Eason Jordan on Jamil Hussein
Eason “Saddam appeaser” Jordan actually has it almost entirely right on the Jamil Hussein controversy:
Iraqi officials and U.S. military spokesmen look foolish for making the mistake of flatly stating in late November that there was no Iraqi police captain by the name of Jamil Hussein. Those clumsy, baseless statements were unfair to the AP. Those erronenous statements — and their statements questioning the information the AP attributed to Captain Hussein — triggered the six-week-long controversy that followed.
Jamil Hussein made a mistake by waiting six weeks to speak out on this matter.
The AP erred in part by responding in a hot-headed, antagonistic way to questions about the existence of Jamil Hussein and the credibility of AP reports featuring comments from Captain Hussein. The AP’s harsh statements fueled the suspicions of critics and those who otherwise would give the AP the benefit of the doubt. Another mistake: the AP took too long to provide irrefutable evidence of Captain Hussein’s existence.
The AP’s most strident critics were wrong to accept the word of U.S. and Iraqi officials as the absolute truth while dismissing the AP’s sourcing, stories, and explanations as outright lies.
He also notes (as I did earlier) that there are several lingering questions.
This is a much more sober and balanced take than, say, that of Jane Hamsher:
Wrong wrong wrong. You were wrong, Malkin, wrong. Dead wrong. Now please STFU and stay in your bunker before you and the wingnut nob-sucking Eason Jordan get any American servicemen killed guarding your skanky ass in your narcissistic vanity trip, because your desire to hoover up all the wingnut welfare in sight spreading the delusional stories of a desperate and sinking administration is truly not worth it.
. . . .
Even I don’t want her to go over there and get her ass shot up, so in the spirit of blogger comity I extend to that shreiking ding-dong a Steve Gilliard Reality Check.
Who’s the “shreiking ding-dong” again?
I still don’t understand what Michelle Malkin is supposed to be wrong about? If you go to the bottom of this link it shows all of her posts on the controversy. Unless I’m mistaken all she did was question the AP story. She never claimed that Hussein did not exist — only that the AP had not provided proof that he did exist. The burden of proof was on the AP, right? Or is the MSM so perfect that it need not provide evidence to support a major, controversial story?
aunursa (1b5bad) — 1/5/2007 @ 12:03 pmUnless I’m mistaken all she [Michelle Malkin] did was question the AP story.
Does that include quotable Malkinese from November 28: “Associated (with terrorists) Press?” Or her conclusion the same day: “Things are not good, but we cannot trust third-hand accounts from shady ‘spokesmen’ funneled through dubious foreign stringers working for the terrorist-sympathizing, anti-Bush press to give us the straight scoop.”
I agree the burden on proof was on the AP. They huffed and puffed and finally got around to tackling responsibilities. I frankly don’t believe any mosque sustained substantial damage that day, a pervasive impression they created and should have disowned.
Pride goeth before the fall.
steve (8f3e6c) — 1/5/2007 @ 12:27 pmSteve, Malkin’s A(wT)P coinage dates back to about the time of the Bilal Hussein arrest, if I’m not mistaken. It’s not something she cooked up to describe this case.
See Dubya (f7706f) — 1/5/2007 @ 12:34 pmActually, Jordan totally screwed the pooch on this one.
A glaring omission from his list of lessons learned is something that any journalist worth his or her salt should have learned as a cub reporter – “If you take the word of government officials at face value, you might get burned.”
And that’s exactly what happened here. Given the choice of believing a course of reporting of the AP or a self-serving political message of the US and Iraqi governments, Malkin and Jordan reflexively sided with the governments.
The AP did everything it could to prove the existence of Jamil Hussein short of delivering his body to Michelle and Jesse’s doorstep. Meanwhile, there was never any critical questioning of the government’s representations, despite the obvious incentives of these governments to discredit negative reports about the violence in Iraq.
childo (9dafae) — 1/5/2007 @ 12:51 pmI’m wondering how the government deceived Malkin and Jordan. Did the American (and/or Iraqi) government claim that there was no Jamil Hussein? Or did the government claim that it was unable to locate a police captain named Jamil Hussein? If the latter, I fail to see how that constitutes deception.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:19 pmchildo,
The glaring omission is glaringly there.
