Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2007

The Latest on Jamil Redacted: Sorry, I Don’t Get It

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:10 pm



This Jamil Whatever story is getting so confusing, I may stop trying to follow it, at least for a while. There are so many contrary facts coming out, it’s impossible to know what to believe.

The latest (UPDATE III here — Curt, you should do a new post when you have new info!) is that apparently, Jamil’s personnel file says that his name is really “Jamil Gulaim [redacted].” (The redacted name is not Hussein.) From Curt’s CPATT source:

Curt,

Seems like every time I talk to somebody about this guy, his name changes. His personnel record says his name is: Jamil Gulaim (Redacted).

Spokesman BG Abdul-Kareem has spoken with members of the AP in Baghdad and has confirmation that he is their source. That said, CPT Jamil still denies ever speaking to them.

As far as the MOI is concerned, CPT Jamil gave the AP bad information: there’s still no evidence the six murders occurred.

V/R
Bill

This is as clear as mud. How did the spokesman confirm with the AP that Mr. Redacted is the source? Did he show them a picture, or what?

Bob Owens says: “And so a major Associated Press claim in “Jamilgate” takes an apparently fatal hit.” I can’t agree with that at this point, because I don’t trust, or even completely understand, the information I’m getting. It all traces back to the MOI, and to completely believe them at this point without solid corroboration, you’d have to be a sucker, in my view.

Allah begs to differ with Bob Owens, saying:

I would think the bigger scoop is the fact that we now have independent confirmation, via Curt’s source, that the man known to AP readers as “Jamil Hussein” exists and is indeed a police officer at Khadra.

I can’t completely agree with that, either — at least until I understand how the heck we are supposed to know this. And I’m at the point where a CPATT rep, repeating claims by the MOI spokesman, doesn’t cut it for me.

Get me evidence, or at least more detail and clarity. Or I’ll just give up and watch this play out.

Maybe Michelle Malkin will come up with something I can understand.

UPDATE: Let me make clear what I’m confused about. Everyone is running around screeching that the AP knowingly used a pseudonym.

What is the proof?

58 Responses to “The Latest on Jamil Redacted: Sorry, I Don’t Get It”

  1. Does this post give us permission to guess or are you through with this topic? Because if we get to guess, here are my findings of fact:

    1. The AP claims a person name Capt. Jamil G. Hussein provided information that was used in AP articles over the past 2 years and that referred to him by name from April-November 2006.

    2. The substance of the articles involved violence in the Baghdad area, but whether that violence was committed by Sunni, Shia, or both is unclear at this time (unless someone with access to the articles has done an analysis that I can’t find). At least one of the AP articles – the burning mosques/immolation story – involved violence against Sunnis.

    3. The AP initially identified its source as “Capt. Jamil Hussein” and later as “Capt. Jamil Gholaiem Hussein” who is/was “assigned to the Khadra police station.”

    4. Various persons and entities, including the US military, questioned the authenticity and reliability of the Sunni immolation story and, by extension, of Capt. Jamil Hussein. The questions intensified over the course of several weeks.

    5. According to the AP:

    “[Iraqi Interior] Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
    ***
    Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein’s existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record.”

    6. Capt. Jamil Hussein’s real name may be Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] and he may not use the name Hussein as a police officer.

    Based on these facts, I think it’s reasonable to conclude:

    1. The Iraqi MOI searched for a police officer in Baghdad named Jamil G. Hussein and found no one by that name probably because there is no police officer in Baghdad by that name. Given the interests of all parties in this matter, it seems unlikely that Capt. Jamil Hussein could not be located after this period of time if he did exist and used that name.

    2. The Iraqi MOI suspected/learned that Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] might be the police officer referred to as Capt. Jamil Hussein in the AP articles. Maybe they interviewed or investigated every policeman and/or police officer in the Khadra station, including other police officers who reported they saw Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] meet in his office over a 2 year period with known AP reporters – as the AP claims. Or maybe Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] admitted privately to a trusted superior or fellow officer that he is Capt. Jamil Hussein and the word was passed unofficially to the Iraqi MOI. In any event, the Iraqi MOI has apparently reported (according to the AP) that it “found” Capt. Jamil Hussein but the MOI never stated that he was listed under that name in police records.

    3. The facts we *apparently* know are consistent with the Iraqi MOI announcing that:

    a. No one by the name of Jamil G. Hussein was an officer at the Khadra police station,

    b. The person known to the AP as Capt. Jamil G. Hussein was an officer at the Khadra police station who goes by the name Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein], and

    c. The Iraqi MOI learned or suspected that Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] was the person known to the AP as Capt. Jamil Hussein based on its investigations, and the MOI was certain enough of that information to notify the AP of its knowledge/suspicions.

