January 05, 2007

And the Questions Remain the Same

I'd never quite appreciated how amusing the Leftist swarm could be until last night and this morning, where an Associated Press report that Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf had finally, at long last confirmed the existence of Captain Jamil Hussein hit the wires, and liberals around the country (and around the world) conflated Hussein's ability to exist with the veracity of his claims.

The illogical leap this took—to purposefully decide that someone's state of existing is an immediate and overwhelming vindication that everything he claimed was true—is massive in its undertaking, and truly staggering to behold. Rarely have so many been willing to overlook so much in the simple hope of being able to say—or in many cases shriek—"I told you so!"

But the simple fact of the matter is that simply existing does not grant validity to the stories that several someone’s purport to have occurred.

The accuser in the Duke Lacrosse rape case assuredly exists, but it is her multiple stories and the lack of evidence that throws her accounts of what happened on the night of March 13, 2006 into question. She has presented multiple accusations, and multiple versions of her accusations, and yet, nearly the overwhelming majority of people following the case to any degree feel she probably falsified the events she reported. The feel this way because her story kept changing, and while there should have been copious evidence to support her claims, none has thus far been found.

And so it is with the on-going Associated Press scandal that started with the claim of one Iraqi Police Captain by the name of Jamil Hussein on November 24, 2006.

Karl, a guest poster at Protein Wisdom provides an excellent and well-documented summary of the events leading us to this point.

It is a history both intertwined with the existence of Captain Hussein as a long-running Associated Press source, and separate, in that so many of the claims made by this accuser seem to have no basis in fact. As these claims have become problematic, the Associated Press has quietly attempted to write them out of existence without an acknowledgement that these claims were unsupported, without issuing a retraction, or even so much as a correction. In their dogged pursuit of faith-based journalism, they are praying that no one will notice that they have presented a story that reeks of incompetent and biased journalism from bottom to top.

Regardless of Hussein's existence, Kathleen Carroll and the Associated Press have much to account for in their varying, oft-changing accounts of what happened on November 24 in the Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriyah.

In the span of less than a day, they claimed that Iraqi soldiers allowed the alleged murders of two dozen of their fellow citizens right under their noses, that four mosques were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns, and assault rifles, and then these four mosques were set on fire and blown up, with a total of 24 Sunni civilians burned to death.

How do we know this? Because the Associated Press tells us so in a story published around the world.

Jamil Hussein, and Jamil Hussein alone, stated:

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children.

To the best I can determine, not another source made such a claim, and yet the Associated Press felt that this single-source claim was enough to level such an inflammatory charge.

Further down in the same Associated Press account, they run the following accusation, again apparently single-sourced to Jamil Hussein:

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

Has the Associated Press brought forth another witness to buttress this claim? On the contrary; the Associated Press has since backed away from such a claim... and it is not the only one.

In the very same article, the Associated Press cites the following account:

Two workers at Kazamiyah Hospital also confirmed that bodies from the clashes and immolation had been taken to the morgue at their facility.

This is a fascinating "fact," in that Kazamiyah Hospital does not have a morgue, but instead a freezer, as stated by the same Iraqi General that now vouches for Jamil Hussein's existence. Any dead at Kazamiyah Hospital are transported by the police to the Medical Jurisprudence Center at Bab Almadham. Is this general credible, or not? I'll leave that for you to decide.

But even that troublesome and apparently incongruous statement pales in comparison to the next single-sourced claim regurgitated by the Associated Press:

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.

So who is this organization called the Association of Muslim Scholars? The Associated Press cites them as a single source, and yet leaves out this very important detail found in Wikipedia:

The Association of Muslim Scholars... are a group of Sunni Muslim religious leaders in Iraq. The Association is believed to have strong links with Al-Qaeda terrorists.[citation required]

They did not recognize the U.S. appointed government as legitimate and have at times questioned any democratically elected government and democracy itself. They have previously asked for withdrawal of American troops, who they accuse of causing the deaths of over 30 000 Iraqis since the war began. They publicly support Al-Qaeda and support the car bombs and the sectarian violence.