Patterico (906bfc) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:25 pmHave we had Jamil Hussein show up yet? Last I heard it was just that AP said, ‘Yep, we’ve produced him, so there’. If I’m misinformed, yay.
Dave (391b76) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:29 pmMalkins blog seems to just recycle two main stories:
1. America is at war with all Muslims
2. Anyone who questions story (1.) is a traitor
Hardly deserving of a sober response.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:34 pmNeville Chamberlain,
I missed the post on Malkin’s website that indicates that America is at war with all Muslims. I would appreciate it if you would provide a link to that post.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:36 pmThe link is in his mind and all that’s in his mind is “HATE BUSH! US IS ROOT OF ALL EVIL!”
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:45 pmHehe, aunursa,
Check out this post (with P link!):
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006173.htm
Then let’s talk about “sober responses.”
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:53 pmNeville:
The only occurance of of the word “Muslim” on that page is in an advertisement link to Muslim Parking sign.
As usual you’re a moron!
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 2:01 pmNeville Chamberlain,
NYTimes editor now admits: We were wrong to blab
aunursa (1b5bad) — 1/5/2007 @ 2:03 pmOkay, I read it twice through, but I still missed Malkin’s comment labeling all Muslims as enemies. Rather Malkin appears to sarcastically imply that the NYTimes is acting as an enemy for disclosing the existence of a secret surveillance program on terrorist banking. I apologize for my inability to see the obvious, and would appreciate it if you would quote the relevant portion of the post in which Malkin indicates that America is at war with all Muslims.
Man that Jane person is unhinged. I guess to a certain segment of the nutter class she is appealing, but for the most part I’ve found nearly everything I’ve read of hers to be unappealing unreadable tripe. At least Kos can write a coherent sentence without you getting the image of spit hitting the screen.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:08 pmaunusrsa,
I looked at the posts Malkin put up in December 2006. Even if you skip her anti-Muslim year in review post titled “The year of perpetual outrage”, I found anti-Muslim stories from:
Thailand
Lebanon
Syria
Afghanistan
Seattle
England
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Fresno
Dubai
New York
Iran
Minnesota
Boston
Chicago
France
Australia
Yemen
Detroit
I think that proves my point.
As I side note: tying all the Muslims of the world together into an anti-West army is exactly what Osama and the handful of terrorists who are actually a threat to America are trying to do.
It’s what 9/11 was about.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:18 pmNeville,
Using your logic, it would be fair for me to claim that you dislike all Americans because you have criticized some of them.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:25 pmNice DRJ,
We’re all aware that the first rule of propaganda is to accuse your enemies of the very thing you are trying to do.
What do you think Malkin is trying to accomplish by combing the world’s news outlets for stories that make Muslims look bad and then reposting them on her site?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:42 pmI think she’s trying to show that radical, militant Muslims are dangerous.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:46 pmThis is what they claimed:
This does constitute deception.
NN (d035f8) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:50 pmNN — out of context — please supply the sentence that followed the one you quoted, so all can see your BS.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 3:58 pmSo Malkin actually wants to saw the heads off infidels and clap all our women into burqas?
See Dubya (f7706f) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:05 pmDRJ,
You could easily paint Christians in the same light that Malkin paints Muslims by aggregating any story that showed some of them say, drowning some kids in bathtubs, beating gays to death or maybe invading other countries sprinkled with a few historic shots of them loading Jews into cattle cars.
The second rule of propaganda is to smear entire groups with the actions of individuals…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:06 pmLooks like you follow those rules to a fault, Neville.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:12 pmOK:
Where’s BS, what does context change?
NN (9c16c2) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:15 pmThe deception was perpertrated on the MNC by the MOI, not by the MNC on the rest of the world. They were simply stating what the Iraqi gov’t (MOI) told them.
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:20 pmThere is also the subtle distinction/deception that MOI claimed Jamil was not a BAGDAD police officer…
Dubya (c16726) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:23 pmBy these standards Dan Rather is innocent.
