December 14, 2006

Jamil Hussein Goes Ivy League

Don't worry. This isn't Yale allowing the corporeally-challenged Captain to join the student body like Taliban of semesters gone by, but a solid op-ed in the Daily Princtonian, titled You Can't Handle the Truth.

An excerpt:

That the story is wrong is beyond debate; even the AP now refers to one burned mosque, not four, so the question is not "if" but "how badly" the AP screwed up. Yet instead of an apology, the AP's response to criticism has been to shoot the messenger. The story first broke on the conservative blog and grew quickly within a circle of other conservative blogs and opinion columns. The AP alleged that this was simply a "mad blog rabble" attacking an entirely reputable source. This ignores the fact that Hussein only became a story after the U.S. military and Iraqi government demanded but did not receive a retraction of the original faulty report.

So why have traditional media sources not reported this controversy? Because it is not in their interests to undermine the AP. This summer's "fauxtography" scandal at Reuters, in which photographers were found to have photoshopped evidence of Israeli atrocities during the Hezbollah war, did not hit at the underlying narrative. The storyline stayed the same with different details. If the AP has to issue a correction for all 61 stories in which Hussein was quoted, it will call into question fundamental perceptions about what is happening in Iraq. If Hussein isn't real, it suggests that there are other as yet undiscovered fakes.

If our media is reporting as fact attacks that never occurred substantiated by witnesses who don't exist, then we have a problem. Public opinion about distant events is necessarily based on what is reported in the press. Therefore, we need to be confident that what we read is real.

Requiring that our news be real? What kind of subversive things are they teaching these days?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at December 14, 2006 02:57 PM | TrackBack

One things for sure, Barry Caro will not be going to Baghdad to find out the truth of things himself.

He'll be safe as a Princeton sophomore, not as a Marine or Soldier.

Posted by: observer 5 at December 14, 2006 04:35 PM

Strangely, a quick google shows that Mr. Caro has already responded to your hackneyed meme.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 14, 2006 05:09 PM

LOL BTT. It kills me how easy it is to make some of these folks eat their own words.

Posted by: Specter at December 14, 2006 06:20 PM

Yeah but do you get their words...past their foot?

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 14, 2006 06:32 PM


On the Captain and Jamil farewell tour, promoted by Greasy Easy it just me, or does anyone else smell a rat? And a trap?

Michelle doesn't need me to look out for her, obviously...but...wouldn't Jordan have some contacts remaining from the days of carrying water for the Sunni and Sharia dog and pony show that he oversaw for CNN?

Why does he crawl out from behind the baseboards and issue the challenge to Michelle, right out of the gate? There are a few thoughts that come immediately to mind:

1)Bounce back relevancy motive: He semi-challenges one of the heavyweights (ie; Glenn, Charles, Michelle) and then basks in the reflected starlight, instead of remaining in the dank, dark corners of humiliation and irrelevance.

2)He's trying to clean up his image motive: If he "finds" Harvey the Invisible Rabbit, he wins...if he doesn't he claims he's been impartial all along and this proves it.

3)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

Barry Caro will not be going to Baghdad to find out the truth of things himself.

Well there's an independent "Jamil Hussein hunt" being organized, so I guess we'll have the answer soon enough.

If he exists I think we can trust Eason Jordan to say so...well maybe not. But if he is there Malkin would be willing to admit it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 15, 2006 12:32 AM

The press has lied about Iraq.
The nation listened and then voted.
An election has been swayed by leftist press lies.
How extreme should the accounting be?

Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.

Posted by: George Dixon at December 15, 2006 07:27 AM


IF (big IF), they find someone who is supposed to be the dear police officer, the next step would be to walk with him to the Interior Ministry Dept and clear up why he is not on the roles as an officer.

Just seeing someone purportedly named Jamil Hussein is not good enough. That is what happened with the AP. To prove his existence, he must be found and then verified by someone who keeps the data. I would start in the payroll department - surely the good officer gets paid. Then we can check where he banks - or spends his money. The money trail won't lie.

