaction to this phony "news" story...is precisely why. You all have not an ounce of integrity. Now, back in your cage, Polly. Here's a cracker.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 12:18 PM (V56h2)

25 "And, by the way, this does not relieve MalKKKin of her duty to roam the beautiful streets of Baghdad on her own to prove what a wonderful gift we have given the savages". You don't really believe that the cowardly skank will actually go to Baghdad, do you?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 12:19 PM (lY4Sr)

26 Cfbleachers, Wrong, psycho. You assert that this was all a fabrication. You prove it. Now go back to the psychiatric ward before the orderlies catch you roaming the hallways with your pants off. There, that's a good boy.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 05, 2007 12:24 PM (lY4Sr)

27 Satan's spawn How about a friendly wager? I will bet $1000 that there were NOT four mosques burned to the ground, as listed in that story. Care to put up anything other than leftist pap? Like I said...there are leftists, there is integrity (truth, honor and courage)...and never the twain shall meet. Don't you have choir practice soon?

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 12:29 PM (V56h2)

28 One of my guestbloggers has posted a very nicely sourced summary of this whole affair. Keep in mind, the only post I wrote on this subject was about the 61 other stories this guy was sourced for (that he may or may not have existed is, as cfbleachers notes above, was immaterial). The squawking here from DA and others is risible -- out in full force once they think they've uncovered a gotcha moment, filled with phony outrage and claims of mass rightwing delusions. The guy who posted the above link added additional thoughts in the comments that are worth repeating here:[...] Prior to the discovery of the Captain (by the Iraqis, who will get no credit for admitting their mistake), what little Lefty take there has been on this story has been of the “fake, but accurate” strain. Put another way, “Who cares about this particular story, when Baghdad is clearly a total hellhole?” And it was portrayed as part of a wingnut worldview that simply wants to blame the MSM messengers for the current state of Iraq. There has been little notice, afaik, of the fact that there is significant tension between those two asertions. That is, no one on the Left seems to have bothered to ask why this particular story was the one that set off alarm bells with media skeptics. No doubt some of the Left uncritically bought into the AP’s insinuation that this was part of some secret campaign against the press-—but that still doesn’t answer the question of why this story became a target. And I would suggest, as I did above, that this story set off alarm bells with bloggers for the same reasons it got skeptical looks from the NYT, the WaPo and Eason Jordan, which have much more to do with journalistic standards and practices than with a secret, military-blogospherical complex.In the post I link above, the outside sources for skepticism over some of Hussein's previous claims are to be found in such rightwing organs as the NYT and the WaPo. Other sources throwing Hussein's claims into doubt include two local imams, some neighborhood residents, and the AP itself -- clearly part of the VRWC. So continue shouting and hoping that your rhetorical prestidigitation will force us to lose site of the long view. But the fact remains, you shrieking opportunists wouldn't be here in the comments yelping were it not for the fact that you believe you can shout out the kernel by loudly chewing on the husk.

Posted by: Jeff G at January 05, 2007 12:53 PM (U/QYV)

29 Site = sight. See also, Armed Liberal.

Posted by: Jeff G at January 05, 2007 12:56 PM (U/QYV)

30 Advo, What a lot of hooey. Just like usual. The story that the AP wrote was already proven to be false. Nobody else said 6 people were immolated. Did Reuters? Did CNN? Did any of your other favorites? AP had to eat their own words when they said 4 mosques had been burned down. What you don't seem to realize, or are just to obstinate to understand, is that the center of this whole story was not Jamil Hussein. It was the story of the 4 mosques being burned, of 26 people dying inside one of them, and 6 people being dragged into the street and immolated after being doused with Kerosene. The AP reported on all of that using Jamil Hussein. It turned out that Jamil didn't work in the original station he was supposed to. Most bloggers just wanted AP to produce him. Now he has been and we can get some answers as to how a guy working in (figuratively) the Bronx knew the details of everything happening in Queens, Manhattan, and Albany. Get a grip. If several news agencies had not already been caught giving out false information, this may not have blown up the way it did. But AP has restored some credibility by producing Hussein (and who knows why they didn't earlier). Now let's take the next step and get to the bottom of it before your BDS takes over completely.

Posted by: Specter at January 05, 2007 01:04 PM (ybfXM)

31 Bob, I'm wondering if the name Jamil Hussein in Iraq is like Bob Smith here. How hard would it be to find a Jamil Hussein in Iraq — any Jamil Hussein — when I just found one each in Buena Park, CA, Fairview, NJ, and Allentown, PA, using online White Pages. AP's long delay in responding to this is suspicious, to say the least. Their indignation that anyone would doubt them is comical after their performance in the past five years.

Posted by: Jon Ham at January 05, 2007 01:08 PM (Op3RY)

32 And I would suggest, as I did above, that this story set off alarm bells with bloggers for the same reasons it got skeptical looks from the NYT, the WaPo and Eason Jordan, which have much more to do with journalistic standards and practices than with a secret, military-blogospherical complex. The reason this story set off alarm bells is quite obvious: because of CENTCOM's false assertions that Jamil Hussein didn't exist. I'm not saying that Jamil Hussein's reports are 100% true (although the question of "burnt mosques" has probably to do with the translation: "set on fire" and "burnt to the ground" are different things, but could be phrased in Arabic identically), but one fact is 100% indisputable: CENTCOM was pushing lies. There's no running away from this.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 05, 2007 01:26 PM (m8XvX)

33 Since you are so full of bloodlust, why don't you enlist and go to Iraq? You could be part of the "surge" that your Decider is decidering. Or are you just another chickenhawk? If that would give him "moral authority" where does your sitting here leave you in terms of moral authority?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 05, 2007 01:35 PM (clafO)

34 This sudden compassion for Jamil Hussein's is coming from the very liberals that so desperately want us to withdrawal immediately and precipitiously from Iraq "Us"? Surely you meant the "U.S." because your ass hasn't been seen limping around Iraq and in need of withdrawal. "Us" is reserved for soldiers, not clowns.

Posted by: tbogg at January 05, 2007 01:41 PM (d7Sqx)

35 "...that was the real point of the Jamil Hussein rants -- to call into question media reporting generally on Iraq, in order, in turn, to suggest that things are not actually going badly there. Or, as Reynolds put it just recently: 'What if we are winning'?" Incorrect. The point in bringing this up and harping on it like a Durham-District-Attorney-going-after-a-highly-questionable-rape-case-in-light-of-any-evidence-to-the-contrary-just-to-win-a-re-election is to point out that the press needs to better research its stories. Who is more responsible: those who exaggerate stories or the ones that point out the exaggerations? Stop trying to shoot the messenger, DA.

Posted by: Bard at January 05, 2007 01:52 PM (6pO0v)

36 Why arent you guys latching on like pit bulls to the story of Americans dressed as Arabs caught with a car full of explosives, they were detained by IRaqi police until US soldiers got there and forced them to release the American terrorists? Or investigating why british special ops guys who also were busted with a car full of explosives? And when they were held in jail a british tank drove over the jail to free them? Why aren't you questioning the veracity of Saddam Hussein being found in a "spider hole" a day before any US forces were even in the region? How about why Saddam Hussein had to be hanged so quickly? Why wasn't he tried in an international court? How about questioning the veracity of Rick Santoram who was running raound before the election shouting to anyone who would listen that we found WMDs in Iraq? HOW ABOUT QUESTIONING THE VERACITY OF PEOPLE LIKE CHALABI AND AL LIBBY AND THEN POWELL AND KRISTOL AND WOLFOWITZ AND PEARLE AND CHENEY AND RICE AND NEGROPONTE AND FINALLY BUSH! I mean really, if you're looking for lies you don't have to go all the way to IRaq!

Posted by: Libby McLiberal at January 05, 2007 02:01 PM (/4nPP)

37 I find it funny that Democrats are once again trying to use one fact to hide another. Jamil Hussein LIED, he exaggerated stories, at the very least he passed on UNCONFIRMED REPORTS. Jamil Hussein is under arrest not because he talked to the Press, but because he LIED to the press. When both the Iraqi and US Governments say there are serious questions as to his reports, when Al Arabyia PULLS THE STORY because it DIDN'T HAPPEN AS TOLD, you must sit back and realize the truth. Or you can harp on about how Jamil Hussein really exists and keep screaming as loud as you can about it until all the idiots forget why everyone wanted to find him in the first place. One option is honest, the other is liberal.

Posted by: Naieve at January 05, 2007 02:03 PM (+PWjE)

38 DA, What is it that you don't get - AP should have more than one source and verify that sources veracity.

Posted by: hmm at January 05, 2007 02:09 PM (QK5mq)

39 Libby, why don't we also begin tearing into Sandy Burger about top secret documents he stole THEN HID? Do you know why? Because they aren't members of the press. This is about members of the press either not corroborating stories from their sources, or hoping we (the American people) are too lazy and/or stupid to check up on them. The topic here is the trustworthiness of the press, let's try not to derail, eh?