Do you think that having such strong alleged tied to al Qaeda might warrant a mention by the Associated Press, if for no other reason than to establish that they might be providing a potentially biased account? If you though so, you obviously disagreed with the Associated Press.

But the apparent affection between al Qaeda and the AP's single-sourced statement is far from being the only item of note in this paragraph; indeed, they make the very specific claim that "18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque."

In another version of this story, the Associated Press claims specifically that the Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa mosques were attacked "with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles," before being burned. There is zero evidence that any of the mosques were assaulted in such a manner, and only the Nidaa Allah suffered minor fire damage from a molotov cocktail easily extinguished by an Iraqi fire company.

Military units in the area late claimed the al-Muhaimin mosque was never attacked at all. Within days, the 18 people that "died in an inferno" quietly left AP's narrative, never to be seen again, as did the allegations of attacks on all the mosques but Nidaa Allah, which suffered only minor fire damage. To this day, neither Jamil Hussein nor the Associated Press has told us which mosque the “burning six” were pulled from, a relevant fact that again, somehow slipped away from the AP, unnoticed.

And so we now find ourselves in a curious position, where AP claims to still stand behind their reporting on one hand, while on the other, dropping the number of alleged fatalities from 24 to six, and the numbers of mosques burned and blown up from four to one.

The Associated Press has not even begun to account for how their story has shifty almost completely from one account, into another story entirely.

They claim to still stand behind their reporting... but which reporting would that be?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 5, 2007 04:23 PM | TrackBack

Huzzah, hooray, and a good recap.

It's called "framing the debate." The AP & supporters know they're wrong, so they're trying to frame away the damage by attacking the messenger.

Posted by: Tully at January 5, 2007 05:16 PM

So all this time Dan Rather was right even though his document was forged?

Just kidding. EVERYONE knows Bush want AWOL.

Posted by: Robert at January 5, 2007 05:49 PM

C.Y.: I'd never quite appreciated how amusing the Leftist swarm could be...

I wanted to say, C.Y., you handle the swarm's rants pretty well. Your sense of humor must save you: moonbats wear through my own humored tolerances more quickly.

So I wanted to acknowledge your persevering effort here, adding my encouragement, and wishing you all strength to deal with whatever the moonbats throw at you next. Jamil-gate is far from over, and rightly so.

All the best,

Posted by: tex at January 5, 2007 06:27 PM

Absolutely outstanding post, Bob. I excerpted and linked from Jamil identified, facing arrest? -- Day 2. Had to spend some time on other things, just now making the rounds to see if anyone has a source yet, other than the AP, for Jamil's existence. No luck so far. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they can't really be out to get you." I'm still not convinced.

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 5, 2007 07:55 PM

You were wrong. Get over it.

Posted by: SteveD at January 5, 2007 08:54 PM

Jamil is a fraud and the AP are proven liars. Deal with it.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 5, 2007 09:29 PM

Don't look wrong to me. Looks like it's exactly what it is - the AP trying very hard to make it look like somehow bloggers have endagered the life of a man the AP themselves quoted BY NAME over 60 times. And since centcom and the MOI still have not confirmed anything about this man, I don't know if I want to take the AP's word on anything concerning him.

And you know, beyond determining whether this guy reallys exists - let's find out if the mosque burnings and murders he talked about were real or fake. That's what all of this is about, after all - is the AP reporting real, verifiable news, or fake news that can't be verified but must not be questioned?

For the life of me I don't see how the veracity of a news organization can be turned into a left/right situation. EVERYONE should require that the news being delivered by a major news service be at least TRUE. That should be a basic tenet of news consumption. But the world is so screwed up by people who love to hate that even something that easy gets mucked up.

Posted by: Lizza at January 5, 2007 09:32 PM

I am tired of being told NOT to question the demonstrably irresponsible and inaccurate press by people who spend their time finding new ways TO question the president. This hypocrisy is always the last refuge of those who are losing their grip on power.

Isn't trust earned? If so, do you believe the liar when he tries a new lie? That's what I suspect the AP is doing -- they are simply trying a new line, hoping it will save them from admitting incompetence.

And here is a more frightening thought -- if the AP is this inaccurate about something as important as Iraq, how accurate are they about lesser matters? Have they been showing this level of accuracy when covering domestic stories?

