January 11, 2007


And so a major Associated Press claim in "Jamilgate" takes an apparently fatal hit.

According to Bill Costlow of CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Team) in Baghdad, and as forwarded by Lt. Michael Dean of Multinational Corps-Iraq/Joint Operations Command Public Affairs, our now infamous police captain in Iraq appears to be definitively not Jamil Hussein.

Nor is his name Jamil Gholaiem Hussein as stated repeatedly by the Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll and other Associated Press employees.

Nor is his name Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim, as he has been called previously in other accounts. According to his personnel records at MOI, confirmed with BG Abdul-Kareem and then reportedly verified by BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf with AP's Baghdad sources, his name is actually Jamil Gulaim "XX".

The "XX" protects his second middle name and real last names, of which "Hussein" is not a part.

To sum up the current situation as things now appear to stand:

  • There is no Baghdad police officer at the Khadra police station named Captain Jamil Hussein, and never has been. Jamil Hussein, and Jamil Gholaiem Hussein are pseudonyms for Jamil Gulaim "XX".
  • The Associated Press published a pseudonym without acknowledging that fact, apparently knowing, if BG Abdul-Kareem is correct, that they were publishing a false identity. Is that a big deal? HUGE. This is a major breach of journalistic ethics.
  • The Associated Press has heavily modified the "facts" of their claims since these two stories here and here on November 24 and November 25. Those claims are:
    1. That 24 people were burned to death; Six were pulled from the Ahbab al-Mustafa as it was attacked, the were doused and set on fire, according to AP source Captain Jamil Hussein, and that AP also printed a claim by the Association of Muslim Scholars (a group suspected of strong ties to al Qaeda, a detail the AP left out of their reporting) that 18 more people, including women in children, were burned to death in an "inferno" resulting from a Shiite militia attack at the al-Muhaimin mosque. Current AP accounts have dropped the claims of the 18 killed at al-Muhaimin completely, without a retraction or a correction.
    2. The Associated Press originally claimed four mosques (Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa) were attacked in Hurriyah according to Police Captain Jamil Hussein, along with several houses. AP has since revised its claim down to one mosque instead of four (presumably the Ahbab al-Mustafa where it says the six men were claimed immolated) and they have curiously dropped the mosque's name from their reporting. They have issued neither a retraction nor a correction for the three mosques they have written out of successive narratives
    3. The Associated Press initially claimed that Associated Press Television had video showing damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque where they claim these six men were immolated. After November 30, they have made no further mention of this video that would seem to buttress their claims, nor have I been able to find anyone who has seen it. They have not issued a retraction, nor a correction for this claim. Do they still claim to support it?
  • AP's Executive Editor and Senior vice President Kathleen Carroll, and AP's International Editor John Daniszewski have both insisted that Jamil Gholaiem Hussein is real. To make this claim, they presumably knew they were pushing a pseudonym to the public, presumably violating their own stated values and principles.
  • The Associated Press has claimed that BG Abdul-Karim Khalaf verified the existence of Jamil Hussein. According to Bill Costlow of CPATT, he did no such thing.
  • As this new revelation apparently shows, AP knew they were foisting a pseudonym upon the public, and even when questioned, continued to persist in denying what appears to be the truth.

Further, the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior claims that their is still no evidence that the six murders by immolation in Hurriyah on November 24 ever occurred.

I await Kathleen Carroll's response.

Update: Broken link fixed.

Update: I just got a response from Linda M. Wagner, Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for the Associated Press, which read in part:

Steve Hurst passed your e-mail inquiry along to me. AP stands by the story below, which provides the full name of the source whose existence was acknowledged to AP by Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf in an interview on Thursday, January 4. I have bolded the relevant passages for ease of finding them in the text.

A fascinating response, for a couple of reasons.

First, the Associated Press insists Jamil Gholaiem Hussein is a Iraqi police Captain at the Kharda police station in Iraq, circa the Jan 4 story they still stand behind (and Wagner referenced). I have a January 11 release saying something quite different, attributed to the same general.

