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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.'

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.

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...

That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you are playing with the life of a man

AP used him how many times?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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?

First, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Sadly No about this.

This is like arguing with people who claim the Apollo missions were staged.

Remember: Just because something is possible, using the information you have, doesn't mean it's factual. That's exactly what conspiracy theorists do.

CY, although I don't doubt that the Hurriya story is bullshi'ite, if it IS bullshi'ite, there must be more to prove it--or rather, refute the story--than just the ID of this Jamil guy. There are photos of people attending the mosque, so what about other photos?

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?

I'm not saying YOU aren't being fair or intellectually honest about this--you are--I'm just asking the question about the others on "your side."

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.)

8) 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.

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.

>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?

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, ..."

"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.

Me thinks my comment has been removed...

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.

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?