You know, it’s really not funny. There’s a documentary about MOI running secret prisons and death squads (which supposedly doesn’t happen anymore). There were two American whistleblowers who reported about MOI Minister who was obviously responsible for these things — they were just fired by their American supervisors.
Being gullible when dealing with the ministry infiltrated by the bad guys is not such an innocent thing.
With the very bad guy going to Washington (Al-Hakim’s reputation in Iraq is probably worse than Al-Sadr’s), with the full support given to Al-Maliki, with the way Bush praised “mad about Joooos” speaker of Iraqi Parliament — it’s really not hard to understand why so many Iraqis hate USA.
Do you think he’s not a Baghdad police officer?
NN (d035f8) — 1/5/2007 @ 4:38 pmJamil identified, facing arrest? — Day 2 — (Updated and bumped)…
CENTCOM says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police — Part 30 — Continued from this post. Libs on Jamil Confederate Yankee The overwhelming majority of liberal bloggers were dead silent from late November throughout the month of December, and…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 1/5/2007 @ 5:04 pmA “Steve Gilliard Reality Check” makes about as much sense as a “Stephen Hawking Rhumba Lesson.”
Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/5/2007 @ 6:36 pmWelly well, Mr. Frey, Hussein exists. But wait–good lord! That means it’s time to move on to some new horseshit! You’ve successfully spread all the horseshit that was required of you as a right wing blogger. NYTimes committed treason by ‘revealing’ Cheney vacation home, check. Plame wasn’t NOC, check. ‘Lonely Kerry,’ check. The Schiavo memo was written by Democrats, check. Horseshit, all of them. You may have skipped a few that smelled too bad even for you, but as a right-winger operating out of the downtown government in a liberal city like LA, you’ve done as good a job as any third-rate wingnut in a red state could dream.
But wait, could there ever be a time that your appetite for horseshit could exceed the supply? Could it be that, rather than just gulp down whatever stinking pile is handed you by Powerline, Ledeen, Drudge, Free Republic or Malkin, you have to invent your own steaming load of shit? I feel for you in advance. I advise plenty of trips to Olvera Street to build up the intestinal load, Paddy boy. That, or give up this moonlighting gig that seems to leave you, again and again, looking like a complete dumbass and fodder for hilarity among those of us who’re a little more toward the middle.
[Let’s see. Did I accuse the New York Times of treason for revealing the Cheney vacation home? Nope. Lie #1 by you. (You don’t even try to provide a link to a post of mine on that one, so you do a Google search — which doesn’t use the word treason or treasonous! — as a deceptive way around your lack of proof.) Does your link about Plame lead to a post by me? Nope. Lie #2 by you. Did I claim that the Schiavo memo was written by Democrats? Nope. I said it was at least equally likely that it was, given that we didn’t know. That’s not the same as asserting that it was. Lie #3 by you. Strike Three, you’re out! You are right that I published the amusing “Lonely Kerry” photo. I made no assertions about it, but still posted an update retracting the “Lonely” characterization when it became clear that it wasn’t fair.
Three lies out of four assertions. Well done! — P]
djangone (381f2e) — 1/5/2007 @ 6:45 pm“…a complete dumbass and fodder for hilarity among those of us who’re a little more toward the middle.”
Such modesty. You are so much more than a “little more,” but not exactly “toward the middle.”
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/5/2007 @ 6:59 pmWhy do you all insist on arguing with Neville in good faith? He certainly isn’t. He’s just applying “rules of propaganda” not to prove anything but simply as a result of his own childish world view.
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:15 pmLiberals: “Hussein exists! We win! The AP speaks only truth!”
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:17 pmNeville,
You’re going to have to list the rules of propanganda for me before this goes any further. We’re already coming up on the third rule, and I never heard of the first or the second until this thread.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:23 pmHere’s number 3, DRJ, from the master himself:
“If propaganda wins the people it wanted to win, it was presumably good, and if not, it was presumably bad. No one can say that your propaganda is too crude or low or brutal, or that it is not decent enough, for those are not the relevant criteria. Its purpose is not to be decent, or gentle, or weak, or modest; it is to be successful.”