While I have absolutely no power, influence, etc., I did suggest to LT Dean at MNC-I PAO that it might help if Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf spoke at a press conference and squared away these two contradicting stories that are both officially sourced to him. Obviously, they cannot both be correct.

The second reason I found this fascinating, which you may have caught if you were reading Wagner's comment closely, is that she was responding to something I sent to Steven R Hurst. Hurst wrote the January 4 story, and so I'd contacted him, saying that:

Mr. Hurst, I refuse to publish his second middle or last name, but I hear that Jamil Hussein is actually Jamil Gulaim [names redacted], and that AP has been using Jamil Hussein as a pseudonym to protect him. Is that correct?

Hurst, instead of ignoring my comment or deleting it, forwarded it upward to Wagner, and I had an official response from AP brass within 1.5 hours.

Now, it very well could be Associated Press policy to forward any and all email inquiries to AP reporters to the Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs, and that those inquiries are quickly and courteously answered within an hour and a half by such senior AP officers, but somehow, I doubt it.

While it is blind speculation, I somehow doubt that a senior staff member would be the one issuing a denial unless there was some substantial reasons to involve a senior staff member. I'd further opine that known the exact real name of their source might just rise to that level of importance.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 11, 2007 11:33 AM | TrackBack

Great stuff.

Fix the last link in the post, though... :-)

Posted by: Good Lt at January 11, 2007 12:04 PM


*chirp* *chirp*

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 11, 2007 12:08 PM

Someone call an ambulance, Bob's turning blue. I told him not to hold his breath.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at January 11, 2007 12:26 PM

Why am I not surprised? I excerpted and linked in Part 36 of my Jamilgate series.

Posted by: Bill Faith at January 11, 2007 12:39 PM

CY, stellar job.

It seems that there are now LAYERS of issues, and I think it's important to put the AP's feet to the fire on all of them, but to keep them separate as well.


a)What happened on the ground? Were four mosques attacked? Were they shelled with rocket propelled grenades and machine gun fire and then burned? What is the visual, physical evidence at Al Qaqaqa, ...if there is NO damage, where is the retraction and correction? Same with Al Muhaimin, Al Mustafa and Nidaa Allah.

b). Were there private homes burned in Hurriya on that date, where is the evidence? What support do they have for that story? If not, where is the retraction?

c)Were women and children murdered in a killing spree on that date? Where is the evidence? If not, where is the retraction?

d)Were six men dragged into the streets from Al Mustafa, doused in kerosene, watched by coalition forces as they writhed on the ground and then summarily executed by a bullet to the head...or did this never occur? If not, where is the retraction?


a)When did you come to learn the true identity of JGIX? When you visited him several times in his office, was his name prominently displayed on any badge, memo, placard, nameplate or other physical evidence of his true and actual AUTHENTIC identity.

b)How did you first come to know that JGIX was willing to go on the record, did he approach you or did you approach him?

c)Who initiated the use of the name Hussein for him...did he do it, or did it occur in some other way?

d)You have been using him as a source for years, has he always been a captain? Are you aware of his background, did you do a check on him before using him? With the name Hussein, which is common in Baathist and especially Tikriti enclaves, did you research his connections, if any to the prior regime? What did you do to verify that this was a reliable source before using him?

e)How did you come by the knowledge that one of his middle names was Gholaiem...yet did not come across the IX portions of his name?

f)When you were asked for a retraction on the stories, why did you stand by and insist that Jamil Hussein was an AUTHENTIC first and last you still stand by that position?



a)After the search for Jamil Hussein, which was prompted by your insistence that Jamil Gholaiem Hussein WAS INDEED his AUTHENTIC then wrote a report that suggested that you were vindicated. Is Jamil Hussein his AUTHENTIC name, or is it not? If not, why did Steven Hurst write that as if it had been admitted?

b)If JGIX is his real name, why did Steven Hurst not detail that in his article about the AP's vindication?

c)Did the MOI or CENTCOM at ANY TIME, come forward with an ADMISSION that "Jamil Hussein" was a police officer at al Khadra? If not, why did Steven Hurst report that as if it had happened?