Posted by: Bard at January 05, 2007 02:18 PM (6pO0v)

40 Now that you've "exposed" AP, what about doing the same with Fox "News", Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, John Gibson, Bill Kristol, Washington Times, etc.? After all, you folks detest manufactured news and facts, don't you? BTW, why aren't you in Iraq or Afghanistan, helping your dear leader win the war......? Okay, I get it.........Chickenhawk are we, aren't we?

Posted by: Fox "News" at January 05, 2007 02:40 PM (eTxeL)

41 Jamil Hussein is under arrest not because he talked to the Press, but because he LIED to the press. When both the Iraqi and US Governments say there are serious questions as to his reportsBoth Iraqi and US Governments LIED about Jamil Hussein (i.e. said he doesn't exist), so I guess you have to take their other claims in this story with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 05, 2007 03:13 PM (RfRKC)

42 Jamil Hussein is under arrest not because he talked to the Press, but because he LIED to the press. When both the Iraqi and US Governments say there are serious questions as to his reportsBoth Iraqi and US Governments LIED about Jamil Hussein (i.e. said he doesn't exist), so I guess you have to take their other claims in this story with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 05, 2007 03:15 PM (RfRKC)

43 1. The right-wing blogosphere invents a controversy over one AP story out of thousands of reports in a desperate attempt to find proof that Iraq is in fact a happy land of candy and flower-tossing contests, but the liberal terrorist-loving media paints it otherwise in order aid the jihad against the United States and Baby Jesus. 2. The source of the article who ratted out the shiites who burned and shot sunnis at the mosque would've likely remained unnoticed, but is now known to every man, women, child, and shiite terrorist in Iraq. 3. The right-wing blogosphere, after being proven wrong again, simply shrugs and moves on to the next invented controversy in order to whip themselves into another orgasmic outrage. You guys just don't get it. The lies you tell yourselves are so precious, I know. They are the only thing holding together your fantasy world that is crashing down around you. But just this once admit you were wrong. Just this once. The healing of your mind cannot begin until you admit that you're wrong.

Posted by: Ian at January 05, 2007 03:17 PM (Fc1wu)

44 Would someone other than a barking moonbat please answer some questions for me? I'm not used to so many trolls in one place and this flurry of mass hysteria is so uncommon for this place from my brief experience, I need a primer on how they think, how not to feed them, what makes them tick. (tic?) 1)Do they truly not understand that the issue regarding our information stream needing to be truthful and accurate is the whole point, are they so dense that they don't get it, or is there something more nefarious going on? 2)Do they always revert to the same childish themes of "now he's going to die and you are responsible", "nyah, nyah Fox News does it too", "Bush lied, people died"...or is it unique to this particular case of media distortion that suspends them in arrested adolescence? 3)Do they really buy into the "Jamil exists, therefore all his lies are now truthy" defense, or are they simply so wrapped up in the frat boy "our side is better than your side" pillow fight, that they just wind up sounding like little girls at a sleepover? 4)Why is it they were so quiet, had virtually nothing to say about Green Helmet Guy, the photoshopped photos, and this matter for months....even now they have not even the slightest inclination to talk about the four mosques blown to pieces...um one, sort of, maybe, the six immolated Sunni's, well not really, at all, any...all they want to do is say over and over and over again "You're President"..."You're war"...what the hell does that have to do with OUR information stream being bastardized? And what country are they rooting for? Certainly not America. Please, explain these people to me. Who are they and why are they like this? Does anyone have a diagnosis?

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 03:26 PM (V56h2)

45 Quite frankly, I'm surprised that there's only one Jamil Hussein in the Iraqi police force. That's like a guy named John Smith. Seriously, that's got to be second to, I dunno, Mohammed Mohammed in the list of most common Iraqi names. I had assumed all along that it was a pseudonym, which made the right-wing search for the "real" Jamil even more comical. Still, though. You guys said he didn't exist and this became cornerstone #342432843284392 for the mighty Liberal Media Hates America building for how many months? Admittedly, it's even worse than changing gray smoke to black smoke. But when it turns out that you guys were absolutely 180 degrees wrong on the question of whether Jamil Hussein exists, and you don't even skip a beat in declaring that his existence makes your case even stronger... Alice in Wonderland comes to mind.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 05, 2007 03:28 PM (glUhi)

46 Let's see, shorter confused Yankee. "We drummed up all kinds of outrage over this non story, but the liberal bloggers treated it as a non story. And now that it's been shown our outrage was, to say the least, incredibly silly, now you hear those liberal bloggers pointing out how silly we are!" Well, it's because you created the story. The story is no longer about some source for stories in Iraq, that story never had any legs to anyone other than those like you with "the courage to believe". It seems the only story left is "Look at those idiots, wouldn't you think they'd have the common sense to shut up about it now?" Which is in itself a stupid question. Of course they don't.

Posted by: Davebo at January 05, 2007 03:41 PM (vdjgh)

47 Dear Bard, The thread seems to be about right-wing bloggers driving themselves to ragegasm for the past twi months demanding that everyone acknoweldge that news from Mall Brat MalKKKin is more reliable than news from the AP. Yet again, facts seems to have a liberal bias. Tragically, this time you clueless gits have brought focus to a man who has been arrested and given conditions in Iraq, may possibly wind up dead in a ditch. Do any of you have any shame ever? As with this entire disaster you and your Deciderer-in-Chief created, you just walk away from any responsibility or self-evauation and move on to the next disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: Joe in SF at January 05, 2007 03:45 PM (us9O5)

48 Why aren't you enlisted and in Iraq, instead of sitting in your parents basement dispensing this drivel? Name a single thing you, or the administration, has been right about with regards to Iraq? I hear crickets....

Posted by: Neil at January 05, 2007 03:53 PM (asNGL)

49 "Now that you've "exposed" AP, what about doing the same with Fox "News", Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, John Gibson, Bill Kristol, Washington Times, etc.? After all, you folks detest manufactured news and facts, don't you?" Are you kidding me? We're still working on Dan Rather. (here's two freebies to google search: "The Wall Within" and "Rathergate"). See? I can play that game all day long too. Again, let's stick to THIS topic about the AP and their questionable source.

Posted by: Bard at January 05, 2007 04:00 PM (6pO0v)

50 "..let's stick to THIS topic about the AP and their questionable source." You mean you guys aren't done embarrassing yourselves yet?

Posted by: Frederick at January 05, 2007 04:07 PM (jSBbA)

51 Green Helmet Guy STAGING false news. Photoshopped pictures STAGING false news. Four mosques DETAILED as having been obliterated...false news. Six Sunni's taken out into the street and doused with kerosene and burned and taken to a morgue, uh...no, taken to the cemetery, yeah that's the ticket....false news. But hey, we DID find ONE of the guys we quoted with our fake news stories! Yay! The rest are anonymous or have yet to be found. This particular liar was on our payroll...so, as we tour the mosque sites that were obliterated...um...don't look over here, um..don't look over there...um...don't look at the third one....um...HEY JACOB THE LIAR...UM I mean, Jamil EXISTS...that concludes our tour of Moonbat Media Mania. Jamil Lives! The story dies. All is well is the Orwellian land of the lemmings.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 04:17 PM (V56h2)

52 Green Helmet Guy STAGING false news. Photoshopped pictures STAGING false news. Four mosques DETAILED as having been obliterated...false news. John Kerry "snubbed by the troops"... false news. And the self-correcting blogosphere timer starts ticking once more... I won't be holding my breath, though.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 05, 2007 04:26 PM (glUhi)

53 The bleeding heart in me almost feels sorry for you wingnuts. Truly. I snap out of it pretty quickly though, but you guys really don't have anything anymore. Neocon dream shattered into a million pieces. Fearmongering doesn't even work anymore. And you're left with pathetic stories about pics of John Kerry, and a "scoop" about an Iraqi policeman. But even these turn into another colossal embarrassment. Ouch. But do enjoy your time in the wilderness, I think it will be a long walk, so bring a compass. It will be a good thing for a long walkabout, helps to clear the head.

Posted by: naked lunch at January 05, 2007 04:39 PM (TPrgD)

54 I think it will be a long walk I got $100 says the republicans regain at least one house of congress within 4 years.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 05, 2007 04:41 PM (clafO)

55 I was gonna come in here and troll, but I see it's being handled by professionals that are far more well informed than I am. Nevertheless, as ill-informed as I am, I'm still light-years ahead of CY and Malkin on this sad, sad story. Hope you're proud of yourself.

Posted by: Jody at January 05, 2007 04:43 PM (ISz5u)

56 Four mosques DETAILED as having been obliterated...false news. The quote was: "In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said." This doesn't necessary mean "obliterated". This could well mean "set on fire". Lost in translation. A "fog of war" to some degree, but nothing malicious.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 05, 2007 04:47 PM (m8XvX)

57 cfbleachers, Ok, I get it now. Major syllogism: We don't like the news we here out of Iraq. Minor syllogism: Several [out of thousands] of those stories turned out to be false or exaggerated. Conclusion: All news from Iraq that we don't like is false or exaggerated. Brilliant.