Posted by: InRussetShadows at January 5, 2007 10:03 PM

I know there's a problem with fauxtography, but couldn't the AP get some pix of the allegedly damaged mosque(s)?

/just askin'

Posted by: starbird at January 5, 2007 10:22 PM

Wow. All this time I was searching but now I really have found the lunatic fringe of the GOP.

And it is hilarious.

Many thanks....and keep up the good work...

Posted by: antibush at January 5, 2007 11:10 PM

Yea, questioning authority is real lunatic fringe stuff.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 5, 2007 11:50 PM

And Speaking Truth To Power!

(And here I thought I'd had all my sarcasm surgically removed.)

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2007 12:18 AM

Oh, okay, there's nothing going wrong in Iraq. You guys may have been proven wrong with the Hussein story, utterly and totally, so that must mean that Iraq is a utopia of civic accord.

My god, the kind of cognitive dissonance required to be a wingnut conservative these days...

Posted by: RedScare at January 6, 2007 01:40 AM

Do liberals not have basic reading comprehension? Did you not read a single word of the above story, RedScare? Existence is not evidence of truthfulness, especially existence verified by a single, less-than-credible source. Do you understand that?

Posted by: InRussetShadows at January 6, 2007 08:16 AM

I still can't get over how the United States is the only nation to drop an atomic bomb... and on civilian population. Sick sick country we have here eh. Hmmmmm, but as I recall a democrat was responsible for ok'ing this mass murder. Democrats, mass murder by abomb, mass murder by abortion... deal with it.

Posted by: Bob at January 6, 2007 09:08 AM

Did you know that moonbats and mushrooms are grown EXACTLY the same way?

Posted by: pgroup at January 6, 2007 09:44 AM

I think its pretty funny that last year when it was reveiled that the US military was paying Iraqi newspapers to publish TRUE stories written by the troops to help with relations, the left was all up in arms. However, when a questionable source, gives what appears to be false stories that could very well incite and increase secretarian violence.... they seem to think thats ok.... just amazing.

The difference in the two reactions shows you just whos side the left is on!

Posted by: Mark at January 6, 2007 10:00 AM

Rightists don't follow leadership blindly; that particular brand of foolishness is left for those who whitewash Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il, and Saddam. If you actually read as much of the right blogosphere as you claimed, you'd know that it's not a cult of personality, but it's a love of certain ideas and principles that drives us. However, I do understand why you accuse us of following a leader, because that's what you do. Funny, how our credibility seems to have the AP running scared, has led to Dan Rather's ousting, a mea culpa from Reuters, and on and on; this "debunking" has no link and no source -- but I am not surprised. Michelle Malkin is a racist? Hurry, someone tell the senate! Oh wait, the President Pro Tempe is Robert "KKK" Byrd. People in glass houses...

Posted by: InRussetShadows at January 6, 2007 12:08 PM

Do liberals not have basic reading comprehension? Did you not read a single word of the above story, RedScare? Existence is not evidence of truthfulness, especially existence verified by a single, less-than-credible source. Do you understand that?

I've followed this whole 'story', and indeed I get the broader agenda behind this conspiracy theory. You guys deperately want to believe that the AP is misrepresenting the facts on the ground in Iraq; that the stories of chaos and violence are false; and that any talk of 'losing' over there should be blamed on the media and leftists (since blaming it on Dear Leader would bust your lockstep authoritarian heads wide open).

What I find amusing is that when an inconvenient fact shatters the little fiction you're making, you guys just crank it up another notch and start calling into question every other detail of the story. It's delusional and pretty pathetic.

Posted by: RedScare at January 6, 2007 12:44 PM

and start calling into question every other detail of the story.

You are of course aware that some of those "details" have been stealth retracted by AP right?

Q: Why would AP do a stealth retraction on major points of fact (like 1 mosque versus 4) if the first telling was right?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 6, 2007 02:19 PM

Do liberals not have basic reading comprehension?

They often do, they just don't it. The resulting cognitive dissonance can result in cranial implosion, you see. Messy.