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:28 pmIsn’t it remotely possible that Eason Jordan was aware of Jamal’s existence since day one, and this whole thing was an elaborate gotcha cooked up to sting Michelle?
Papertiger (84c102) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:29 pmAfter all withholding evidence is what Eason is best known for.
Perfect Sense, you have access to my voting record? Hilarious.
djangone (381f2e) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:31 pmYou pretending to be in the middle is equally so…
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:34 pmSo the source of mutliple erroneous stories published by the AP actually exists? I can see why the AP should be crowing. How about a new slogan – “The Associated Press – We didn’t make Jamail Hussein up – we’re just credulous fools willing to uncritically disseminate unverified ‘information’ – just as long as it’s anti-American.”
SmokeVanThorn (82d7ad) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:40 pmAh, Neville, it’s Joseph Goebbels. So that’s where you get your talking points.
By the way, refresh my memory on the last time a Christian hijacked a plane and intentionally flew it into a building, killing thousands, and then I’ll be glad to consider whether Christians can be painted as equally dangerous as Muslims.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:41 pmThat’s where every politician gets their talking points from, DRJ.
I think you’d find Christians have a far higher kill count than Muslims if you did an honest tally.
But most humans, no matter what their religion, manage to get through life without killing anyone.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:47 pmGandhi, Jesus and Buddha all opposed the propagandists’ first principle, “the end justifies the means.” Maybe you should find another religion to prove your point.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/5/2007 @ 7:56 pmI’m barely left of center, which is to say dead center for California. So enough of that, is that all you have to say on my comment, OHNOES and Perfect Sense? There’s a bigger issue here, namely, what will the next horseshit be?
Care to wager or make a prediction? My bet is that someone will invent a story that Nancy Pelosi’s tailor gave Rachel Corrie maps to the supposed weapons-smuggling tunnels near where Corrie was killed. Outlandish? Well, consider that Patterico chased that bland-facedly idiotic ‘vacation home’ story like a mongrel after a Pinto.
That’s mine, and I’ll catch you all later. Plans and all–can’t imagine anything I’d less prefer doing than entertain drooling right-wing blog commenters on a Friday night.
[What are you talking about? — P]
djangone (381f2e) — 1/5/2007 @ 8:09 pmTypical liberal talking points…never use facts just say “I think YOU’D find..” or throw out some useless crap like “most humans, no matter what their religion, manage to get through life without killing anyone.”
RightAllAlong (cce9a0) — 1/5/2007 @ 8:12 pmDay 3 coming up where is Jamil Hussien ? he is still MIA.
Bill A (32969c) — 1/5/2007 @ 8:16 pmYelling about the right-wingers eating horseshit is about as middle-of-the-road as it gets.
Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/5/2007 @ 8:51 pmI can’t speak for everyone but I like right-wing blog commenters on a Friday night.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/5/2007 @ 8:56 pmIt’s funny how Eason Jordan gets involved in this story. But he gets selectively involved. He overlooks the Mosques that didn’t get burned and the victims that don’t exist. Instead he focuses on whether Jamil Exist or Not.
His entrance to story elevates interest in the story, but also puts too much focus on the ‘Does Jamil Exist’ question.
But then a week later, poof, Jamil appears.
What interesting timing. Eason nudges the focus exclusively on whether Jamil exists or not and not whether mosques and people where burned.
The timing couldn’t have possibly worked out better for AP. What a coincidence.
jpm100 (851d24) — 1/5/2007 @ 9:24 pmjpm100, you’re entering truther territory. Stop it. Think about how ACTUALLY plausible that is.
Treacher, as usual, defeats me in blog comment combat, even though we fight on the same side. I suck at this THAT much.
Shorter Neville (Okay, not an honest assessment…): “People don’t kill people, religions kill people… except for Islam, which, when you get right down to it, is the Religion of Peace. So, seriously, why do you right-wingers want to exterminate all Muslims? I don’t get it.”