Posted by: berzerklyoid at January 05, 2007 04:47 PM (7o9r+)

58 "1)Do they truly not understand that the issue regarding our information stream needing to be truthful and accurate is the whole point, are they so dense that they don't get it, or is there something more nefarious going on?" I suspect there's something more nefarious going on, although I mean something different by that than you probably expect. There are dozens of stories that come out of Iraq every day -- maybe hundreds. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that 30% are inaccurate in the sense of containing some major cited "fact" that isn't true or is muddled in some way. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the case. There's a lot of noise in a war zone, and stories often rely on what people are saying at a given moment, much of it not very precise, I would imagine. My question is this. Are you guys looking to "clear up the information stream"? Or are you looking to undermine stories that contradict your world view, while leaving the others alone? Here's a test case for you. There are reports every day out of Baghdad about the number of people found murdered and/or tortured in various parts of town. Sometimes those numbers are as low as 15-20, sometimes they are as much as 100. There are reports from some quarters that the civilian slaughter has reached epic in proportions, perhaps 100,000 people or more. There's some kind of reality behind those reports, and it's murky given the dramatic range in the numbers. When was the last time one of your right wing blogs examined a daily report that said 15 people died, and found that ... well, no, it was more like 70 or 80 that day? That must be the case, on at least some days. Do you ever report anything that even modestly undermines your worldview? That's my question. If not, you're not "clearing the information stream" so much as tilting it in a certain direction. I also wonder about your focus on these various specific incidents. It would be far more meaningful to figure out what the real big picture is in Iraq, and there's lots of studies and data points from widely varying sources that could inform that analysis. It's also more important to figure out what we should do now if our policies aren't working. I kind of sense that the questions you ask so stridently aren't lined up that nicely with a clear-headed and rational concern for where we are now and what we should do. Lefty blogs are guilty of the same thing, by the way. They don't often consider with any seriousness what we should do to try to make this policy work. That's why I find this whole tit-for-tat between left and right uninspiring. Nobody goes outside their well-worn comfort zone in this debate to consider the real (but difficult) questions of consequence.

Posted by: William Swann at January 05, 2007 04:48 PM (SN1xT)

59 Sad beyond words.

Posted by: salvage at January 05, 2007 04:57 PM (jQnuN)

60 william swann summed it up pretty well. sometimes news reports coming out of a war zone cannot be confirmed or later turn out to be inaccurate. that doesn't mean it's not a war zone, or that things, in fact, are honky-dory there. why are you nice people on the right having such a hard time understanding that?

Posted by: upyernoz at January 05, 2007 05:09 PM (CVdJ+)

61 and again I ask, Yankee - why won't you address one simple question? 1. The people ACCUSED of the Mosque burnings in the AP story were Shiite Mahdi Army thugs - and Shiite policeman, who stood idly by and let it happen. 2. The Iraqi Police are run by the Ministry of the Interior - which is completely controlled and run by Muqtada Al Dadr and his Mahdi Army. AKA, the same thugs who attacked the mosques in the first place. 3. When the AP report the story, the Ministry of the Interior, AKA the Mahdi Army, AKA the PRIME SUSPECTS in the crime - deny that the crime happened, or that the witness exists. Centcom repeats these lies. 4. The wingnuts, instead of thinking "geez, maybe the people who perpetrated the crime aren't the most reliable source" gullibly swallows this nonsense, and proceeds to scream loudly that the AP is making it up. This obsession works quite nicely for them - they can ignore Decembers mounting pile of corpses in Baghdad, both US and Iraqi, and instead attack the AP for telling them unpleasant truths they don't want to hear. 5. Again I ask: are you wingnuts so ill-informed that you didn't KNOW that the Ministry of the Interior - your source for all this nonsense - is run by the very people ACCUSED OF THE CRIME? 6. If you DID know that -then why were you so eager to accept the word of Muqtada Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army? On more piece of impeccable logic: A. "It's not our fault if he's in danger, the AP put him in danger when they used his name." B. "The AP can't be trusted because it uses unnamed sources in its stories." therefore - OK, now I get it - since according to you, the AP shouldn't use named OR unnamed sources for its stories - they should - what - simply stop reporting from Baghdad? See, it all makes perfect sense here in fantasyland. "Since the media insists on reporting reality from Iraq, and we don't LIKE reality, the media should just stop reporting completely, so we can all be comfortable here in fantasy land. " Children. You are all such children.

Posted by: Reality based at January 05, 2007 05:13 PM (Bg91R)

62 "Tragically, this time you clueless gits have brought focus to a man who has been arrested and given conditions in Iraq, may possibly wind up dead in a ditch." Yeah...as a Sunni propaganda"asset," Jamil is burned. He's been pretty quiet since Thanksgiving, anyway. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at January 05, 2007 05:19 PM (Ohkx7)

63 "YOU may not care that the information stream is being raped, but some of us still do. YOU don't care, because it's in line with your leftist view of the world." Keerist, that is rich. Didn't Rumsfield set up a whole Department of Propaganda to support the War Against Truth? The whole friggen' war was based on lies and through the smoking ruins of a country that, coincidentally, happens to sit on the #2 oil reserves, you folks want to take the high road on the 'rape of the information stream'? What you guys really want is NO news coming from Iraq...then you'd all be free to paint your rosy little delusions to convince each other of how righteous your support for the war criminals have been. What a bunch of pathetic parrotheads.

Posted by: Innocent Bystander at January 05, 2007 05:29 PM (+JNxq)

64 LOL! Goo-goo-ga-joob! Mr. Baghdad p'liceman sitting pretty little p'licemen in a row! You obviously are ignoring the import of l'affair Jamil: his multiple mosque/multiple burned-alive story didn't check out. So his silence may be taken to mean that AP is being a bit more careful with him as a source. Thus, my note that as a possible asset for one of the warring factions--60 some citations in AP stories, w/o attention being paid by the sinister MOI and our babykillers-- he himself is now burnt. Why our CENTCOM folks would be expected to be up-to-speed on Iraqi intra-mural militia violence is not explained. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at January 05, 2007 05:34 PM (Ohkx7)

65 I think what is keeping this such a popular topic in the blogosphere is the lack of play in the regular media and the rabid denials of liberals in the blogosphere. The denials come across almost as if they are shouting "Don't look behind the great and powerful Oz's curtain!" Frederick said "You mean you guys aren't done embarrassing yourselves yet?" Granted, I think this is getting more play in the blogosphere than it deserves, but to rail against it like this is to say "they are saying what we agree with, let's ignore if it's right or wrong". Is that really the message you want to convey? Partisanship > All ? To me, that stance is much more embarrassing.

Posted by: Bard at January 05, 2007 05:37 PM (6pO0v)

66 And the self-correcting blogosphere timer starts ticking once more... I won't be holding my breath, though. scarshapedstar, Here's a start: LGF & Hotair. On behalf of all wingnuts, I wish to apologize to Senator Thurston Howell for believing he's not so popular with the military that they wouldn;t wish to proclaim him Augustus, as surely they voted in naught-four. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at January 05, 2007 05:42 PM (Ohkx7)

67 It's not about concern for Jamil Hussein, but about the attempted Swiftboating of the AP and it's sources when the facts ran counter to American right-wing extremists' agenda. When the facts don't suit right-wing extremists in America today, the right-wing extremists attack the messenger, Swift-boat style.

Posted by: Silvio Dante at January 05, 2007 05:42 PM (nkATT)

68 upyernoz raises the only question I have about this wart on a footnote: CY, do you REALLY read the "overwhelming majority of liberal bloggers?" Do you need help finding work? Cheers! Vulf

Posted by: shieldvulf at playful at January 05, 2007 05:55 PM (SlsY6)

69 I hate to stray from a subject, but I hate ignorance being flouted as fact even more. Let's get the whole "WMD" thing straight once and for all. To begin with, the Iraqis had tons and tons of cholinesterase inhibitors stored in camoflauge bunkers right next to artillery shells designed to accept a liquid payload. Those cholinesterase inhibitors have always been classified as "pesticides" by the ISG and others. Cholinesterase inhibitors are indeed pesticides. Almost every mix made by a commercial pesticide applicator has some form of cholinesterase inhibitor in it, resulting in the need for cholinesterase blood tests every week when using the stuff. But you know what? Cholinesterase inhibitors are usually organophosphates. And the interesting Organophosphate cholinesterase inhibitors are nerve agents like Sarin, Tabun, Soman, etc. That's why the antidote to never agents is the same antidote I carried around as a pesticide applicator: Atropine. There has been an incredible amount of pesticides found in camoflauged bunkers in the middle of vast ammunition dumps in Iraq. They were often found, by pure coincidence, next to artillery shells designed to carry chemical weapons. They obviously were very concerned about keeping their ammunition dumps insect free. But nope, no WMD. Let's also ignore that Saddam had 500 tons of uranium with 1.8 tons already enriched to a low level. Coincidentally enough our troops have also found enriching equipment (various pieces and parts). Now add to all this the convoys of large trucks leaving Iraq into Syria just prior to the war (would love to know why we didn't bomb those caravans) along with testimony from Saddam's chief scientist and you have all the pieces needed for a gun and bullets, all that's needed is to put them together. But nope, no WMD's there *roll eyes* But wait! What did the IAEA have to say about this? http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html "Weaponisation Facilities *Tuwaitha had facilities and infrastructure for all Group Four activities except for the fabrication, handling, and testing of high explosives *Experimented with high explosives to produce implosive shock waves *Developed a 32-point electronic firing system using detonators and lenses developed at Al Qa Qa *Tested firing system *Tested flash X-ray systems, gas gun systems, fiber optics with fast response electronic equipment, high speed electronic streak cameras towards nuclear weapons *Produced and recovered polonium by irradiating bismuth ................. As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme: Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon" To the main point on this, Saddam was to have NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a single shred of any sort of WMD. But he did and evidence shows he was indeed intending on restarting his program if it ever truly stopped. Now that you know the truth, can we finally get back to the topic at hand of the AP needing to do a better job of corroborating their sources?