d)You were aware that some police officers used fake names to protect their identities, yet your reports DETAILED the fact that Jamil Hussein used his AUTHENTIC name, and did not hide his identity. Do you still stand by that report?
If not, why did you report this falsehood?

e)Several people suggested that Jamil Hussein was now in danger, because bloggers had exposed his identity...but if his name is JGIX, you knew this to be false, and you fueled this erroneous accusation by acts of omission and comission. Why? And why did you not retract and correct the record, if this is the case?

f)Your own standards and policies suggest that you do not use composite or false identity sources, did you violate those standards and policies here for more than two years? Did you then coverup this fact, when caught? Did you then intentionally mislead the billions of people who obtain your news accounts, by suggesting that Jamil Hussein was in fact, an AUTHENTIC name of your source?

Was he a properly researched person BEFORE you used him as a source?

Was he given a phony name, so that he couldn't be found by others?

Was he reliable and accurate in his information on issues outside his district?

Did he ever give reliable and accurate information about Sunni misdeeds or crimes?

When did you know what his full, accurate and complete name was?

Did you intentionally mislead your readers about ADMISSIONS by MOI or CENTCOM?


Posted by: cfbleachers at January 11, 2007 01:07 PM

Rabble Rouser.

Posted by: Defense Guy at January 11, 2007 01:24 PM

Sadly, your great work will go nowhere. The matter has been "settled" as far as the AP is concerned.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at January 11, 2007 01:49 PM

If an Iraqi legally changes his name to Jamil Hussein and agrees to, retroactively, assume all of the claims attributed to Hussein, will it count?

Posted by: Cover Me, Porkins at January 11, 2007 01:54 PM

Here's another possibility: Maybe AP is using his real name, but he's using an alias--Jamil Gulaim "XX"--with the Iraqi police. If true, I don't think that quite gets AP off the hook--what are they doing using as a source a guy who gave a phony name to the Police--but it does raise another question to ask. Which name is his real name?

Posted by: Bill Allison at January 11, 2007 02:22 PM

The issue may be settled as far as the AP is comcerned.

Of course an additional question might be "If the AP is not following its own journalistic standards, it is a news organization or a non-profit political organization?" and therefore be subject to McCain-Feingold regulations?

Posted by: Tim at January 11, 2007 02:36 PM

Liberals print a pack of lies and are then caught by conservatives. The conclusion that liberals like Glenn Greenwald draw from this? Why, that conservatives are rotten to the core, of course. It only makes sense to them. he-he

Posted by: yo at January 11, 2007 02:38 PM

The blogosphere is beginning to react, but some of that reaction is a bit surprising. People are now confused, as I was afraid might occur, because they are viewing this as a melange of misdeeds, instead of three distinct but vitally different deeds.

Normally clear thinking bloggers have been rendered somnambulant and it somewhat surprisingly produces a stifled yawn as they sleepwalk through the unraveling of a story that should be jolting them. Apparently, the AP's mixture of guilt-tripping, puree'ing of the three distinct issues and stonewalling has a hypnotic effect.

It would be fascinating to watch, if it wasn't so heart wrenching. They claim that "being Jamil" is good enough, YOU are guilty of putting him in danger if you don't accept that, and THAT is the only other issues exist, you are getting very, very sleepy. Osterize the issues, ostracize the critics. Stonewall. Put them to sleep. Then, plant suggestions in their minds.

"Iraq is a dangerous place." "Of course, we hid his identity" "No, we didn't" "He exists, that's all that matters". "His name is AUTHENTIC" "It's not important if it's authentic"

We need to SEPARATE the issues and deal with them SEPARATELY.

Don't let them second guess you into becoming halting and overhesitant, Bob. Don't feel the pressure of the osterizer. The last thing we need is blogs in a blender.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 11, 2007 02:41 PM

Good God, Man! You've got them on the run, now! Don't let up!

Posted by: david at January 11, 2007 02:51 PM

In other news, the AP has announced that North Carolina prosecutor Michael Nifong has been appointed to investigate the conflicting stories.

