Patterico's Pontifications

1/9/2007

Flopping Aces’ “Latest on Jamil Hussein” — Another Possible Interpretation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:45 pm



Curt at Flopping Aces has a post that he says is The Latest on Jamil Hussein. Curt says he has been in touch with Bill Costlow, the CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Team) representative. According to Curt:

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

From this, Curt concludes:

So what do we have so far?

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

Then, the AP’s source denies he is the source.

Color me dubious. Curt seems to be leaping straight to the conclusion that, if Costlow is right, the AP has misreported what it was told by Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the MOI spokesman. But there’s another possibility, that Curt would do well to keep in mind: that Khalaf said one thing to the AP, and another to Costlow.

I’m reading between the lines here, but it sounds like Costlow is getting his information from Khalaf. If that’s true, it would be a good idea to keep in mind that we don’t know whether to trust Khalaf. Sure, the AP could have gravely misrepresented, in an easily refutable manner, what Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf told them. But it seems to me to be more likely that Khalaf is just another Iraqi telling everybody what they want to hear.

P.S. For what it’s worth, I e-mailed Curt to ask whether Costlow said Hussein had been arrested. He replied: “No, he was questioned and denied everything.” At this point, I think it’s valid to question whether Hussein will ever be arrested. I wouldn’t trust anything I heard coming out of the MOI on this.

P.P.S. I find it ironic that lefties — who pointed and cackled like a pack of monkeys at conservatives who believed the MOI about Hussein before — are perfectly willing to believe the MOI statements they like, such as the ones quoted by the AP. This is especially ironic given all the evidence indicating that the MOI’s information is unreliable. It goes to show you that we all have a natural inclination to believe things we read, even when that information is reported in or by sources we know are unreliable. I sometimes even believe things I read in the L.A. Times!

It’s something we have to fight constantly.

But for the lefties, lack of skepticism is a relative sin; it depends on whose political ox is being gored.

Hypocrites. But we knew that.

20 Responses to “Flopping Aces’ “Latest on Jamil Hussein” — Another Possible Interpretation”

  1. It’s almost to the point that you can’t believe anything from Iraq, regardless of the source.
    One thing I can believe in though: John Moses Browning.
    I’ll put my life in his hands at any time.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  2. Lt. Kije identified, facing arrest? — Day 6…

    Part 35 of a series. Continued from this post. Nothing new to report at the moment, although a friend’s cousin’s friend is absolutely certain she saw Jamil having a drink with Elvis in a little bar just off the Vegas…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  3. Your instinct that the Iraqi is just saying yes to everyone looks sound to me, if unproven. It has the ringiness of truth.

    But this raises a question:

    “For what it’s worth, I e-mailed Curt to ask whether Costlow said Hussein had been arrested. He replied: “No, he was questioned and denied everything.” ”

    Who is the “he” here — Capt. Jamil Hussein? Or Capt. Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim?

    Harry Eyeball (f86e7d)

  4. Is “Bill Costlow” an official spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Interior now?

    Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa)

  5. Who is the “he” here — Capt. Jamil Hussein? Or Capt. Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim?

    Gulaim, I assume.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  6. Even if Gulaim is Hussein, doesn’t the fact he now denies it prettymuch garbage his credibility?

    Even if one of the reasons could be a possible reprisal that doesn’t restore credibility. Its always the case when someone says something newsworthy that there’s risk of reprisal. That reasoning would make any inflammatory or outrageous claim anyone ever made anywhere credible. I mean we can dust of Clinton Conspiracy theories if you want.

    So now that AP’s source has lost all credibility, what about those stories that were based on Hussein’s accounts? Where’s the retractions?

    jpm100 (851d24)

  7. To follow up my comment, no matter what Kalaf said to AP, Gulaim/Hussein’s credibility is now gone.

    There is still a question about AP’s standards in its sources and what the motivations of Hussein (this one or a different one). But now that AP’s Hussein has lost all credibility what is AP going to do about it?

    jpm100 (851d24)

  8. Even if one of the reasons could be a possible reprisal that doesn’t restore credibility. Its always the case when someone says something newsworthy that there’s risk of reprisal. That reasoning would make any inflammatory or outrageous claim anyone ever made anywhere credible. I mean we can dust of Clinton Conspiracy theories if you want.