While Red and clones may not have noticed, the story was full of holes long before Hussein became a primary check-focus, and it was those holes that led to the closer look at him in the first place. Namely the complete lack of any of the verifiable elements that should have been present had the story been true.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, all we have at this point to "verify" the existence of "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" is the unverified and somewhat obligue account coming out of the AP Baghdad bureau. Which is quite notably lacking in direct confirmatory quotes from the "verifying" source, should anyone care to take a closer look. The story carries the byline of Steven Hurst.

The first appearance of the story carried the byline of Qais al-Bashir. By the time it had morphed into the adjective-laden shock story that played on the front page of hundreds of newspapers worldwide Thanksgiving weekend, the story that started all the questions, it carried the byline of...Steven Hurst.

So here's some perspective for you. The person claiming that Jamil Hussein really exists and is reliable is the very same person whose name is on the original story that was called into question. His account is as yet unverified, the cited source for the claimed confirmation is not quoted directly as saying the things attributed. IOW, the characterization of Khalaf's "confirming" remarks is entirely Hurst's.

And the article does not one damn thing to explain the complete inability of AP to show that the incidents "reported" in the original story ever took place at all.

And the criticism of those who have questioned the story basically comes down to, "How dare you question? This is AP!"

Posted by: Tully at January 6, 2007 02:35 PM

Who in the 'Leftist swarm' is claiming that every statement of Hussein's is legitimate? Most people on the left are calling you an idiot, which is a claim that is fairly well-supported by the accusations of fraud/fabrication/working with the enemy that have been made on this blog and many others over the last six weeks, that are now discredited.

I actually believe that the angle that the AP may be relying too heavily on a single unreliable source is an interesting one, and that if you can gather additional demonstrable evidence to make the case, there can be issues that AP should respond to.

But by refusing to even acknowledge the error of the inflammatory rhetoric leveled against the AP over the last six weeks, or by retracting your own statements along those lines, it's perfectly logical for the 'leftist swarm' to be questioning your credibility, which is exactly what is happening.

Own up to your errors, continue to investigate what you believe are legitimate concerns, and move forward. Quit attacking others and trying to change the subject.

Posted by: boo at January 6, 2007 04:47 PM

Boo has it.

If you really want to stop looking foolish and earn some respect you should start by admitting that you (and Malkin) were all wet when you pushed this notion (non-stop for weeks now) that the AP invented this source.

Posted by: Marko at January 6, 2007 05:05 PM

What is it with you people on the left? This should be easy to follow... We are questioning THE STORY... Period. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF THIS STORY IS THE TESTIMONY OF JAMIL HUSSEIN. When asked to produce him the AP would not. When asked if he was a police officer the MOI and CENTCOM said they couldn't find anyone with that name.

From there the next logical step is to question if he exists, and if he does, is he a policeman or a person posing as a policeman. So whether or not a police captain named Jamil Hussein does or doesn't exist does not change THE MAIN POINT AND THAT IS....

the AP ran a fake story that could have contributed to more violence.

Is it out of your relm of belief that the insurgency might dress someone up as a police officer and give fake stories to reporters intended to incite more violence?

Do you not see that finding Jamil Hussein isn't the story, it only gives us a starting point to find out who the AP got the fake story from. You act like finding him verifies his story.

In closing I would like to ask you left leaning people here one queston I have asked on several other sites...

Would the AP running untrue stories that incite more secritarian(sp) violence not upset you?

Posted by: mark at January 6, 2007 06:03 PM

You are of course aware that some of those "details" have been stealth retracted by AP right?

Q: Why would AP do a stealth retraction on major points of fact (like 1 mosque versus 4) if the first telling was right?

Okay, let's say the AP has corrected some details of this story. The only way this is interesting is if it's a persistent and widespread pattern of reporting, ie, that it is a conspiracy to inflate the news of violence in Iraq. So far the wingnutosphere hasn't managed to come up with compelling evidence of this. I mean, the "freezer vs. morgue" dispute is just plain stupid -- whichever one the hospital has, it can be used to store bodies. And, in fact, what hospital doesn't have a space in which to store bodies? Why don't you treat that claim with the same skepticism you level at the AP?

Your best evidence to date of a conspiracy -- that the AP had created a fictional source, Jamil Hussein -- turned out to be false. You guys should just get over it.