Posted by: Orhwe at January 11, 2007 02:53 PM

No jake, this war was won when Iraq elected the government that stands today. Sectarian violence is not the war we're a party to, though it does have a few tentacles in the WOT.

Posted by: Pablo at January 11, 2007 03:09 PM


Posted by: TomW at January 11, 2007 03:10 PM

So far, you all have missed one very important question for the AP. Is the level of checking for factual accuracy and compliance with publicly held AP standards the same in Iraq as elsewhere? Should we have the same level of trust regarding AP stories coming out of Iraq as AP stories coming out of Iran, France, or Boise? They cannot say that they are less reliable in Iraq because that invites us to probe as to where else they are using less than their normal levels of diligence yet if they say they are as reliable there as anywhere else, they've gone all in and bet the reputation of their entire product on the small subset that comes out of Iraq.

One other thing to note. You bring down this one and it's like the dog that finally catches up to the car. You bring the AP down, what are you going to do then?

Posted by: TM Lutas at January 11, 2007 03:20 PM

All we need is a pendulating pocket watch...

"which means absolutely nothing..."

Don't look here, don't look here, don't look here.

"we are NOT winning in Iraq." ALL of the blogged words and posts on the subject...was this EVER raised by ANYONE...who says that staged news, false sources, phony photographs is unacceptable? Reframe the issues elsewhere. Take a stroll, troll. We ain't buying here.

"The "New Way Forward" is DOA."

We know what you root for...and whose side your on. Yawn. Playbook, page 14...heard it, seen it, threw away the movie ticket.

"Whether or not you ferret out poor or misleading reporting, you are divorced from the reality"

No, read very slowly and you CAN move your lips because you need to...INTENTIONALLY FALSE reporting, lies, coverups, staged events, Green Helmet guy, photoshopped order to advance a particular point of prima facie evidence of journalistic malpractice. reality.

Not sure that leftists are divorced from it...because I don't think that their marriage to truth and integrity was one that was ever consummated.

" - this war was lost when Shinseki's request for 300,000 troops was ignored."

To leftists, this is a moving target. They were for the surge, against the surge. The only thing one can be sure of, if Bush is for it, they are going to say it won't work. They will count the American casualties and ignore the progress. Therefore, their credibility is nil.

"You can parse news stories all ya want, but this war, based on lies"

Clinton, Albright, Berger and Cohen?

"and executed with stunning incompetence is a disaster."

By whose standards. Three weeks to topple Hussein, a democracy in its infancy fighting imported chaos from Iran and Syria...and last I looked, it was still standing. Let's wait past the third inning before the say the game is over, shall we?

"The best military force in the world has been misused in a criminal fashion."

Criminal fashion? Leftists love to call our military criminals, don't they? The only thing we've done is hold back, trying not to inflict excess damage. Are leftists now suggesting a grip it and rip it mentality? LOL. Their tender constituency tends to go soft at the very moment of, I tend to doubt it.

"so yeah, great work on an issue only you seem to care about. which doesn't change anything."

We care about a lot of issues. This is the source of cognitive dissonance for leftists, who can't imagine actually being able to care about more than their one note song. "Bush bad, media good. Ugh".

Some of us who aren't leftists can actually separate out issues and decide them individually without lemming attachment to leftist dogma.

Here's a soundbite for you. THE TRUTH MATTERS.

You might try it sometime.

Posted by: cfbleachers at January 11, 2007 03:33 PM

Well, as I have been going on about, it is not Jamil Hussein and has not been since the very first AP attempt to not answer questions and not hold themselves accountable.

From the Association of Newspaper Editors: Ethics code: Associated Press Managing Editors

By attacking a member of the public who has put into question AP's reporting and attacking same and asking if the individual was questioning AP's honesty they have turned this into a question of if AP has *any* ethics at all and are dishonest about their reporting.

But that is just my take.

Posted by: ajacksonian at January 11, 2007 03:52 PM

The AP lied, America comes buyer's remorse.

The AP, like the NY Times et al, are antiAmerican propagandists in the process of spreading lies and fomenting dissent. They maintain a symbiotic relationship with the Democrats.....truth is never part of their agenda.