Posted by: Bard at January 05, 2007 06:04 PM (6pO0v)

70 OK - this may come as a shock . . . many liberals may not have said anything about this because there was nothing to say rooted in anything but speculation. It seemed unlikely that the AP invented a source, but it's not utterly impossible. It seemed weird for the US government and Iraqi government to deny he existed, but it could be explained as either (1) covering their butts or (2) Iraq is pretty chaotic with a weird administration (have you ever done a background check on yourself and realized how much of your data is NOT going to be found?). That was about all anyone had any information to say. Not that interesting. Now, I understand that y'all don't worry about empirical information in your speculation, but that's one of the reasons you're different from us. Oh - and why is the Iraqi ministry arresting him exactly? Were all of you concerned over Judith Miller and those leaks to the press? Or is anonymity only valuable to protect conservative politicos who want to attack opponents or spread lies with impunity?

Posted by: MDtoMN at January 05, 2007 06:20 PM (Z3W4h)

71 The quote was: "In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said." This doesn't necessary mean "obliterated". This could well mean "set on fire". Lost in translation. A "fog of war" to some degree, but nothing malicious. Posted by Nikolay at January 5, 2007 04:47 PM No, no, no, no no. That's the whole point, Nikolay. If there had been "nothing malicious" in the reporting, then AP when confronted with the undamaged mosques and the complete refutation of the immolation story...simply "retracts its story and regrets its error". They didn't do that. They stood by a phony story. Just like Dan Rather. Just like Green Helmet Guy. This is a pattern...not an isolated incident. Get some "facts" wrong...I have no problem with the "fog of war" alibi. Repeatedly STAGE false news, overstate the case ALWAYS IN THE SAME DIRECTION...and I begin to see a pattern. Fake photos, staged scenes of death, phony rocket-grenade and machine gun attacks, complete lies about dousing with kerosene? Sorry...that is simply NOT a "fog of war" issue. These are specific instances of PHONY news items. It can't be whitewashed. cfbleachers, Ok, I get it now. Major syllogism: We don't like the news we here out of Iraq. No....you don't get it. If the truth is bad news, I WANT to hear it. If it's good news, I WANT to hear it. If it's mixed good and bad, I WANT to hear. What I don't want to see and hear...are a bunch of lies. Fake photographs. Staged scenes. Passed off as news. Minor syllogism: Several [out of thousands] of those stories turned out to be false or exaggerated. I really don't give a damn if it's ONE false story INTENTIONALLY told to mislead me. One little rape by a Kennedy on the lawn, one little secretary driven off a bridge, one little grope by Clinton, one little archive stolen by Berger....you can whittle down the BS all you want...I simply want the truth. The leftists don't own it...and I wish they stopped acting as if they did. "Conclusion: All news from Iraq that we don't like is false or exaggerated." What I don't like is lies. You eat them up like they are Boston Cream pie. Sorry, I don't share your appetite for swallowing bullshit. Posted by berzerklyoid at January 5, 2007 04:47 PM "1)Do they truly not understand that the issue regarding our information stream needing to be truthful and accurate is the whole point, are they so dense that they don't get it, or is there something more nefarious going on?" I suspect there's something more nefarious going on, although I mean something different by that than you probably expect. There are dozens of stories that come out of Iraq every day -- maybe hundreds. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that 30% are inaccurate in the sense of containing some major cited "fact" that isn't true or is muddled in some way. It wouldn't surprise me if that's the case. There's a lot of noise in a war zone, and stories often rely on what people are saying at a given moment, much of it not very precise, I would imagine. My question is this. Are you guys looking to "clear up the information stream"? Or are you looking to undermine stories that contradict your world view, while leaving the others alone? I don't know who "you guys" are...but if you are speaking with me, I want the truth. Whole and unvarnished, please. And, I don't mind a few facts getting fuzzy in the fog of war...but doesn't it at least strike you a BIT strange...that it's ALWAYS the leftist viewpoint that gets "found out"...and then we are back to whitewashing it? Why no apology? Why no investigation? Why the stonewalling? If it's an innocent error, they got the facts WILDLY wrong...then correct it and move on. That's not what happened. And excuse me if I seem a bit incredulous...but Green Helmet guy is a STAGED event...not a "mistake". The photoshopped BS pictures were INTENDED to give an impression that was FALSE...not mistaken. Do you really, really, really not see a difference between an intentional falsehood, faking news, staging events...and an innocent mistake? Are you really saying that? I wouldn't think so. Here's a test case for you. There are reports every day out of Baghdad about the number of people found murdered and/or tortured in various parts of town. Sometimes those numbers are as low as 15-20, sometimes they are as much as 100. There are reports from some quarters that the civilian slaughter has reached epic in proportions, perhaps 100,000 people or more. There's some kind of reality behind those reports, and it's murky given the dramatic range in the numbers. When was the last time one of your right wing blogs examined a daily report that said 15 people died, and found that ... well, no, it was more like 70 or 80 that day? That must be the case, on at least some days. Do you ever report anything that even modestly undermines your worldview? That's my question. This misses the point. I don't know if it's 15 or 50. But if someone reports that 50 bodies had crucifixes shoved into their rectums...and it turned out to be FALSE...that's a difference of more than just degree. Don't you see that? It's not that there were 10 mosques reported to have been blown to bits...and 8 were found, two were mistaken. It was that four mosques were blown to bits...and NONE were in reality. That six people were doused with kerosene and burned to death while soldiers watched approvingly. If it's a lie...and it's a LEAD STORY...then it needs to be corrected. The source needs to be interrogated as to how and why it was SO wrong...and it needs to be retracted. We are talking about matters of substance, not trifling matters of 8 vs 9 Iraqi soldiers were on guard one evening. Do you not see that? "If not, you're not "clearing the information stream" so much as tilting it in a certain direction." It's already COMPLETELY tilted...I just want it straightened. EVERY story is about Iraq being a mess. The worldview of ONE side is being overtold already. I'd just settle for that one side at least not being staged and full of lies. "I also wonder about your focus on these various specific incidents. It would be far more meaningful to figure out what the real big picture is in Iraq, and there's lots of studies and data points from widely varying sources that could inform that analysis." That misses the point, though, doesn't it. It would NOT be 'far more meaningful' if we could stop STAGED events from being passed off as "news" and "facts". Iraq is a war zone. Fine, we concede. Now, what? Everything else is meaningless? We can be told a pack of lies, we can have our information stream bastardized...because after all...Iraq is a mess. Sorry, not having any. We depend on the media to give us our facts...if they have an agenda,...if they dummy up the facts to be presented to tell us a "story" that is really a crock of shit...I'm not interested. Leftists wish to say that's ok...look at the bigger picture. But, there isn't an honest man alive who wouldn't swear on his life...that if the STAGED events were coming from the right...that leftists would blow a head gasket. And they would be right to do so. "It's also more important to figure out what we should do now if our policies aren't working." More important than what, exactly? How do we know if our policies are working if the 'facts' we are getting are tainted and not worth believing. It's precisely this point that makes all the difference. FIRST we need to get the truth, THEN we should make up our minds as to what to do. Leftists want to manipulate the "truthyness" and have us decide based on STAGED events. This is amoral. "I kind of sense that the questions you ask so stridently aren't lined up that nicely with a clear-headed and rational concern for where we are now and what we should do." Based on what? My clear-headed and rational concern is that I can't make a decision if you give me garbage as facts. Can you? How do I know "where we are now"...when I'm getting staged and dummied up facts from ONE point of view? I want FACTS, not opinion masquerading as "news". "Lefty blogs are guilty of the same thing, by the way. They don't often consider with any seriousness what we should do to try to make this policy work." Lefty blogs and leftists in general have a one note song. They can't think their way out of a paper bag. I don't think the right is NEARLY as culpable as leftists and their apologists make them out to be. They have had their voices strangled for 40 years. They are just trying to find a way to show how bastardized the Ministry of Media's work has become. And for that...we ought to get down on our knees and thank the heavens every night. I don't have much in common with the far right on social issues, but I'll be damned if I would criticize them at all on national security and self-defense issues. The left is filled with liars and miscreants...and they have stolen the truth in our information stream, and I want it back. The right have been put down much more than they deserve and the left has been elevated much more than it deserves. And it's high time for a reversal of fortune. I'm a centrist...but I am beginning to like the right almost as strongly as I hate the left. The left is an echo chamber of arrogant dweebs, who parrot everything straight from the playbook. The right, in modern times...has the high moral ground, not the left. I don't have a dog in this fight...but, if I did...I would love to see the left laying belly up.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 07:00 PM (V56h2)

