Allahpundit: Hussein Doubter Karnak
Allahpundit — whom Editor & Publisher dishonestly portrayed as a “Hussein doubter” — on November 30, 2006, noted the Ministry of the Interior’s confusion on its own spokesman’s name, because of “the conventions of Arab names,” and asked:
[I]f they could screw up their own spokesman’s name, is it possible that they’ve screwed up Jamil Hussein’s?
And guess what? According to the CPATT representative Bill Costlow, Allah’s speculation was right. Curt from Flopping Aces today quotes Costlow as giving the following explanation for the false denial that Jamil Hussein was an Iraqi police officer:
Media reports about Jamil didn’t use his name as he is known at work so we had trouble finding him (Jamil Gulaim as opposed to Jamil Hussein: the initial query we got from MNFI was for “Jamil Hussein”).
Costlow also says that Hussein is the same guy who recently denied to the MOI that he was the one who had been quoted by the AP.
I’m sure Editor & Publisher will rush to publish a piece commending Allahpundit for his predictive powers.
Ha! Just kidding. If they mention him again, they’ll just lie — again.
I’m predicting that People’s Most Beautiful People this year will be You (m.) and You (f.) because people who read people are so beautiful on the inside.
Dan Collins (208fbe) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:14 pmI said the same thing in your comments a day earlier than Allah…
I’m not sure what all these justifications are trying to prove.
Are you guys now admitting that the imaginary “liberal bias” of the “MSM” doesn’t exist and you want to be see as rational actors?
Or are you guys going to continue to slander the “MSM” with wild acusations, but you want them to only respond with fact-based counter-arguments?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:30 pmPatterico,
I recommend you rename the blog.
“Patterico’s Paranoid Fantasies.”
Thanks for keeping me in stitches all these months, man, it’s been a laugh riot.
[I don’t believe you’ve ever read my blog before. Certainly, I see no evidence that you have never commented before. The lefties who come on here with bluster, and then stay a few months, usually end up liking me, though they disagree. (There are exceptions; not all regular readers are reasonable, to be sure.) Comments like yours tend to be made by drive-by commenters. Still, since you don’t give any specifics, and since people who try to give specifics are usually inaccurate, your comment is devoid of any real value. But hey . . . thanks so much for playing. — P]
Jen (cd0a94) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:42 pmWell, if what you’re saying is “good for the goose, good for the gander” or whatever the phrase is, then I’d like to engage in a passtime you employ quite a bit here: turnabout. If you get to declare the truth by sheer force of will, I’d like to do the same.
Here it goes.
Ahem, since the AP clearly made up Hussein to peddle stories negative to the Iraq war in a massive, wholly intentional, conspiracy to enforce their ideological world-view on American foreign policy through controlling the perceptions of the electorate all while pretending to be a reliable and unbiased source of news (But, naturally, while they did this intentionally, and as secretive as possible, we were able to figure this out through simple fact checking, because, come on, they’re JOURNALISTS.), you should at least have the decency to realize this truth and not try to silence it through mindless, one-track slander of all those right-wingers.
By the way, LOOK OUT! MALKIN IS SNEAKING UP BEHIND YOU AND IN THE LIGHT YOU LOOK VAGUELY ARABIC! SHE IS PROBABLY GOING TO KILL YOU IN A FROTHING RACIST FUROR!
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:49 pmJust to make it clear, if the truth is whatever you declare it to be that you may appear the reasoned actor in your dissent, do you expect us to reply ONLY with what is actually true?
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:53 pmAre you guys now admitting that the imaginary “liberal bias” of the “MSM” doesn’t exist and you want to be see as rational actors?
Or are you guys going to continue to slander the “MSM” with wild acusations, but you want them to only respond with fact-based counter-arguments?
In the spirit of your comment, Neville, I have this question for you:
Are you going to conintue with your bullshit comments here, or are you going to stop commenting here and go back to diddling your dog?
Patterico (906bfc) — 1/6/2007 @ 12:59 pmOuch!
Let me rephrase my question.
Do you guys see yourselves:
1. In a war with the MSM to supplant them as America’s premier news source.
2. Helpful citizens who are just trying to improve the quality of the MSM’s product.
[Most assuredly as #2. — P]
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:14 pmWhat about 3)People who are concerned about the journalistic use of evidence and construction of the “truth” for mass public consumption.