    The real question to consider: now that the friend of the friend of the friend in Iraq said something, will the dead Capt. Hussein reported raise from the grave? Will Capt. Hussein’s outrageous claim, on par with Clinton’s conspiracy theories (that people die in Baghad) be reverted? Will Moqtada Al-Sadr’s good name, whose reputation of a mass murderer depends solely on Capt. Hussein’s reporting, be cleansed? Remember, those stories are the only evidence we have of systematic, widespread slaughter of Sunnis by death squads?

    NN (d035f8)

  9. But for the lefties, lack of skepticism is a relative sin; it depends on whose political ox is being gored.

    Hypocrites. But we knew that.

    Hey, a the current moment HotAir features at the top a story about Democratic Congressman insulting Bush and Cheney, which is a rumor at best, a planted story at worse. Given the fact that story goes inside Congressman’s mind (Kagen did this because Kagen learned that the meanest thing you can say to another gentleman is he is a fine fellow and you then refer to his spouse by a different name.), it really looks like something planted by a rival side.

    Nobody questions authenticity of the story at HotAir. Not a single person.

    [The first four words in the Hot Air post: “The source is sketchy . . .” — P]

    NN (9c16c2)

  10. The first four words in the Hot Air post: “The source is sketchy . . .” — P

    OK, not a single person in the comment section questioned authenticity, while Allah gives this story “fake but accurate” treatment: “The source is sketchy but the details are characteristically boorish.”

    NN (9c16c2)

  11. “…Democratic Congressmen insulting Bush and Cheney…”

    Since when is that news?

    Dubya (c16726)

  12. Since when is that news?

    Oh, sure, since everybody knows that Democrats love to insult Bush, any particular report about such event should not be questioned, even if it’s “Pelosi has voodoo dolls of all the Bush family”. Just as everybody knows that Iraq is a violent place, and it’s absurd to question any reports about violence there.

    NN (d035f8)

  13. Why would some question authenticity when it clearly has already been done?

    G (722480)

  14. Again like I pointed out several days ago what had probably happened was that Jamil was questioned by the MOI and he denied being the AP shrill. But then the AP launched its story about how Jamil was being “arrested” and the fact that the MOI asked the AP to “finger” him else they would drop the charges.

    So we got to the mexican standoff. AP wont say that jamil is their guy and the MOI will have to let him go. All the while the AP news will tout it was proven “Correct” that there was a Jamil Hussien.

    AP News was just looking for any way out of this just by proving “Hussien” existed. That was their only goal here.

    Bloggers MUST keep the fire going.

    Bill Amos (b7c504)

  15. Shorter NN: “LOOK OVER TERE!” *Quickly attempts to wheel away AP story*

    Maybe if it was a story that actually merited caring about, and was actually featured, as opposed to being splayed in the right column along with the NONSTOP Rosie vs. Donald Trump coverage, you’d have a dang fine point. But I’d be surprised if more than a fraction of Hot Air’s readers gave it a second glance.

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  16. Patterico sez: “But for the lefties, lack of skepticism is a relative sin; it depends on whose political ox is being gored. Hypocrites. But we knew that.”

    Patterico foolishly assumes that anything that can be labelled “skepticism” is equally plausible, equally well-founded. A person who doesn’t sign on to some of Patterico’s Area 54 ramblings, while remaining skeptical of another press story is not a hypocrite. They are using something called judgement, a faculty which Patterico could stand to use a little more frequently (see Iraq, War in).

    m.croche (85f703)

  17. Where is the good judgment in believing the MOI now?

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  18. Patterico foolishly assumes that anything that can be labelled “skepticism” is equally plausible, equally well-founded.

    Er… did you READ Patterico’s quote? I mean, the quote is right there, man. You copy-pasted it. You HAD to have read it. It is impossible for you to not have. So, clearly, somewhere in the process of reading it, something must have exploded in your brain, and you were left with this ridiculous caricature of our esteemed host that barely deserves, much less survives, a second glance.

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  19. Oh, sure, since everybody knows that Democrats love to insult Bush, any particular report about such event should not be questioned, even if it’s “Pelosi has voodoo dolls of all the Bush family”.

    The first 4 words of the story are still “The source is sketchy…” That said, the source which is The Scene magazine, reports having heard about these exchanges from Kagan himself. Would you like to question the story, NN? Start with The Scene, and please let us know how sketchy they are for reporting direct quotes from Kagan.

    BTW, the portion of the HA piece in which Kagan’s website is shown to have been cut and pasted from Jeff Fortenberry’s site is both hilarious and uncontested. Care to take that on too?

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  20. Finally, the story makes sense. Thank you!

    Don Surber (1e4911)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2514 secs.