72 Didn't Rumsfield set up a whole Department of Propaganda to support the War Against Truth? Actually no. The paid placement stories were ummm...actually true. Nobody ever disputed their veracity. The most effective forms of "propaganda" are in fact true.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 05, 2007 07:12 PM (clafO)

73 cf bleachers - again I ask: 5.are you wingnuts so ill-informed that you didn't KNOW that the Ministry of the Interior - your source for all this nonsense - is run by the very people ACCUSED OF THE CRIME? 6. If you DID know that -then why were you so eager to accept the word of Muqtada Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army? Ever sinse this war started, the media has been consistently proven accurate, and the wing-nut-o-sphere has been consistenty proven WRONG. On EVERY SINGLE POINT. WMD? Wrong. Connection to 9/11? Wrong. "The war will only cost a few billion." Wrong "We'll win and get out in no time." Wrong. "A few Dead-enders." Wrong "There is no insurgency." Wrong. "Last Throes". Wrong. By any empirical data point you choose - number of attacks, number of casualties, hours of electricity, barrels of oil, number of refugees - by ANY EMPIRICAL DATA POINT, the war has been a colossal screw up, and has gotten steadily worse for the last three years. You don't have to rely on the media for these numbers - read the reports published by the US Military and the State Dept. The reason this matters is that we have got to find a solution out of this mess. And until we FACE THE REALITY of where we are now, we won't. The Iraq Study Group TRIED, Lord knows - they TRIED to make both Bush, and the wingnuts, face reality. But that would require both Bush, and the Wingnuts on this board, to have the intellectual honesty to admit just how WRONG they have been about Iraq from start to finish. However, while GROWNUPS realize that you can't fix mistakes until you face upt to errors, children can't. They just cling more and more desparately to their threadbare fantasies. The Reality that the 77% of the country who disapprove of Bush on Iraq sees? The reality that this whole thing has been a collossal mistake? Well, the wingnuts just put their fingers in their ears, shriek louder, and blame the media. And Bush, and the wingnuts, are children. Protecting their own fragile egos is more important than protecting the lives of American troops. So many more of then will die, just so the five-year-olds running the government - and the hysterical wing nuts on this board - don't have to face their own mistakes. Real People - Real American Soldiers - are dying, because you refuse to grow up.

Posted by: reality based at January 05, 2007 07:27 PM (Bg91R)

74 5.are you wingnuts I'm a centrist...so, you have to read from somewhere else in your playbook "so ill-informed" I would venture a guess that I am better educated, more advanced degreed, better informed than you....but, I have yet to meet a leftist who doesn't believe the propaganda that those who aren't leftists are all "stoopid". It's time to stop reading leftist BS and start thinking for yourself. "that you didn't KNOW that the Ministry of the Interior - your source for all this nonsense -" My source for what "nonsense". Here are the facts: Four mosques were reported to have been attacked by rocket-grenades and machine gun fire, then burned. None was. Six Sunni's were reported to have been doused in kerosene then burned alive. None was. What the hell does that have to do with Ministry of the Interior again? I mean since you are so "well informed" and all...maybe you can explain Green Helmet Guy and his staged antics while you are at it. "is run by the very people ACCUSED OF THE CRIME?" Accused of what crime? The one that EVERYONE admits now...didn't happen? The mosques are still standing, undamaged...Mr. Well Informed. One of the mosque's doors (out of four that were supposedly obliterated) had a Jamolotove cocktail thrown at it allegedly. Some burn marks. No machine gun damage, no rocket grenade damage, none burned to the ground, no immolated Sunni's. 6. "If you DID know that -then why were you so eager to accept the word of Muqtada Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army?" I'm not. Their word is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. NOBODY is now saying that four mosques were obliterated, burned to the ground...or even attacked. One door was vandalized. Again, what does this have to do with the Ministry of the Interior again?

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 07:42 PM (V56h2)

75 Devil's Advocate, O.K. I win youuuu.....piece of ----. Evan fights?~ - LOL Ha Haaahaaahaahaaha -- go away from me now--?- guy- rule eh- thanks though- anyways go away guy go away youll be ok- alright- with Evan, here is fine., son- just- fine- with Evan now cookin son cooks right,- Son cook rightly with me- thats what...- I see-- Right; ba bye- Evan

Posted by: young warrior at January 05, 2007 07:45 PM (v1hiI)

76 cfbleachers: You really aren't expecting a reasoned argument from these folks, I hope. Your info might help people lurking decide, though, so keep it up. Re: wingnut. You don't agree with the oh-so-enlightened and "grown up" folks speaking truthiness to power here, so that makes you a wingnut to the folks flinging the word around even if you do hold centrist views.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 05, 2007 07:46 PM (MKaa5)

77 "Jamilgate" was right-wing groupthink run amok. You people simply refuse to face the reality of the massive failure which is the Iraq War, and how our idiot President would rather listen to dweeby neo-con pencil-pushers instead of seasoned generals. The bad news coming out of Iraq has to all be a grand liberal media conspiracy to you people, so you latch onto non-stories like Jamil Hussein. You seem like a bright enough person. For all our sake, face reality man.

Posted by: Brian at January 05, 2007 07:57 PM (7oTkR)

78 first, cfbleacher - I'll put my advanced degrees - and my net worth, for that matter - up against yours any time. And I'll win. Second: Who are the "everyone" other than the wingnuts and Malkin who now say that the attack ddidn't happen? The AP is still standing by tis story. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-11-28-iraq-fire_x.htm Third - "Their word is irrelevant to the facts on the ground." Oh please. When the Yankee, Malkin, and all of you hysterice started pushing this nonsense, your WHOLE ARGUMENT was "The Iraqi governement says the guy doesn't even exist! The AP made the whole thing up. THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR SAYS THE GUY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST! CENTCOM SAYS THE GUY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. " (sorry to shriek - but you all WERE shriekeing this very loudly, so I thought I'd better use all caps, for versimillitude. ) You never once asked WHO the people were who were denying Jamil's existence, or what motive THEY might have for trying to suppress the story. Not Once. Never. It was all about the AP deliberately trying to paint a false picture, when you all just KNOW how wonderful things REALLY ARE in Baghdad. So, yes, your willingness to swallow uncritically blatanat falsehoods from the Iraqi MOI IS of relevance here. oh, why do I bother.

Posted by: reality based at January 05, 2007 08:05 PM (Bg91R)

79 "so desperately want us to withdrawal immediately" Funny, most liberals want a phased withdrawal, not an immediate one. Aren't you embarrassed about such an obvious mistake? Also, just in case English is your second language, the correct word to use is "withdraw". Have a fun year

Posted by: TonyT at January 05, 2007 08:37 PM (Wzy7C)

80 "I'll put my advanced degrees - and my net worth, for that matter - up against yours any time. And I'll win." Whoa, Checkmate, Game, Set, Match! Fat Lady Sings! Run! Godzilla debates the mere Bachelors of Arts.

Posted by: stevesh at January 05, 2007 08:41 PM (MShLY)

81 hey, CFbleacher brought it up - I'll just be damned if I was going to let the aspersions pass unanswered.

Posted by: Reality Based at January 05, 2007 08:47 PM (Bg91R)

82 Im Funny

Posted by: young warrior at January 05, 2007 08:59 PM (v1hiI)