Dan Collins (208fbe) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:33 pmNeville,
I know your question is for Patterico but I choose option 2. I’m a media consumer and I want to stay that way, but it seems the MSM sometimes provides a questionable product.
There are good places and bad places in Iraq. The bad places are the prime focus of media like the AP, and I understand why that is. It’s the same for my local media because bad news sells and good news is ubiquitous in America. Good news is probably common in some Iraqi locations, too, but it still doesn’t sell. More important, we need to hear the bad news from Iraq, just as we need to hear the bad news in our local communities so we can fix what doesn’t work.
I feel a greater need to be a media watchdog on information I get from Iraq because it comes from a war zone. In war, circumstances are chaotic and loyalties are questionable. The media has no patent on the ability to take a chaotic situation and produce a clear, reliable story. Updates and corrections should be the norm, not the exception, and the media and the consumer should be even more vigilant with war zone stories. Unfortunately, the AP’s reporters and editors give the impression that they don’t share that attitude – that they want us to trust them and their sources and accept whatever story line they choose to feed us.
DRJ (51a774) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:35 pmJamil identified, facing arrest? — Day 3 Updated and bumped…
CENTCOM says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police — Part 31 — Continued from this post. Never was the patient type. I’m ready for mugshots, or at least a CENTCOM news release. It’s been a good 32 hours since…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:40 pmWell, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Wouldn’t it be best to admit defeat this matter in a gracious way and move on to the next story instead of Nifonging them, then dropping the most serious charge but continuing the prosecution?
Remember, these are real people you’re attacking the credibility of, not some monolith. If you want them to respond in a cordial and timely manner to your concerns…be more civil.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:44 pmDoes the fact that Capt. Jamil Hussein was using a different name with the AP than the name he used as a policeman violate the AP’s policy on use of fictitious names?
DRJ (51a774) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:47 pmNeville,
Can you clarify whether your #11 a response to my comment #9? If so, are you suggesting that the problem is etiquette, and that if only consumers would ask nicely and say “please” they would get better information from the media?
DRJ (51a774) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:55 pmNeville,
You accuse me of slandering the MSM with wild accusations, then urge us to be civil. You seem to imply that I made an allegation that I didn’t make — that Hussein was made up by the AP — and then encourage me (and/or DRJ, who also made no such accusation) to admit defeat and move on.
I know the left doesn’t want the real questions here to be explored, and that spuriously declaring Victory and urging us to Move On is a tactic. It’s a predictable tactic. But it’s a tactic nonetheless.
Do you give a shit about any of the apparent inaccuracies in the story criticized? I don’t see any evidence that you do — nor do I see any evidence that Kathleen Carroll does. Where is the admission that they have dialed back facts on the story — such as the claim of four burned mosques — without admitting error? I’ll tell you where: it doesn’t exist.
Patterico (906bfc) — 1/6/2007 @ 1:58 pmI am concerned about the accuracy of the reporting coming out of Iraq, but my main concern is how things are going over there and I judge that by a simple method:
Have our troops come home yet? If not, Iraq is still a mess.
[But it’s be just dandy if they all come home now! — P]
As for your accusations, would a judge allow you to address them in the same manner you address the AP and the L.A. Times?
[What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Talking to you is a waste of time, dude. — P]
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 2:09 pmHehe, okay.
How about a simple question:
Do you feel you are questioning the accuracy of the AP and L.A. Times in a manner that maximizes the probability that they will improve their reporting?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 1/6/2007 @ 2:58 pmDRJ–that is a fascinating question, and given the vagaries of Arab names, it may be a difficult one to answer.
See Dubya (f7706f) — 1/6/2007 @ 3:07 pmNeville Chamberlain, Shorter: “Maybe if you tried begging. I mean, how dare they have to respond to the crass yells of such plebes…”
OHNOES (3b3653) — 1/6/2007 @ 7:16 pmAllahpundit can’t spell innuendo.
allahfundit (c929e2) — 1/6/2007 @ 7:56 pmPatterico,
I haven’t read your blog a lot, but I have been here before. I don’t know why you think I’ve never been hear before. I mainly read your blogwars with Glenn Greenwald, but I’ve bookmarked your site and visited a few times in recent weeks.
Nevertheless, you’re right: that was my first comment.
You may ultimately be right: Maybe I will come to like you more after reading more of your posts.
Jen (cd0a94) — 1/6/2007 @ 10:04 pm