Posted by: Specter at December 15, 2006 07:50 AM

I know there are people that might doubt Jordan's intenions, and with good reason I might add. But you know, this was a guy drummed out of CNN. The MSM has turned their back on him. He has two choices if he wants to stay relevant. Be like Peter Arnett, who I believe is now the Information Minister for the Islamic State of Iraq, or become a thorn in the MSM's side. Like many major media players, this isn't about politics, this is about greed and stroking Jordan's ego. If he can take down AP, he will have carved out a nice little niche for himself, and we may have found a new ally on one of the most important fronts in the War on Terror.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 15, 2006 08:47 AM


I understand WHAT must be done, but a couple of nagging questions keep gnawing at me.

Why has nobody else gone to the very police station where this guy was "met with, numerous times" his office in the Yarmouk police station in west Baghdad???

How hard would it be for ANY of the other Ministry of Media members to go there and ask to see him? Have him pointed out to them?

Doesn't this strike anyone else as strangeness in the extreme? He's a a NAMED police station, in a NAMED (Yarmouk) section of the city. (nowhere near the site of the phony immolations or bombing of the mosques, by the way).

So, NOBODY has gone back to that station and looked at the captain, his office...talked to any of the other higher ranking officials...nothing? I don't believe it for a minute. We aren't getting affirmations OR denials...we are getting silence. Why?


Again, much like Specter...I hear where you are coming from...but I simply don't believe that "Like many major media players, this isn't about politics"....I believe that the Ministry of Media is ALL about politics...and a political agenda.

Jordan resigned over the flap about journalists being targeted by the military...and HE'S going to back up CENTCOM and not the AP???

It just seems to me that if he wants to get some payback against the military, the blogosphere that cost him his job, and utilize his sources from the days as Baghdad Bob's's got all the elements of a springloaded trap.

Then again, maybe he has done a complete 180 on everything he has been up to this very moment in time. Ya think?

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 15, 2006 02:48 PM

"I believe that the Ministry of Media is ALL about politics...and a political agenda."

I believe its only partly about the politics. I think its mostly all about the Benjamins. The MSM sells the left wing agenda because that's what sells, or at least what used to sell.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 15, 2006 03:47 PM


If that's the case, I have only a couple more questions:

1)Why do ALL of them (the old media, the stage and theater branch, print, ....ALL...) continue to push leftist pap...when they are losing revenue in the billions of dollars?

Wouldn't it seem to be somewhat axiomatic that they would (at least some of them) REVERSE direction or at least shift gears?

Instead, they seem to be digging in their collective heels HARDER. That would seem to work against the theory that their primary motivation is dollars. It would seem, instead...that they are attached to leftist dogma, GREATER than they are attached to profit motive.

2)How does photoshopping photos, staging phony scenes, making up fake sources, withholding information about progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, distorting, misrepresenting, obscuring, the facts and is that tied to the PROFIT motive?

Wouldn't that make them LESS trustworthy and therefore less appealing to folks that might otherwise spend money in their direction?

I completely understand that it's counterintuitive that they might actually be working AGAINST their profit motive, but that sure seems like what's happening from view here in the center field bleachers.

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 15, 2006 04:03 PM


You are thinking like the reader of blogs. Think instead like the consumers of the MSM and then see how many of these stories show up there and what those stories say. I would bet that Eason Jordan will be at most a one day story, Hussein will be shown to exist (without checking the validity of his existence), the AP will be vindicated (so far as the MSM is concerned) since the AP is where the MSM gets its stories, and we will still be told lies and slanted news by the media. The blogs will be tarred as being right wing hacks out to slander the good name of their betters, the MSM reporters, and cast aspersions on what a quagmire the Iraq war is and it is all the fault of the right wing religious wingnuts out there.

Posted by: dick at December 16, 2006 04:00 PM

What do you guys have to say to this?

Posted by: AJB at December 17, 2006 05:28 PM