Posted by: George Dixon at January 11, 2007 03:52 PM

I for one feel way better knowing that this petty argument between petty people has almost been resolved by the only guy in the world who knows the actual truth: the guy who runs this incredibly slanted blog. Way more trustworthy than the AP.

Keep up the great work. Without you, we might never get to the bottom of things that were almost important 2 months ago.

Posted by: DONG at January 11, 2007 03:56 PM

So, your "definitive" evidence, which you don't link to a sample of, is Mr. Costlow and Lt. Dean. Unattributed assertion is the crux of your argument? Wow.

It's all good, though, because I'm a citizen journalist, too. Yep. I have access to Google and everything. You want to see what I found? Of course you do.

The most recent correspondence I could find is this, taken from

From: MNC-I PAO Victory Main JOC
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:14 AM
To: [deleted]
Cc: MNC-I PAO Victory Main JOC
Subject: RE: [U] RE: Could you confirm that the letter below was sent

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED


I have just learned from Mr. Costlow, mentioned below, that Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the official Ministry of Interior spokesmen, will begin his regularly scheduled press conference at noon tomorrow with a statement that Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee.

Yesterday, coincidently, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior issued a press release warning of spreading propaganda aimed at broadcasters. The text of this statement follows:

A Statement from the Ministry of Interior

After media became free in Iraq and expressed the will of all without the government interfering, unfortunately, some satellite TV channels began misleading public opinion and disclosing chaos for a particular political agenda, by broadcasting propaganda that harms people and tries to shake the trust in security forces.

Such satellite channels are trying to affect Iraqi unity and claim that information was stated by a security source without mentioning the source. Information sources should be well-known and reliable, and to avoid repeating such unfair actions, MOI warns the media and insists on defending the people’s security and safety. MOI will take all immediate preventive procedures against media that broadcast propaganda, because such media intend to repress the will of Iraqis in fighting terror and crime.

We would like to mention that such procedures we do not consider as chaining true free media, but it is a legal defense for Iraqi security and the safety of our people.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know.

LT Dean

Michael B. Dean
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy
MNC-I Joint Operations Center
Public Affairs Officer
Multinational Corps - Iraq
Public Affairs Office

Hey! Didn't the MOI come out just a few days ago with a Mea Culpa? I know, why don't you post the definitive proof from Mr Costlow and Lt. Dean, preferrably with a date that FOLLOWS that of the MOI admitting to the existence of Mr. Hussein, and that'll clear everything up. You can do that, right? Or are you more interested in trying to minimize the depths of your foolishness with a little obfuscation over the use of an alleged pseudonym?

Posted by: Officious Pedant at January 11, 2007 04:06 PM

And the score is:

AP - One:
Republican knob-polishing propaganda machine: Zero

Sorry, Bubbleheads, it's all over. You can keep humping this story till the cows come home, but nothing will change the (utterly accurate) perception among the literate public -- which, of course, necessarily excludes the grunting followers of Rush, Ann, Michelle, et al. -- that rightwing blogs are a rancid sewer of Swift Boat-style Republican propaganda. The beautiful part is that there will never be another reactionary hatchet job on the free press that won't be very simply addressed by two words: Jamil Hussein.

Posted by: legaleagle at January 11, 2007 04:39 PM

"The beautiful part is that there will never be another reactionary hatchet job on the free press that won't be very simply addressed by two words: Jamil Hussein."
How true, but LB let them have fun their prez did a belly flop last night and the ripples have shown any sign of let up not to mention Condi getting handed her well you know the senate this morning.
As for Jamil even if they are right no one cares, they have spun and confabulated so much that no one believes them any more.

Posted by: moonkat at January 11, 2007 04:59 PM

Who cares? Iraq is locked in a bloody civil war, American soldiers are dying, the president doesn't have a clue about what to do, and you keep foghorning about whether Jamil Hussein does or does not exist. This is ridiculous.