Posted by: RedScare at January 6, 2007 06:32 PM

Would the AP running untrue stories that incite more secritarian(sp) violence not upset you?

I would say that's a crime, if you can prove it.

Okay, junior detective, every crime needs a motive, means, and opportunity. Let's start with the first one. Why would a US news organization want to incite violence in Iraq?

And this is where I return to the first comment I made to this post -- I think you have to have a pretty weird tinfoil worldview to think that some cabal of AP directors are sitting around in a smoke-filled room thinking up new ways to spread chaos in the Middle East. Let me ask -- back in the '80s, you used to see a lot of black helicopters flying around, right?

Posted by: RedScare at January 6, 2007 06:42 PM

I love it - they check the hospital. The original story, RedScare, was that 4 (four) mosques were hit with ballistic rocker fire, set afire, and 24 people were burned to death at a particular one of these mosques. When the mosques were investigated, 1 (one) had minor damage and the man who was supposedly killed, an Imam, was found very much alive. The original story had the dead bodies sent to a morgue at a hospital. Whether that hospital had a morgue or a freezer is not the point. Where are the bodies? Then we hear the bodies would have been taken to another mortuary. That mortuary did not get any bodies of the sort at all. Then we hear that no, the bodies were taken to a cemetery and buried. The problem with that is that since the Muslims are so anti-exhumation, we now have no proof that there ever were any dead bodies at all.

At this point AP is saying that Jamil Hussein exists so all their stories must be true. We already know since that has been checked that the story is so full of holes that Swiss cheese would apologize for having that many. So what do the LLL's claim. That of course since Jamil Hussein, who by the way has still not been interviewed to prove his existence and to prove his stories, exists then the story must be true. If you accept that one, check yourself into the closest looney bin because that is where you belong.

Posted by: dick at January 6, 2007 06:56 PM

The AP = a bunch of douchebags.

Posted by: Gerald and Saddam at January 6, 2007 07:06 PM

that are now discredited.

That's "asserted" to be discredited. In the absence of actual physical proof, this discrediting remains speculative.

If you have such actual physical proof, as opposed to just more assertions, present it for examination.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 6, 2007 07:47 PM

um, wingnuts?

While you are busy deluding yourself in your pleasant litte Never-Never land over here?

Another AP cameraman was just found shot to death in Iraq.

That's the second one in less than a month.

That's what happens to REAL journalists, who are really risking something to get stories.

You guys happy now?

All you brave geniuses can carry on - open a celebratory bag of cheetos, or something.

Posted by: reality based at January 6, 2007 07:53 PM

It's a shame that a cameraman lost his life but it still doesn't excuse passing on fabrications as fact. Reporting one true violent incident doesn't allow for reporting false violent incidents. Someone who's 'reality based' should appreciate that.

Now, it's great that there are people going out and finding stories in dangerous places however it doesn't mean whatever they report is factually correct. Someone has to vet and review the story so that it's fit for publication. It's called editing. Surely an organization as large as the AP can employ such people. Reporters on the ground can make mistakes especially in dangerous circumstances. They are not infallible.

Posted by: mishu at January 6, 2007 08:40 PM

oh reality...i feel so bad that I forced that cameraman to go to such a dangerous place...not! I feel bad he is dead - so are quite a few contractors that were working on infrastructure projects - kidnapped and beheaded by your "freedom fighters". Get off your high horse.

The fact is that the story here was not fact-checked and verified by the AP before running it. Was there a group of AP editors sitting in a cigar-smoke filled room dreaming it up? I doubt it. But there were editors who had a deadline that ran a story from a stringer without checking the facts. You can't even dispute that. So - if we have one instance of running a story before checking it out - might we have had others? Seems that photo-shopped photos from Reuters comes to mind. And the fact that Cpt. Tenille - um Jamil - seems to know about every single event in the whole of Baghdad and beyond, and has nothing to do but sit down with the AP, should raise and eyebrow if not actual concern about the veracity of the information attributed to him. Get over it. Get a grip on reality.

Posted by: Specter at January 6, 2007 08:43 PM

Thanks forthe link, CY.

