January 09, 2007

Did the AP Lie About Jamil Hussein Being Found?

Or is this just being lost in translation? Curt, at Flopping Aces with the apparent bombshell:

Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf never acknowledged that there was a Capt. Jamil Hussein assigned to the Khadra station, he confirmed to the AP that there was a Capt. Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim assigned there. Apparently he is the source for the AP even though he still, to this day (according to Bill Costlow), denies being the source.

So what do we have so far?

That the AP has lied again in their response. The AP specifically stated that Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf acknowledged Jamil Hussein exists when he did no such thing. He acknowledged a completely different name the AP gave him but not a Jamil Hussein.

This, of course, means that Michelle Malkin nailed it on December 20. Anyone got a good crow recipe for Eric Boehlert?

I'll have more on this as I process the implications...

Update: Before I get to worked up about this one way or the other, I'm going to want some verification that Costlow is correct. This is something that Curt is asking Costlow to triple-check, and I am also asking MNF-I PAO to verifiy as well. Until then, let's agree to take this with a grain of salt.


Because if Brig. General Abdul-Karim Khalaf did not tell the Associated Press that there was a Captain Jamil Hussein at the Khadra police station, then we have what many would interpret as an attempt by the Associated Press to deceive it's readership, which numbers roughly one billion people on this planet every day. That would be big news, and potentially indicate there are yet bigger fish to fry.

Likewise, it would be big (though not nearly as big) news if Brig. General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told both AP and Bill Costlow what they wanted to hear. Such a revelation would destroy his credibility as one of the Iraqi Interior Ministry's main spokesmen.

More as this develops...

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 9, 2007 02:28 PM | TrackBack

If this pans out, is this going to end up like the "16 words" incident? Where the White House apologises for claiming that Saddam Hussein sought to get uranium yellowcake from Niger, even though the facts ultimately end up supporting that statement?

Again, if this pans out, there's going to be a lot of egg on the faces of AP, Eric Boehlert, Daily Kos, Eschaton, etc.



Posted by: Cicero at January 9, 2007 03:37 PM

If this pans out, the left will ignore it, just like they ignored the fact that the British stood by their niger/yellowcake info. The left lives in their own reality. Don't trouble them with facts, please.

Posted by: Lizza at January 9, 2007 04:36 PM

No. Nope. Uh-uh. Not this time. This is either up or down. Light or dark. There are no shades of gray to hide behind.

Either Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf admitted that Jamil Hussein was a police Captain assigned to the Khadra police station...or he did not.

There is no room for interpretation that passes even the faintest smell test. Let's examine what Steven Hurst said in his report:

Iraq threatens arrest of police captain who spoke to media

(Iraq threatens arrest of police captain, is this true, or is this not true?)

"The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media."

In this paragraph, are the following:

1)Interior Ministry acknowledged
2)That an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied
3)Is IN FACT an active member of the force
4)And he now faces arrest.

Each of those items is either true, or untrue. EACH. True. Or untrue.

"Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press."

1)Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who denied that there was a CAPT. JAMIL HUSSEIN...said that HUSSEIN is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station.

Either Khalaf said that HUSSEIN was a police officer in Al-Khadra...or he didn't.

"The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein"

1)His name is either Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, or it is not.

"Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein's existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record."

1)Khalaf offered no explanation for why he denied Hussein's existence INITIALLY...

This is not merely an implication that he is not denying his existence now, it subsumes in its precise language that he was asked and was unable to answer why he denied this existence.

And the AP, apparently thinks that waiting six weeks to correct an improper record is not acceptable. Perhaps they can explain why they only refer to ONE mosque now...and INITIALLY they spoke of FOUR mosques...without explanation.

"Khalaf told the AP that an arrest warrant had been issued for the captain for having contacts with the media in violation of the ministry's regulations."

1)Either Khalaf told them an arrest warrant had been issued, or he didn't.

How hard is it to find a guy who appears every day at his desk in Al Khadra, as a captain of the police force? I wouldn't think this would be that difficult to serve. Has he been served?

"Hussein told the AP on Wednesday that he learned the arrest warrant would be issued when he returned to work on Thursday after the Eid al-Adha holiday. His phone was turned off Thursday and he could not be reached for further comment."

1)How convenient. Is he back at his desk now or not? Was the warrant served, or not? Where is the followup? On Friday, at a minimum...wouldn't one realistically expect a followup story by AP? Where is it?

"Some officers who speak with reporters withhold their names or attempt to disguise their names using different variants of one or two middle names or last names for reasons of security. Hussein, however, spoke for the record, using his authentic first and last name, on numerous occasions."

1)He used his AUTHENTIC FIRST AND LAST NAME...on numerous occasions....or he didn't. This is not open for debate, shading, coloring, reframing, or clouding over. Jamil Hussein is the name, authentic is the game.

"Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said Thursday that the military had asked the Interior Ministry on Nov. 26 if it had a policeman by the name of Jamil Hussein. Two days later, U.S. Navy Lt. Michael B. Dean, a public affairs officer with the U.S. Navy Multi-National Corps-Iraq Joint Operations Center, sent an e-mail to AP in Baghdad saying that the military had checked with the Iraqi Interior Ministry and was told that no one by the name of Jamil Hussein worked for the ministry or was a Baghdad police officer."

1)Does the AP now suggest that the name Jamil Hussein should have appeared on the rosters? This is a yes or no question... not open to debate or interpretation.

"Dean also demanded that the mosque attack story be retracted."

1)Did he ask that the "mosque story" or the MOSQUES (PLURAL) STORY be retracted. This is an important distinction. The "mosques story" is absolutely in need of retraction.

"At the time Khalaf said the ministry had no one on its staff by the name of Jamil Hussein."

1)Does he say something differently now? If so, what...PRECISELY.

"Maybe he wore an MOI (Ministry of Interior) uniform and gave a different name to the reporter for money," Khalaf said then. The AP has not paid Jamil Hussein and does not pay any news sources for information for its stories.

1)Does the AP use anyone else to pay on their behalf? Does it use middlemen for any purposes. Does it grant any perk or benefit for supplying a "sourcing" for numerous stories? Why does it use the same person over and over...outside his district? How does he say he comes to "know" the facts outside his district that he is "sourcing".

"On Thursday, Khalaf told AP that the ministry at first had searched its files for Jamil Hussein and found no one. He said a later search turned up Capt. Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, assigned to the Khadra police station."

1)Did he say he found Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, or did he say that he found Jamil Gholaim Ghdaab...or some other person?

"But the AP had already identified the captain by all three names in a story on Nov. 28 -- two days before the Interior Ministry publicly denied his existence on the police rolls."

1)Which three names? Where in the initial report or any of the prior 60...was the name Ghdaab? Or Gholaiem?

"Khalaf did not say whether the U.S. military had ever been told that Hussein in fact exists. Garver, the U.S. military spokesman, said Thursday that he was not aware that the military had ever been told."

1)Was he asked that question? Does HUSSEIN, in fact, exist? Or does someone else "exist" with a different name.

"Khalaf said Thursday that with the arrest of Hussein for breaking police regulations against talking to reporters, the AP would be called to identify him in a lineup as the source of its story."

1)Was "Hussein" arrested on Thursday. Was the AP called to identify him? What happened? Where's the followup?

"Should the AP decline to assist in the identification, Khalaf said, the case against Hussein would be dropped. He also said there were no plans to pursue action against the AP should it decline."

1)Pretty neat and pat. AP declines to identify him and it all goes away. Did Khalaf really say this? Did AP decline?

These are binary questions. On or off. Yes or no. 1 0r 2. The answers are out there...but apparently they are escaping the grasp of the AP.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 9, 2007 05:32 PM

"Did the AP Lie About Jamil Hussein Being Found?" Would you have any trouble believing they did? I just added a teaser and link to Lt. Kije identified, facing arrest? -- Day 5

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 9, 2007 06:26 PM

Where's DA? He should tell us how wrong we are....

Posted by: Specter at January 9, 2007 09:35 PM

I ain't trying to be a putz, but with Binary Answers it'd be 0 or 1, not 1 or 2.

Holy crap, I just realized how much of a geek I am.

I'll go back to my parent's basement now.

Posted by: phin at January 10, 2007 09:23 AM


LOL. Thanks, ... a V8 moment. (slaps forehead) I knew that! Very funny, though.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 10, 2007 03:02 PM

"habeas corpus". Produce the body - living or dead.

AP is bluffing.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 10, 2007 03:13 PM

Wow, you guys just can't let it go, can you? It's over folks, the AP has been vindicated, and you guys are sounding more loony every day. I am not suggesting that you stop, it is truly hilarious to watch you melt down this way, and I have this blog bookmarked for that very reason. But maybe you should find some more productive pursuits.

And as it turns out, Bush agreed with the rest of the world and the reporting of the AP tonight when he said that he and the American people find the situation in Iraq "unacceptble." At least here he agreed in part with the ISG, which described the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." We all know that in your delusional state you believe things are going great in Iraq and therefore the AP must have lied. But if both
Bush and the ISG say differently, and if Bush decides he needs more troops to salvage the current disaster, what more will it take to inject some sanity into this blog?

Posted by: antibush at January 10, 2007 11:39 PM

If a story is fake but accuarate, admitting that the accurate part is right, does not prove the fake part is true.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at January 11, 2007 10:46 AM

It's over folks, the AP has been vindicated

Where's the body?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 11, 2007 12:11 PM
Where's the body?

That would be here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 11, 2007 12:42 PM