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/5/2007 @ 10:14 pmHehe, OHNOES,
I’m an atheist. Comparing the merits of different religions to me is no different than arguing about what color fur Bigfoot has…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 10:42 pmMalkins blog seems to just recycle two main stories:
1. America is at war with all Muslims
2. Anyone who questions story (1.) is a traitor
Hardly deserving of a sober response.
And I suppose your straw man is deserving of a sober response? hardly …
That we are at war is unquestionably true.
That we are at war with lots of Muslims is unquestionably true. “Lots of” doesn’t mean all, or even a significant percentage of, the approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world.
That the Muslims with whom we are at war are deadly serious about ending our civilization and killing those of us who won’t convert to Islam and observe their religious law, including I presume you and many of their fellow Muslims for that matter. Also unquestionably true.
That these Muslims hated us long before we invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq. Unquestionably true.
That the NY Times and LA Times, among others, have engaged in traitorous activities by publishing details of very sensitive intelligence programs is arguably true.
I’m left wondering how these facts might suggest less than a sober response.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/5/2007 @ 10:51 pmThose are opinions, not facts, Harry.
Some see the NY Times and the LA Times as guardians of American democracy and freedom, not traitors.
Judging by the latest election, I’d say a majority of Americans do…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/5/2007 @ 11:16 pmKathleen Carroll is happy:
Now there’s another happy thought. There could be thousands of stories just like the burned mosques/Sunnis story.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:05 amNeville, your atheism was as obvious as your lack of familiarity with the religions which you dismiss.
Simply because you refuse to believe something is true doesn’t make it an opinion, unless you seriously believe that consensus is reality…
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/6/2007 @ 2:37 amThe nice thing about a democracy is that consensus is reality, ohnoes.
It’s a safe bet that if Bush had restricted the “war” to combatting the people who actually attacked us, he’d have an appoval rating much higher than 30% and his party would still be in power.
People like Malkin who insist on portraying the “war” as an anti-Muslim crusade are aware that the concept is repugnant to most Americans.
Why do they do it knowing that they are actually hurting the cause that they claim to support?
It can’t be something as simple as greed, can it?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:08 amNeville,
You clearly have an agenda, well thought out, to present. Fact or opinions, we all have our own. It is interesting to see another perspective.
Rik (e3d6a2) — 1/6/2007 @ 4:21 amHmm, it looks like the military needs to get it’s act together. You can’t redeem your credibility by asking dead people to fight for you.
Psyberian, the Infuriating (bfbfee) — 1/6/2007 @ 5:39 amSince there appears to be more than one person with the name Jamil or some variant, there would be no way to identify him unless he owned up to being the source. Instead he slinked away and hid for 6 weeks.
This isn’t about the military’s credibility. It’s about Jamil’s.
jpm100 (851d24) — 1/6/2007 @ 5:59 amOne, apparently, reasonable poster cites reasonable
Semanticleo (e8f396) — 1/6/2007 @ 8:41 amtakes from similarly reasonable posters,(nevertheless, lamenting the Key Person and AP’s allowing too much time for wool-gathering from
certain quarters), then muddies up the water with Hamsher. What exactly is the pernt?
Hmmmm. How’s that Rule Number One of Respectful Argument thing working out Pat?
Some observations: Facts are facts. Opinions are not facts. They may or may not be fact based. The more in line with verifiable facts opinions are, the harder it is to attack them.
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Not everyone is entitled to have his or her opinion given substantial deference or respect. Many of the arguments and/or disagreements we read on these threads arise not from disrespect for the opinion expressed but from a percieved notion that the one expressing the opinion has no right to do so.
So if someone espresses the opinion that your opinion is crap, the counter argument that you have a right to your opinion is no argument at all and misses the point. It is not your right to express an opinion that’s being challenged, its the basis for that opinion.
The argument that “my opinion of the facts are…..” is no argument either. Facts are facts. Opinion as to what the facts are is only as good as the facts that support the opinion. We come full circle here.
Now the more difficult twist is variance of opinion on what the facts suggest or where they might lead. Those are logical progressions. Or, in some cases, not so logical progressions. Leaping to a conclusion is an example of not so logical progression. Right Mr. Nifong? Or the 80 or so members of the Duke faculty and staff who signed the letter in support?