So, the New York Times was unable to substantiate the story and reported that some neighborhood residents denied it. The Washington Post reported that two local imams denied such an attack took place. Former CNN exec. Eason Jordan found “conflicting and unconfirmed information regarding whether there’s a Captain Hussein and whether the reported immolation happened.”

That is one vast right-wing conspiracy. No doubt they are part of the scheme to discredit MSM reporting from Iraq, too -- a scheme frequently imagined by left-wing trolls who lack any sort of link supporting their fevered, paranoid delusions.

Or, could it be that bloggers focused on the Burning Six story -- and Capt. Hussein as the sole named source for it -- precisely because even left-leaning MSM outlets doubted it?


Naaaaaahhhh! Just kidding! Right-wing bloggers are pure evil and just lucked into the AP not being able to back up the Captain's claims about four mosques and being unable to get a straight story of where the bodies went.

BTW, I'm always sad when a legit journo or photog gets killed by insurgents in Iraq. Particularly because it stands to reason that those who play along with enemy are less likely to be killed by the enemy. And also because good journalists would care about getting the story right and not passing off the unsubstantiated claims of Capt. Hussein as fact.

Posted by: Karl at January 6, 2007 08:45 PM

it looks like CY (Con Yahoo) erased my previous comment.

The right-wing psychosphere went on a hysterical campaign to prove the non-existence of Captain Jamil Hussein. They got eggs all over their face when Iraqis and the US military finally admitted that there was such a person.

In the meantime, the vicious clods put this guy in real danger. When his body is found on the streets of Baghdad, we'll know who to blame. If the guy is lucky enough, he will be tortured, then released. We still know who to blame.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 6, 2007 09:22 PM

Devils Advocate and reality based:

Just like when US Soldiers are killed, the liberal blogger lynch mob that defends outing of classified programs tracking the financing of the IEDs will be responsible. I'll admit to one when you admit to the other.

Of course, getting US soldiers killed might be a tad worse (to an American) than an Iraqi leaking false information. But that's just me.

Posted by: SDN at January 6, 2007 09:59 PM

I'm still waiting for some physical proof...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 6, 2007 11:17 PM

Alright, I give up for now -- you guys are right, all this reporting of bad news in Iraq is just covering up all the good things that are happening over there.

For example, we're about to get all of the schools over there painted yet again, as this little news nugget informs us:

"President Bush’s new Iraq strategy calls for a rapid influx of forces that could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad, supplemented with a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in projects including painting schools and cleaning streets, according to American officials who are piecing together the last parts of the initiative."

Man, there's been a whole lotta school painting going on in Iraq over the last three years. The paint must be so thick on those buildings that each one could absorb a depleted uranium anti-tank round like a styrofoam cooler absorbs a BB. Let's all be proud that we're gonna throw another billion at this.

Posted by: RedScare at January 6, 2007 11:21 PM


you say~Okay, junior detective, every crime needs a motive, means, and opportunity. Let's start with the first one. Why would a US news organization want to incite violence in Iraq?

~your not listening. I did not say that the AP would want to incite violence, what I said was "Is it out of your relm of belief that the insurgency might dress someone up as a police officer and give fake stories to reporters intended to incite more violence?"... NOW is it getting clear why we want to find and question Jamil Hussein about his stories?

You say~I think you have to have a pretty weird tinfoil worldview to think that some cabal of AP directors are sitting around in a smoke-filled room thinking up new ways to spread chaos in the Middle East

~and I think you must live in a closet if you don't think that the insurgents are sitting around trying to think of ways to cause chaos.

Reality based:

You say~All you brave geniuses can carry on - open a celebratory bag of cheetos, or something.

~I guess you don't care that the US military had to go into a hostile area and get into a fire fight just because of a bogus story? I am sure you and your leftist friends would have loved another US military death so you can scream about the death toll being higher. Come to think of it I wonder how many IED's have killed military personel going to check bogus stories?

Devil,s advocate;

You say~In the meantime, the vicious clods put this guy in real danger. When his body is found on the streets of Baghdad, we'll know who to blame.

~I am sure it would not be the AP who has printed his name over 60 times, and then gave his full name and station so openly... no, it's the evil bloggers who what to make sure he's legit and not some insurgent planting stories... no way.