Posted by: Arthur Arkwright at January 11, 2007 04:59 PM

So, was any of the actual story ever verified? Did photos of these burned mosques ever go out on the wires? Where were the bodies taken? Usually the press would be wallowing in these details. No details? Sounds like no story. Only the coverup remains. It would be nice if AP could actually come up with somebody, no matter what his name is, who could be interviewed by someone other than an AP flack about those other 20-odd stories AP has flogged in the past with him as the major witness. Even criminals are given the chance to cross-examine witnesses; why shouldn't anyone accused of malfeasance or incompetence be able to do the same?

It still looks like the guy never existed and AP made the whole stinking pile up. They've consistently missed any chances to either put up or shut up. It's the Dan Rather effect all over again.

Posted by: tom swift at January 11, 2007 05:32 PM

"I await Kathleen Carroll's response."

LOL. Ya, I'm sure she's gonna get right on that there ConYank.

Posted by: THeDRiFTeR at January 11, 2007 06:54 PM

I for one feel way better knowing that this petty argument between petty people

You miss the point entirely.

If AP's actions give you a "warm fuzzy" and you feel that their credibility is intact, then just go on your way and forget about any of this and keep your blinders on.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 11, 2007 06:58 PM

I'm impressed by how lucidly you've traced the history of this media mess. I wonder when the AP will figure out that, if you're in a hole, you should stop digging, and that when you've made a gross ethical error, you should, maybe, just maybe, engage in some self-examination, apologize, and change your behavior.

Posted by: Bookworm at January 11, 2007 07:37 PM


Two Words: Pham Xuan


Posted by: RichatUF at January 11, 2007 10:35 PM

I suppose literacy isn’t required to graduate law school. The AP claimed their source is “Jamil Hussein” a captain in the Iraqi Police. The “source” discovered at the Kharda station is “Jamil Gulaim …” however this individual denies he is an AP source. AP is dissembling, BG Khalaf is dissembling, and in the end the front page “Burning Six” story remains unresolved. Interesting you would score this as a victory for the AP; it looks to me like a great deal of spinning by the AP.

Yes-the “Swift Boat” slur…when was the greatest hero of the Vietnam War, Sen. John Kerry, supposed to sign his SF-180 and release his military records? His Silver Star with V Device-I’d like to see those orders.

Its interesting that you call it a “free press” when it has been shown over and over again Western media is overwhelmingly compelled by politics, relationships, money, access-ah, but, yes, you reject statements from illiterates. How could someone like me (who has not been to law school and thinks the Jamil Hussein story is important) even tie my shoes? Maybe we could send “Jamil Hussein” to go find the good senator’s military jacket-there are a few mosques in St. Lewis, it would be almost like paradise.


Posted by: RichatUF at January 11, 2007 11:07 PM

It is, after all, just a pseudonym and not a REAL name! You're outraged, right?

She exists. I've seen the video.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 12, 2007 02:37 AM

OT: Tic...Toc....Tic....Toc....almost 32 hours of the first 100 gone and still no plan for Iraq from the Dems. Never had one, although that was the platform they ran on to get elected. Never will have one...because defeat means defeat in the next election. How sad that such back-seat pontificators like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, etc., can't find a solution. Tic....toc....tic....toc.

Posted by: Specter at January 12, 2007 07:38 AM

Re legal'B'eagle...
I have yet to meet a lawyer who would not posture pro or con depending on which had the deepest pocket. They are all more or less Nifongs.....

Posted by: George Dixon at January 12, 2007 09:46 AM

Confederate Yankee, why are you deleting my comment?

Anyways, since you are, I respond to this post on my blog here:

Posted by: db at January 12, 2007 10:48 AM

"So, was any of the actual story ever verified?"

A unit of the Iraqi 6th Army responded to a report of an ongoing attack in the area claimed at the time claimed. They captured no one, saw no burning homes, no Burning Sunnis, no slaughter in the mosques and streets. They found one mosque that had been hit with a Molotov at the entrance, causing slight damage. They summoned a fire brigade, which put out the remnants of the Molotov fire. Lapsed time from initial report to fire-out, about ten minutes.