83 "first, cfbleacher - I'll put my advanced degrees - and my net worth, for that matter - up against yours any time. And I'll win." LOL. I seriously doubt it. But this is going nowhere, so if it makes you feel better to pretend, fine. "Second: Who are the "everyone" other than the wingnuts and Malkin who now say that the attack ddidn't happen? The AP is still standing by tis story." Um...Mr. Well Informed...you better look again. AP has backed off their original story. Not even THEY believe their own bullshit. But, apparently...you still do. "Third - "Their word is irrelevant to the facts on the ground." Oh please. When the Yankee, Malkin, and all of you hysterice started pushing this nonsense, your WHOLE ARGUMENT was "The Iraqi governement says the guy doesn't even exist!" Well, hate to break it to you...I know how the sunshine of truth and reality really blinds the folks in your world...but...um...no. The WHOLE ARGUMENT...was and is...Jamil was not a credible sole source for every district within driving distance and THIS story was PROVEN false. (the mosques are undamaged...even the AP admits now...even though the moonbats are still barking about it). Unless Jamil has a cape and a propensity for changing in phone booths around Baghdad, he didn't and couldn't have known all the details he was sourcing...everywhere. It was a canard. A sham. His phony cover has been blown. Let's get that off the table, as the first order of business. He was not a credible source for the story of the burning mosques and immolated Sunni's. Likely not, for dozens of others. "The AP made the whole thing up. THE IRAQI MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR SAYS THE GUY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST! CENTCOM SAYS THE GUY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. " I...don't...care. Read that again, slowly. Or have someone read it to you...with all your net worth, you can afford it. LOL Patterico said it could be there's a third option. Michelle found some guy with a middle name Ghulaib and asked the AP if this was the guy. I said immediately after Eason Jordan opened his blog, that somebody was going to "be Jamil" when they got there. His existence or non-existence as a person, is NOT the issue now, nor was it ever for me. His existence as a CREDIBLE SOURCE is an issue for me, and he is not. Certainly not for this story, possibly for dozens more. THAT is the whole argument. Now I know you leftists hate it when you can't reframe the issues and create strawmen...but, sorry, can't help you here. I'm on record as having smelled this coming...and saying it wasn't the issue. (sorry to shriek - but you all WERE shriekeing this very loudly, so I thought I'd better use all caps, for versimillitude. ) I didn't notice, I thought all you Bulge and Spittle Corps members could only communicate that way, so it seemed perfectly in character. "You never once asked WHO the people were who were denying Jamil's existence, or what motive THEY might have for trying to suppress the story. Not Once. Never." Suppress what story? The fake one? Um...Mr. Well Informed...not even the AP is standing by the original story. It was phony. Fake. Not real. Is anyone home at your place? "It was all about the AP deliberately trying to paint a false picture, when you all just KNOW how wonderful things REALLY ARE in Baghdad." Again...are you saying that you are perfectly ok with our media making up fake stories, just as long as they are "truthy". Can you just come out and say that...it will save us all the trouble of maintaining that last sliver of doubt that you leftists have an ounce of integrity or principle. Are you OK with the media making up stories out of whole cloth, and passing them off as "news" and "facts"....as long as they advance a leftist point of view? If not...your argument is vacuous. It doesn't matter if everything is rosy in Iraq, so-so in Iraq or dangerous in Iraq to the issue of whether the media has carte blanche to lie, fake stories, stage events, photoshop photos. They are separate issues. If you can't separate them...then your "advanced degrees" must be in face painting and mud eating at Medieval Times. "So, yes, your willingness to swallow uncritically blatanat falsehoods from the Iraqi MOI IS of relevance here." Why? It doesn't matter to the seminal issue. If he's a real person used as a fake source, or a fake person used as a fake source...the outcome is the same. A phony story, with a source incapable of being legitimate. "oh, why do I bother". To let everyone know that you have "advanced degrees" and a large net worth...who otherwise couldn't care less? Just guessing.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 09:07 PM (V56h2)

84 One hopes that with his advanced degrees reality based will learn how to use spell check. Ponce.

Posted by: Uncle Pinky at January 05, 2007 09:35 PM (2eQlr)

85 ewwwww....net worth. Wow. Never saw anybody stoop so low to try to convince me they know what they are talking about. Richest guy I know (multi-billionaire) had no degrees and started off as a clown in the circus. So what? The fact is that all of the lefties here have not tried to defend the AP's stories. The grab onto the Jamil Hussein stuff and believe that because he MIGHT BE real (not proven yet), the stories are REAL. What a leap of faith. If you want to convince me the AP is on the up-and-up, show me where they retracted/corrected their reporting. Show me the other major agencies that reported the same story. C'mon - it should not be that hard.

Posted by: Specter at January 05, 2007 10:03 PM (ybfXM)

86 It amazes me how the right, in all their infinite wisdom, never want to admit when they are wrong. The pin headed MM went to Iraq, had our troops baby-sit her while she attempted to verify the AP claims. I haven't heard her apologize for her inane rants, and most likely won't. For the weak minded R'cons that still insist Bush is the best leader in the free world, 80% of Americans want this illegal war to end, so stop saying that the Dem's want to pull out. A majority of both parties realize that the Bush War for Oil cannot be won. I do not believe these folks want any more American deaths for the Iraqis. They should step up and defend themselves. The R'cons that have fallen in lock step with the Dem's have discovered that Bush is totally incompetent to run the war that he had planned years before he was appointed to the Oval Office. And their plan was found to be lacking in every detail. Iraq has been in a state of unrest for 2000 years, with the exception of Saddam's reign. To think that Bush would be able to force these proud people into accepting democracy is lame. They will never allow us to say that we, the ignorant Americans, have tamed their nation. And if you think otherwise then you need to refresh your knowledge of history. They hate us. They hate Bush even more. If we put another 100,000 troops in Iraq then maybe we can get out of there with a tied score. But we will never win.

Posted by: tony at January 05, 2007 10:04 PM (2Dns0)

87 Ah, the "but why haven't you said anything about THIS?!" attempt at diverting attention. How... unsurprising.

Posted by: Patrick Chester at January 05, 2007 10:26 PM (MKaa5)

88 Patrick, you're right, of course. Just because CFbleachers self-righteously SAID "If the truth is bad news, I WANT to hear it. If it's good news, I WANT to hear it. If it's mixed good and bad, I WANT to hear. What I don't want to see and hear...are a bunch of lies. Fake photographs. Staged scenes. Passed off as news." - - how silly of me to expect that, in the case of the most egregious and well-documented pieces of fake news in the whole debacle - the Saddam Statue Charade and the Jessica Lynch story - CFbleachers would, in fact, have been outraged - and could prove it. Meanwhile, I hear the same response one hears WHENEVER a wingnut is challeneged to prove his assertion - the same old chirping crickets. Bored now.

Posted by: reality based at January 05, 2007 11:19 PM (Bg91R)

89 "The whole argument made by all of you lunatics - loudly, and at the top of your lungs - was that because the guy DIDN'T EVEN EXIST, the AP was abviously making up the whole thing. And you just KNEW he didn't exist, because the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, and CentCom, TOLD you he didn't exist." Please read what I wrote a month ago. And have been saying ever since. I thought "Jamil" existed. I thought it was a setup. I thought that the leftists would "produce" this "Jamil" and try to cloud the issues. I thought they would try to deflect the probe into why all these phony Green Helmet and Captain Marvel comic book caricatures of truth were polluting our information stream. I thought it, I said it...I stuck by it. His existence wasn't the issue for me then, it isn't now. Game, set, match. Kill the crickets. It's a setup. Somebody is sitting there ready to play the role of the good Captain and Michelle is going to be setup, unable to gain access to anyone who can refute it. Jordan has someone, a bunch of someone's...ready to give "evidence"...and it's a pre-planned script. It's impossible to believe that he doesn't have contacts there. Especially with the Sunni's, whom he allowed to propagandize while Saddam was still in business. They owe him and here's a chance to repay. Maybe he gets "just enough" "evidence" to cloud the story and give cover to the AP. I smell a rat, but I'm willing to be convinced that one of the first two prospects is more plausible. Or maybe a fourth that I haven't considered...but this is too neat, too pat...something's not right here. Posted by cfbleachers at December 14, 2006 08:25 PM

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 05, 2007 11:40 PM (5RM9g)

90 "information stream is being r@ped" cf, that's been a problem for the last 6 years. Did you "give a damn" when it was the U.S. Intelligence information stream that was being r@ped? Or did you get started when the media information stream quit its embedded cheerleading and turned negative on Iraq?

Posted by: fracas_futile at January 05, 2007 11:59 PM (X8CSV)

91 um - ok, if you want to totally mischaracterize what your post actually SAID? "Somebody is sitting there ready to play the role of the good Captain and Michelle is going to be setup, unable to gain access to anyone who can refute it. Jordan has someone, a bunch of someone's...ready to give "evidence"...and it's a pre-planned script." Your post DOESN'T say it doesn't MATTER whether Jamil exists or not - just that MM won't be able to PROVE he doesn't exist. But just to be generous - I'll give you half a point for that. Oh, and your links re the AP recanting? and the links to your outraged posts about the Saddam Statue and Jessica Lynch staged news? Those will no doubt, appear? SO I challenged to you back up three assertions. So far, you're .5 for 3. That's better than average for Kool-aid drinkers - I commend you. chirp - chirp- chirp.

Posted by: REality based at January 06, 2007 12:08 AM (Bg91R)

92 I gave a damn when Walter Cronkite lied about the Tet Offensive. I gave a damn when Peter Jennings said that his mother was a virulent anti-American and her blood coursed through his veins. I gave a damn when Ted Kennedy's drunken manslaughter charge was covered up. I gave a damn when gave a damn when Jimmy Carter wrote a book calling Israel an apartheid state. I gave a damn each and every time a leftist lied, stole, cheated and was whitewashed by the media. And if EVER the right gets a stranglehold on the media and arrogantly covers up lies, prints false photos intentionally, STAGES news events to give a phony impression advancing their political aims...I will be standing at the front of the line screaming bloody murder. But, the right doesn't own the Ministry of Media, the left does. The right doesn't own EVERY Hollywood movie, the left does. The right doesn't own EVERY major campus humanities faculty position, the left does. The right doesn't own every major city newspaper and most periodicals. The left does. The right doesn't own NPR, the left does. And the left has been beshitting our information stream and arrogantly so. If and when the right has that kind of power...and IF they abuse it the way the left has...you better believe I will be screaming bloody murder against that arrogance and amoral behavior. Right now...it's aimed at the left. Because they don't have an ounce of integrity. The right has the high moral ground. We all are victims of the left's control over our information stream.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 12:12 AM (5RM9g)

93 Yep, it's all the Left's fault. "I want my information to be based on actual facts" Here's a fact: You're a wingnut. Come on. Clinton obfuscated a sexual relationship, dirtying up the White House and Bush took us into an unnecessary war, breaking my Army, and emboldening our enemies. Its all the Left's fault.