Both the Bush haters and the liberal haters suffer from this affliction. These two examples by no means exhaust the field.
We don’t have to abide by Pat’s rule, but understanding that forceful agrument requires a solid understanding of the facts and logical progression to reasonable conclusions based upon them makes for better and more reasoned discourse, and less hurt feeling arising from disagreement.
When faced with the fact that someone else has a better argument, the graceful thing is to concede and move on. But few enjoy losing, many have simply fallen in love with a particular position (abortion, global warming, homosexual marriage, etc.) and are loath to let it go. And, far too many believe that saving face is more important than giving in.
And last, insults are not arguments. But gloating and taunting after a win or to assuage the anguish or a particularly galling defeat are as much a part of modern culture fried peanut butter and ‘nana sammiches. That doesn’t make them admirable qualities or add to the overall civility of discussion. But there it is.
O.K. Screw all of yez. Get back to it!
Ms. Judged (f2e636) — 1/6/2007 @ 11:42 amThat’s all I needed to hear. Thank you, and have a good day.
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:40 pmNeville,
corwin (dfaf29) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:41 pmI come from a science background,so my use of logic is probably more strict than yours.(Indeed,a put down phrase from my UG days was ,”Some of my best friends are Liberal Arts majors.”Still,you’ve lost me on post #55.Do you believe,seriously,that Mrs. Malkin is writing
“knowing it hurts a cause…and”It can’t be greed ,can it?
To help you explain;
1)What is the cause?
And how do her views impact her “greed’?If you have specifics,please let us know.She’s been a well known and presumably financially successful writer /commentator for some years,so please give at least an idea of what you perceive as her earnings and how much they’ve increased because of your postulates.(I can’t say hypothesis ,because that is something that is testable.
And, Neville.I admit to being an intellectual snob.As a favor to me,tell me a little about your educational background.
Well, corwin,
As it happens, Malkin was a reporter for my local newspaper before she got into the “commentary” game a few years ago.
She wasn’t very good at it, she had a problem with backing up her stories with facts, so I can’t imagine she made much money at it. She was actually something of a laughingstock in my town.
Estimated salary – maybe $30,000 a year.
Freed from the factual restraints of reporting, she has done much better for herself I would imagine.
Estimated salary – maybe $300-500,000 a year.
[“she had a problem with backing up her stories with fact” . . . Wow. That could be defamation, pal. You got anything to back that up? — P]
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 2:02 pmHere’s just one of her stories, P.
http://tinyurl.com/y67wu8
Note the correction her paper had to put at the top?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:12 pmThe AP story has the trolls in an uproar. If we don’t like the NY Times disclosing effective, legal and secret programs to trace funding of terrorists, we hate all Muslims. If the army makes a mistake in a mailing to encourage officers to retain their commissions, it is recruiting dead people. Are those related to the dead people who voted against Ashcroft in the election of 2000 ? We are at war with one more millennial utopian ideology, this time arising from within the frustrations of Arab failure.
The Muslims in Asia have been moderates until the recent development of Wahabbi missionary activities funded by Saudi oil money. We are not at war with all Muslims but we are with the radical minority that constitutes a big number of people, maybe ten million. Jane Hamster and company prefer to dismiss all this as a Republican plot to stay in power.
Now the Democrats are in power and they will have to deal with it. Are they a latter day version of the 1940 French politicians, who were weary of the work of governing and preferred to spend their days writing bad poetry ? Do they have the self confience and work ethic to defend our society from a serious threat ? We’ll see. Fortunately, the next two years are a preview of coming attractions. The MSM are no more serious about the war than is the new Speaker. The AP story is part of that weak response to existential threat. Is it more important to inform the public about a threat to our survival ? Or is it more important to score points against the hated George Bush ? This story isn’t over.
Mike K (416363) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:52 pmWell, I see the immoral Neville is up to its old schtick.
Western Civ is not at war with Muslims (individuals who profess a belief in Islam) but ARE at war with Islamism… a radical ideology drawn from a fundamentalist reading of Arabian Islam (if immoral Neville did any amount of actual reading it would know that non-Arab moslems are regarded as ‘second class’, not much better than the infidels that Islamists want to subjugate).