After the story appeared on the AP wire, additional patrols were sent to the area to search out the extent of the damage and ascertain what happened and who did it. They found one slightly burned mosque entrance, no burned homes, no Burned Sunni marks on the streets, no bodies, no associated funerals, and no witnesses supporting the claims, etc.

That's it. The current sum total extent of all independent and verifiable substantiation of the purported incident.

Posted by: Tully at January 12, 2007 11:27 AM

Comment? It looks like a link to your blog.

Newsflash - nobody cares what you think.

Posted by: Good Lt at January 12, 2007 11:29 AM

My first one didn't even link to my blog. It was just a comment. But he deleted it, so I figured I'd just add a quick link to my blog where I respond to this ridiculous post instead of bothering to type something he'll delete again as soon as he notices.

Posted by: db at January 12, 2007 12:22 PM

Actually, db, if you were brave enough to leave a valid email address (chickenposter) and had bother to read my comment policy, you'd see I don't allow profanity, which was the reason your post was deleted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2007 12:36 PM

My non-profane to db on his blog:

So your brilliant criticism is hinged upon the fact Michelle Malkin didn't get her name changed upon getting married?

It is against AP's own code of ethics to use a pseudonym in the manner they did, and other profesional journalists–Jon Ham of the John Locke Foundation and a former managing editor of the Durham Herald-Sun, Larisa Alexandrovna of the liberal-leaning Raw Story, Jay Rosen of New York University’s PressThink, and Committee of Concerned Journalists Founding Chairman, Bill Kovach, and Peter Y. Sussman who is on the Ethics Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists–all agree.

But that's okay… you still have your "truthiness."

It's better than truth, or ethics.


I now return this comment thread to those for which it was intended...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2007 12:47 PM

Did I use profanity? I don't recall. If I did, my apologies. So my response (also posted on my blog):

Ethics aren’t rock solid rules. Even if the AP does state as a solid rule not to use a pseudonym without recognizing it, ethical codes adapt to the situation. You don’t know why Jamil Hussein’s full name wasn’t used — you’re blindly grasping for anything to hold onto as a basis for attacking journalistic integrity. A pesudonym for Jamil Hussein isn’t necessarily “truthiness.” The attack is silly.

You are also omitting a key part of what all those experts say that you cite. To quote Sussman: “Barring some overwhelmingly important mitigating factor…”

My point is, you have no absolutely no idea what the particular circumstances are. You have no clue whatsoever as to any mitigating factors. No idea. Your ideological biases are blinding you and causing you to jump to conclusions. It’s the same biases that lead to so many of your ideological peers to claim that Jamil Hussein inarguably does not exist. You’re making the same mistake in your eagerness to play “gotcha.” Further, you’re playing “gotcha” over something so banal, your attack is laughable.

Posted by: db at January 12, 2007 01:13 PM

Yep, you got me.

My "mistake" is banal, so laughable, that the Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for AP contacted me, a mere blogger, personally just as soon as she could to issue a "we stand by our story" denial.

Keep whistling, junior.

You'll get by that graveyard eventually...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2007 01:38 PM

Should we expect ANY news service attempting to report from Iraq to be more accurate than say the Weather Service ?
The American People no longer believe in this Iraq endeavor.
Polls show a pretty consistent 70% against sending any more troops. As for the 30%, well that should represent 100 million but I think that number is soft. If 100 million Americans REALLY believed in the WOT or the war in Iraq the recruiting officers would have lines out the door trying to sign up.

Posted by: John Ryan at January 12, 2007 01:44 PM

OT slightly: Tic...Toc...Tic...Toc...46 Hours gone, Republicans steal the earmark show in the Senate, Nancy fails to rein in corruption under her reign, Silvestre still doesn't know what a Sunni is, and still NO PLAN FOR IRAQ. That 100 hours is going by pretty quickly. Great Leaders they are. In the words of the DNC Chairman: AIIIIIIIYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEE

Posted by: Specter at January 12, 2007 02:09 PM

One simple question that only requires the simplest of proofs. If Jamil Hussein is real, produce him.

Can't do it, can you?

Posted by: surferdoc at January 12, 2007 11:27 PM