Posted by: fracas_futile at January 06, 2007 12:26 AM (X8CSV)

94 "Here's a fact: You're a wingnut." No, I'm a centrist. I just hate the left. Don't think it's possible? Boy are you in for a rude awakening. The left is pissing off every thinking man and woman in this country. Your arrogance and echo chamber puerile rantings are wearing thin. You are a group that thinks they own the truth, and you really are beshitting it. You have principles of convenience and not an ounce of integrity. As a group, there may not be an equal in history for your mendacity and arrogance...without cause for the former and reason for the latter. You are a bunch of losers, who are galvanized by a passion for crapping on your own country, and nuzzling up to the enemy du jour. Socialists, Anarchists and Yippees from the 60's. White Uncle Toms. (the SAY WUT crowd) World Populists. Timeshare Americans. Citizens of the World. One doesn't have to be right wing (a wingnut) to despise the despicable. You just have to be able to think for yourself and have an ounce of integrity. "Come on. Clinton obfuscated a sexual relationship, dirtying up the White House" Clinton was accused of raping a woman, sexually abusing several others, being a serial groper and trading work favors for sexual favors. This is a classic case of sexual harassment in the workplace. He then lied (perjured) himself in a sworn statement in a federal lawsuit. IF, a sitting President is not immune temporarily from a civil lawsuit for personal behavior...then he didn't simply "obfuscate a sexual relationship"...he lied about material facts (sexual relationship with and favors in return with someone in his employ). Sorry, that's perjury, under oath, in sworn testimony of a material fact in a pending federal litigation. I really don't care if he had sex with a 19 year old intern...but if you are going to refer to it...at least let's get it right. Had this been a Republican...the left would have been calling for a national castration. So let's not be coy. It's a double standard of epic proportions. I couldn't care less, I thought the impeachment hearings were imbecilic and a blight on the nation. But the leftist media twisted themselves into a pretzel to whitewash his behavior. Where were the feminists to cry and scream on behalf of his victims? The left is disingenuous on this one and the right was overreaching in a game of gotcha. "and Bush took us into an unnecessary war, breaking my Army, and emboldening our enemies." Well, Clinton, Cohen, Albright, Berger ALL said that regime change in Iraq was absolutely necessary, leaving Saddam WITH HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION was the greatest danger to America and the world, and advocated taking him out. So...this Bush derangement syndrome aside...I don't shed a single tear for taking down Saddam. We were attacked on 9/11. Saddam passing off WMD's to terrorists was the SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE WEST AND THE WORLD...according to Clinton, Albright, Berger, Cohen. We removed that threat. The Iranian Mullahs don't want democracy on their doorstep...so they import chaos. If the war was unnecessary, if it was a certainty that Saddam didn't want to build more horrific weaponry...then the President, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State...all lied. Clinton, Berger, Cohen and Albright. They are on record, you can look it up. "Its all the Left's fault." Not all....but certainly a hell of a lot more than you would get if you simply sat in their echo chamber. The left sucks. Last imbecile out...turn off the lights.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 01:21 AM (5RM9g)

95 Wow! Did a hippie steal your college sweetheart? For a centrist, you can recite a pretty good right wing rant. OK, Clinton "lied." Yes, Saddam should have died, but he didn't have to be lynched. Sure, Saddam was "a" threat, but not the only threat. Regime change and launching a war are orders of magnitude apart. After the 20-40,000 troop surge led by the 9,000 troops we have left, do you think we'll have the troop and equipment capability to again capture Noriega or save the Grenada medical students? "We were attacked on 9/11. Saddam passing off WMD's to terrorists...BIGGEST THREAT...according to Clinton" 9/11-Saddam's WMD. Sounds like the "information stream is being r@ped." Bush had the world united behind him after 9/11 and threw all that goodwill away with an unnecessary war he can't even win. You information stream hasn't been r@ped, it's just plain warped. After your rant, I doubt there's any facts that could move your hardened stream an inch. You'll have to turn out the lights. I don't see a light switch on this site.

Posted by: fracas_futile at January 06, 2007 02:03 AM (X8CSV)

96 just that MM won't be able to PROVE he doesn't exist. Anyone who's had a logic 101 course would understand that as a given. Just curious - substitute WMD for Jamil Hussein and rerun your arguments using your same "standards of proof". What kind fo results did you get in that case?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 06, 2007 02:50 AM (clafO)

97 oh, and cfbleacher? You just lost your half a point. Since you ALWAYS said that whether or not Jamil existed was not important, it must have been - who, your evil twin? - who posted the entries below. Dec. 28th “Jamil we found was a composite sketch Of sixty painted mimes Up next we're sure was Marcel Marceau Til Flopping Aces started dropping dimes” Dec. 22nd “There is absolutely NO chance, that the AP was "duped" into believing that Jamil Hussein actually existed for two years, while using him as often a sole source on events outside his district. (snip) 2) The AP has made an open declaration that they have met this "source" numerous times...including in his office. Is there even the most remote chance that they would not be able to describe him in great detail...height, weight, facial hair, noticeable markings...such that they could have cued one of their comrades in the Ministry of Media to go "back them up" on his existence? Not one did”. December 12th “Produce Jamil, asshelmet....then we can talk.” Posted by cfbleachers at December 12, 2006 01:36 PM Hoist. Petard. Look it up. However, once Jordan issued his "put up or shut up" challenge to Malkin - THEN you suddenly smelled a rat. So that answers my question as to whether you folks REALLY BELIEVE the ridiculous things you say. Obviously - since you began backtracking as soon as it looked like proof might be required - you don't. So, let's see - you've misrepresented your own earlier postings, and you've been unable back up a single one of your assertions with links or evidence. (chirp - - chirp - - chirp.) You know, this isn't even FUN anymore - this battle of wits with an unarmed man. I mean, you're so BAD at it - and a liar, as well. Fellow reality-based folks - having waded through some weeks of this guy's posts - it's clear that what we have here is a young man who read Ayn Rand at an impressionable age, liked to listen to Rush Limbaugh with his buddies in the frat house - and never reached the "Adult" developmental stage (the one where you grow up, read actual books, and get a clue.) Like I said, it's too easy - it's no fun. signing off.

Posted by: Reality Based at January 06, 2007 03:16 AM (Bg91R)

98 Oh but before I go - having lied about your own earlier positions - by all means, cfbleacher, DO please lecture us lefties about "lack of integrity" some more. I mean, it sounds so CONVINCING, coming from you.

Posted by: Reality Based at January 06, 2007 03:21 AM (Bg91R)

99 No, no, no, no no. That's the whole point, Nikolay. If there had been "nothing malicious" in the reporting, then AP when confronted with the undamaged mosques and the complete refutation of the immolation story...simply "retracts its story and regrets its error". They didn't do that. They stood by a phony story. Just like Dan Rather. Just like Green Helmet Guy. This is a pattern...not an isolated incident.I'm not sure there were "undamaged" mosques. They were most probably not undamaged, they were burnt (as reported) in a sense "set on fire", but not annihilated. Can you really imagine what sense inventing annihilated mosques would make? Get some "facts" wrong...I have no problem with the "fog of war" alibi. Repeatedly STAGE false news, overstate the case ALWAYS IN THE SAME DIRECTION...and I begin to see a pattern. Fake photos, staged scenes of death, phony rocket-grenade and machine gun attacks, complete lies about dousing with kerosene? I don't know enough about other questions you raise, besides the fact that half of "debunking" you mentioned turned out to be nonsense. But what makes you sure about "complete lies about dousing with kerosene"? This story was reported by numerous witnesses, it was all over Iraqi message boards. It was "repudiated" in the same press-release that stated that there is _definitely_ no police officer called Jamil Hussein.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 06, 2007 06:09 AM (m8XvX)

100 I gave a damn when gave a damn when Jimmy Carter wrote a book calling Israel an apartheid state.It's funny, because Carter never wrote such a book. Israel is _not_ an apartheid state and Carter never called it such. To call conditions of life in the West Bank apartheid is absolutely correct. You can argue about Carter's wishful thinking, about the lack of real solution for the West Bank problem, about the fact that Palestinians have themselves to blame, etc. etc. etc., but you can't argue with the fact that there is apartheid in the West Bank. It's just calling black black.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 06, 2007 06:22 AM (m8XvX)

101 Boy, where does one begin. I guess I will start with Mr. Well Informed. My parodies, songs and jokes may need an erudition that you lefties simply don't possess. My position on Jamil was...he was being used to supply "sourcing" for ANY report. Yet when asked to be produced...there was silence. Mimes. Silence. 60 stories. All over every district. Composite. Get it? It's not that some Jamil didn't exist...it's that he was everywhere, being used for everything...then POOF! SILENCE. And the second paragraph you chose...out of the dozens I wrote...was in response to the possibility that the AP had been DUPED into BELIEVING Jamil the Liar. This is not about whether he EXISTS...but whether the USE of him as a source was valid, but innocent...in foisting untruths on the public. If you can't follow along...please...don't embarrass yourself. Take Abe Lincoln's advice. He must have been speaking about you when he said, "I would keep my mouth silent and have people think me a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." Your "theory" apparently in your little rubber roomed echo chamber....is that I "changed my mind" AFTER Jordan "challenged" Michelle. More schooling for you. Hop on the little yellow bus and come sit in the corner. Try not to drool. Look at the DATES. I posted that I smelled a rat on Jordan's OFFER (not challenge) to Michelle. This was BECAUSE I suspected that a "Jamil" existed. The two posts you chose to try to "out" my "real" beliefs...came AFTER my smelling of a leftist rat and a trap. (you see, in OUR world...December 14 comes BEFORE the 22nd and 28th) I didn't begin "backtracking", I felt that the left would "produce" this "Jamil"...and some "evidence"...that would cloud the issues and provide cover for yet another bastardization of our information stream. So far, they haven't even produced Jamil or the "evidence"...they simply have gotten confirmation that this phony source was a real guy. Nothing has changed, Einstein. But thanks for playing. Do those lash marks hurt as much as they appear to?