Posted by: mark at January 6, 2007 11:39 PM

all this reporting of bad news in Iraq is just covering up all the good things that are happening over there.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Hard to tell not knowing if the sources are actually physically real or telling the truth.

Curious you guys have different "standards of proof" for the media...and say...the presence of WMD.

We find actual physical WMD shells, tons of uranium, and you say "well, that's not enough to be real".

The AP produces assertions of Jamil Husseins existence, no physical goods, and you roll over and swallow it hook line and sinker.

Why is this?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 7, 2007 03:39 AM

We find actual physical WMD shells, tons of uranium, and you say "well, that's not enough to be real".

Holy Polonium, Batman! We found the WMD's? Quick, go tell the Bush administration...I don't think they got the memo!

Posted by: Yossarian at January 7, 2007 07:57 PM

We found the WMD's?

Some, but apparently not enough to satisfy the left.

The local OakRidger newspaper ran stories on the uranium transfers (ignored by the MSM). You'll also find references to the transfer in UN press releases objecting to the fact that we moved it without IAEA notification, and in GreenPeace press releases objecting to the fact that we moved it at all.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 7, 2007 09:07 PM

It appears that "Yossarian" missed the news too. I guess he/she/it missed the item in the bowels of the New York Times in 2004 when they published the FACT that 500 tons of raw uranium and 1.8 tons of enriched uranium were uncovered at an Iraqi storage site and shipped off to facilities here in the U.S. It was under the control of the IAEA.

Ya miss that one Yossarian? How about the empty chemical/biological shell casings? The long-range ballistic missile components?

Maybe you should read something more than Batman comics. Ya think?

Posted by: Retired Spy at January 7, 2007 09:18 PM


E.G.: the RAW STORY claims to be a liberal news aggregator, but it is jammed with pro-Islamist hate postings, designed to influence the American left. Here are some common themes, and quotations:

Hypersensitivity about Muslim criticism: “How dare you have any prejudice against Islam...”

Pro-Islamist sectarian thinking: “Bush; you paint the schools and let the Shiite commit attacks. God himself could not have thought of it.” – “Hanging saddam galvanized the Sunni and that will only fuel the fire.” --“MY CUNTRY WAS STOLEN ..I ACCUSE THEM..I ACCUSE THEM OF MURDER. I ACCUSE THIS THING CALLED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF LIES MOST FOUL..YOUR DAYS ARE MARKED.” – “NOW where is this fucking idea of the remuving the shitte ? from control this fucking asshole is sick.” --

Rabid anti-Semitic comments: “Clearly a case of the US and Iraq being run by special interests and a small foreign nation called Israel.” “Bush is just a helpless tool of the Israelis and he will do anything they say.” Thousands of comments like this appear on RAW STORY.

Relentless ant-Christian sentiments: “American Goober christians don't know their faith enough to understand that the Jews don't consider their faith as valid.”

Sexist, misogynist statements: “I'd bet my first born, (if she were a woman)”

Calling others monkeys, a common Arab insult: “COMPARE THE SMIRKING CHIMP TO CAPTAIN ARAB OF MOBY DICK”. Thousands of CHIMP comments appear on RAW STORY.

Frequent references to sodomy and zoophilia: “a fascist loving sheep? Absolutely. Can't think for himself. Just bends over for everything”

Pro-Islamist Stories: “Iran: Israel will regret any attack on Teheran”

I think we need to confront the enemy on our own turf -- they're getting scary, trying to set the US political agenda from with the country.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at January 7, 2007 10:10 PM

I think we need to confront the enemy on our own turf

Not to worry. The democrats plan to ensure that will happen.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 8, 2007 03:12 AM

Awww..C'mon PA,

You know the dims don't believe there are any terrorists! There are only "freedom fighters" who are struggling against the uber-evil, Israeli-puppet, Americans. Ask Momma Sheehan. She'll tell you.


Posted by: Specter at January 8, 2007 07:39 AM

Late to comment on this, but there is a certain whiff of, maybe, Mussolini in the last few comments...., don't you think?

Posted by: antiBush at January 10, 2007 11:52 PM