It is not opinion that Islamism has declared war on the West, it is fact. From here to here, add in Iran’s Amadawhackjob’s classic “call to Islam” letters and speeches, to Spain’s moslem community flexing some muscle, and the usual shennigans from the United State’s own terrorist-front organization CAIR and the facts on the ground are clear. Islamism is serious in their quest to establish a new Caliphate. They don’t care if it takes a couple of generations to do it, and they are pursuing a diverse strategy to achieve it, not unlike Muhammed’s original strategy of sword and deception to defeat infidels.
Moslems are religiously under no obligation to deal in good faith with any infidel.
So when such an immoral person such as Neville continues in the twin deceptions of 1) denying that there is anything wrong with Islamism and 2) labeling anyone who DOES sound alarm at such a anti-human ideology as “anti-all-Muslims… one is left with the only rational conclusion. Such a person wishes to advance the cause of Islamism.
Darleen (543cb7) — 1/6/2007 @ 4:28 pmimmoral Neville
The corrected error wasn’t a material one.
Wanna try again with the defamation?
Darleen (543cb7) — 1/6/2007 @ 4:36 pmNeville Chamberlain has a little problem backing up his comments with facts.
Of course, everyone who has written anything has made mistakes, so that kind of wording could apply to anyone — which does, I guess, get Neville off the hook as far as defamation goes.
But it does mean his comment is almost entirely content-free.
Patterico (906bfc) — 1/6/2007 @ 4:51 pm““she had a problem with backing up her stories with fact” . . . Wow. That could be defamation, pal. You got anything to back that up? — P”
“This Column By Staff Writer Michelle Malkin Contained A Factual Error Regarding Eagle Pacific Insurance.”
Problemo?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 5:03 pmNeville, as Darleen already noted the problemo is that Malkin’s factual error was not material to the premise of her article. The article wasn’t about NCCI or the unnamed reinsurer that had previously reinsured its risks and then stopped doing so, and it sure as hell wasn’t about the detail of whether that reinsurer should or should not be considered “private.” Go ahead, rewrite the article, substituting this:
for this:
Then, you tell me what impact that has on the story. Or was your only point that Malkin isn’t infallible, a point that didn’t need to be made in the first place?
Since you’ve proven yourself incompetent to answer Patterico’s question about defamation, I’ll answer it for you. Were she petty enough to sue you for the comment, here’s what to tell the judge: “I, Neville Chamberlain, if that’s my real name, am a complete idiot who has no clue what I’m talking about. I was also negligent in throwing out such goofy charges I couldn’t back up, but I didn’t actually know those idiotic charges were wrong, and was in fact too fucking stupid even to be aware enough about them to have acted with reckless disregard. God, I’m dumb. Good thing I picked a public figure to defame, huh?”
Xrlq (8e9f3c) — 1/6/2007 @ 9:34 pmHehe xrlq,
That was just one story Malkin got something wrong with. We were treated to years of her getting something wrong, and then a few days later, somethng like this would appear in her spot:
“QUICK, be the first to congratulate me!
I’ve just joined the largest club in town: People whom Michelle Malkin has misquoted, misjudged and misrepresented.”
http://tinyurl.com/yhdttr
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 10:15 pmI don’t know whether he was misquoted or not, but it sounds to me like he joined a much bigger club than that: people who read something about themselves in the news media that they didn’t like, and got pissy about it.
That’s not to say Malkin has never committed serious journalistic errors. She has, but apparently, you wouldn’t know a serious error if it invaded Poland.
Xrlq (8e9f3c) — 1/7/2007 @ 5:38 amNeville Chamberlain,
You have you provided no evidence to support your claim that Malkin indicated that “America is at war with all Muslims.” No, instead you deftly changed your attack on her to “Malkin is anti-Muslim.”
And the stories she posted were not anti-Muslim, they were anti-Islamist. If you don’t know the difference, then you need to brush up.
aunursa (3eb23a) — 1/7/2007 @ 9:20 pm