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 01:07 PM (V56h2)

102 "I'm not sure there were "undamaged" mosques." That's the report coming from EVERY source now, Nikolay. Three were completely undamaged. One was vandalized. No rocket grenades, no machine gun fire, no burning to the ground. Phony. False. Fake. "They were most probably not undamaged, they were burnt (as reported) in a sense "set on fire", but not annihilated." Wrong. Undamaged. Not true. Phony. False. Fake. The report now...is that ONE of the four NAMED mosques...had ANY damage. And that damage was minor. NO other evidence to support ANY of the rest of the story. In fact, all the evidence is contrary. "Can you really imagine what sense inventing annihilated mosques would make?" In a world where truth matters, it's senseless. In a world where "truthyness" is all that's important...the it adds logs onto a burning pyre in a leftist agenda to make things look as bad as possible. Can you imagine anything more vivid than to suggest that holy places were being burned to the ground and innocent people being dragged into the streets, doused with kerosene and burned alive? While the "SOLDIERS" IN PLACE TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT, SAT BY AND WATCHED IN ACQUIESCENCE???? Why, it's so horrific, that it's MEMORABLE. Haunting. In this case, it was simply inconvenient to the leftist media...that it was all a pack of lies. But hey, Jamil "exists", so all is right with the world now, in lemmingville.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 02:13 PM (V56h2)

103 The overwhelming majority of liberal bloggers were dead silent ... in regards to the Jamil Hussein affair, Maybe because they strongly suspected it was more right wing BS? Since that was precisely what it was proven to be, I guess that makes them smarter than you, don't it?

Posted by: tb at January 06, 2007 04:18 PM (G/dJe)

104 I would answer tb, but I'm afraid I'd catch it. I regretfully admit, that at this age, I grow tired and weary of attempting to fill empty vessels. However, dafydd has it nailed on his site. He disembowels Boehlert with the skill of a surgeon. Sometimes I feel I say things that might resonate, that are skillfully worded enough, that they might even creep into the sealed walls of the echo chamber. And then I read something that just NAILS it...and say...damn, I wish I'd said that. That is what I feel about just finishing dafydd's three part post. It was beautiful. If you have two synapses firing, you'll love it to you. If you are a leftist, see the above sentence. (I wish I knew how to hyperlink to it, I simply never learned how to do that, sorry...but I got there through Curt at Flopping Aces, just to give full credit as best I can)

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 04:25 PM (5RM9g)

105 Correction: Typo...sentence should read; I am tired and weary If you have two synapses firing, you'll love it too. If you are a leftist, see the above sentence.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 06, 2007 04:27 PM (5RM9g)

106 Wrong. Undamaged. Not true. Phony. False. Fake. The report now...is that ONE of the four NAMED mosques...had ANY damage. And that damage was minor. NO other evidence to support ANY of the rest of the story. In fact, all the evidence is contrary.So far it's he said vs. he said, with one side (CENTCOM) caught on blatant lying. Let the truth come out.

Posted by: Nikolay at January 07, 2007 06:53 AM (m8XvX)

107 I really, really enjoyed the thrashing you all put on the 'nuts here. Cudos. cfbleachers: Wow. Just wow. You are a gift that just keeps on giving. Your "centrist" spittle-inflected rage is just sooo adorable. . .Do you do bar mitzvahs, too?

Posted by: Jayce at January 07, 2007 11:29 AM (YyT3f)

108 B.T.W., i'm eagerly awaiting your outrage at the fact that PJM went on and on about the death of Khamenei, based on one unreliable, anonymous source. so, where's the outrage? come on, show me the outrage! down with PJM, those pernicious peddlers of propaganda!

Posted by: I Am The Bomb at January 07, 2007 12:56 PM (Ex9YH)

109 Dear 8 pounds 6 ounces baby Jesus! Are you all still debating the veracity of Capt. Jamil's stories? It's been proven he lied, thus the AP needs to do better job of verifying stories (maybe something along the lines of "Can you take me to the 6 burned mosques?" or "Where are the dozens of burned bodies so I can question the coroner?", etc.) They didn't, thus putting their reporting as suspect, but not so much from partisanship as laziness. What's even more suspect are any stories from Capt. Jamil. These need to be heavily researched as he has now proven to be a questionable source. Anything else is smoke and mirrors. That's it. The end. Move on.

Posted by: Bard at January 08, 2007 01:26 PM (2vs72)

110 Sorry, JC...but I hear Janet Reno would be happy to perform your bris.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 08, 2007 03:47 PM (V56h2)

111 "How about it - are you ready for the press to take a critical look at Bush administration statements, or do you just want them to look into things that make Bush look bad?" Is that kinda like, we leftists want our media to say heads I win, tails you lose? And it was CLINTON, ALBRIGHT, COHEN AND BERGER who insisted that Saddam had WMD's. Perhaps we should start by looking into whether THEY were lying...because...isn't that where it FIRST came from?

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 08, 2007 07:14 PM (V56h2)

112 **How about it - are you ready for the press to take a critical look at Bush administration statements, or do you just want them to look into things that make Bush look bad?** Where, in ANY response by ANY conservative in this thread have you gotten the idea where we only want things that are pro-Bush reported? If you will actually READ THE WORDS without trying to force your square opinions into the round holes between the lines, you would realize that everyone harping on this is only wanting the press to report the truth 'REGARDLESS OF SIDE'. Let me repeat that to make sure everyone understands that it's the main reason for all this hooplah: ...everyone harping on this is only wanting the press to report the truth 'REGARDLESS OF SIDE'. Here is what I am seeing on this... Conservative - The AP needs to do a better job of checking their facts before running a story Liberal - Stop bashing us! Bush lied, people died! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!112321!! Conservative - But the AP used this source many times and the few stories he has "leaked" have been found to be outrageously overblown. Don't you think this is something that needs to be addressed by the AP? Liberal - Bush lied! WMDs! Arrrrrgh!! Conservative - Don't you want an unbiased press that does due diligence in validating a story? Liberal - There is nothing behind the curtain! Conservative - *sigh* Liberal - *whispers* wmd's!

Posted by: Bard at January 09, 2007 03:19 AM (JEVhJ)

113 **And it was CLINTON, ALBRIGHT, COHEN AND BERGER who insisted that Saddam had WMD's. Perhaps we should start by looking into whether THEY were lying...because...isn't that where it FIRST came from?** Heh! I don't think any Liberals want anyone investigating Sandy Berger

Posted by: Bard at January 09, 2007 03:21 AM (JEVhJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

After all, he has a blog, and everything.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

When it comes to the subject of the Iraq War, bloggers on the right support the military, the general concept (if not necessarily the execution) of establishing democracy in Iraq, media accountability, and defeating Islamic terrorism.

Bloggers on the left want bloggers on the right—a lot of them—to go to Iraq, without escort, presumably on the hope that they—we—will get killed.

Character. Some folks have it...

Update: Michelle Malkin prepares to journey to Iraq, and invites AP's Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll to come along with her. I can only imagine how quickly our "friends" on the Left will respond with veilled blog posts and comments hoping for Michelle's demise.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:34 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

If my memory serves me correctly, we react with fury when terrorists and their allies release propaganda videos of our soldiers being shot, blown up by IEDs, or on the rare occasions where our soldiers have been captured, tortured, executed, and mutilated.

And so I find it rather disgusting that so many seem to prostitute the gritty cell phone video of Saddam Hussein's execution by hanging early Saturday morning.

I have no problem with the fact Saddam was executed. Hussein was a monster who spawned and raised two sons to be even more monsterous than he, and the world is a far better place without him. But I do worry when people seem to revel in this final small measure of justice for his litany of crimes. We are, after all, sending our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines into combat day after day in hope of creating a culture where democracy under the law is respected and normal, where brutality and revenge can be usurped, and eventually fade from being part of the normal course of events to being a noteworthy oddity.

Knowledge of his death should be enough. Saddam's execution video is being prostituted (yes, that word seems most accurate) across the Internet like Decebalus' head on the steps of Rome, and in many cases, with the same triumphant flippancy among the denizens.

We should be better than that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.