    IMO:
    The real question is – How, exactly, did the Iraqi MOI report this information to the AP? Reading the AP’s statements carefully, and I’ve quoted from one above, it is not clear that the Iraqi MOI identified Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] as “Capt. Jamil Hussein” when it notified the AP that Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] exists. The AP has identified him as Capt. Jamil Hussein but that doesn’t mean the Iraqi MOI used that name. In other words, the AP reports may conflate 2 facts into a conclusion that sounds bad for the MOI and good for the AP. The 2 facts are:

    1. That the AP relied on a person it identified as Capt. Jamil Hussein, and

    2. That the person the AP relied on exists.

    However, this doesn’t mean that a person named Capt. Jamil Hussein exists, nor that the Iraqi MOI ever said a person by that name exists. It only means that the AP reported these 2 facts. The AP’s reports continue to use the name Capt. Jamil Hussein, implying that the MOI used that name, too.

    Shorter version:

    Why didn’t the AP print the actual statements issued by the Iraqi MOI? From what I’ve read, the AP summarizes the findings of the MOI but doesn’t give us the official statements. Maybe the MOI has provided accurate information each time that was then published by the AP according to its frame of reference – that Capt. Jamil G. Hussein exists and is the AP’s source.

    I doubt anyone has read this far but if you have, I think it’s possible Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] used a pseudonym to protect his identity and the AP may not have known he did this. It’s also possible the parties agreed he would use a pseudonym and the AP decided its policy against fictitious names did not apply in this case – perhaps with good reason. Either way, I’m not convinced that the Iraqi MOI has ever given incorrect information in this case. I think it’s possible the AP attempted to shield its source, for good or bad reasons, and to that end used paraphrased language in reporting the Iraqi MOI’s statements.

    DRJ (51a774)

  2. I read it all. Makes as much sense as anything else. I appreciate attempts to sift through this and figure out what we know and what we don’t know.

    I doubt anyone has read this far but if you have, I think it’s possible Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] used a pseudonym to protect his identity and the AP may not have known he did this.

    I read that far, and I was thinking the same thing, which is why I wonder in the post: what is the proof that the AP knew he was using a pseudonym?? I don’t think there is any proof. I think people are leaping to conclusions.

    Again.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  3. DRJ–good points all. I was thinking along these lines.

    See Dubya (4217f4)

  4. The real question is – How, exactly, did the Iraqi MOI report this information to the AP? Reading the APs statements carefully, and Ive quoted from one above, it is not clear that the Iraqi MOI identified Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] as Capt. Jamil Hussein when it notified the AP that Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] exists.

    They could have ID’d him in one of two ways.

    1. Visually, if MOI showed them a photo of Jamil Hussein.
    2. By name, if MOI said to them, “Is Jamil Hussein really Jamil X?”

    If it’s the former, they might have been duped by Jamil. If it’s the latter, they acted in concert with him to conceal his identity. I agree, there’s no way to know based on the current info which it was — but recall that in one article, they said they met with him face to face in his office. Were there no identifying marks on his uniform or in his office that would have tipped them to his real identity? I suppose that’s possible, esp. for a policeman looking to keep a low profile, but surely they did some checking on the guy’s identity before they started using him as a source, no?

    I myself am done with the Jamil Hussein angle to this story. I don’t trust anyone involved anymore to give us an answer that’s both straight and sensible. We’ll see what Michelle comes back with re: the mosques and the burning six incident itself.

    [I think it makes a big difference whether it’s #1 or #2. In other words, did Jamil Whatever dupe the AP, or did the AP dupe us? I see a lotta people assuming the latter. My guess is, it was the former.

    The ethics of knowingly using a pseudonym without disclosing it don’t really matter unless that’s what happened. And we don’t know that.

    As I say, I may be done with this angle as well. Nothing is clear, and I don’t trust the AP or the MOI. — P]

    Allah (bab333)

  5. Allah,

    I doubt that either option you offer is what happened because both require cooperation by the AP, and I seriously doubt the AP has cooperated in identifying its source. It’s far more likely that the Iraqi MOI relied on circumstantial evidence (such as those I suggested above) to ID the AP’s source.

    Furthermore, I’m not ready to give up on learning more about Capt. Jamil Hussein. At this point, he’s the key to at least 61 AP articles and probably more, since he’s been an AP source for 2 years. I also want to learn more about the articles for which he was a source and whether they had a clear Sunni or Shiite slant. The end result may be to verify the authenticity of those stories and, if so, that’s fine. But I want to know if the AP has provided information from a questionable informant for the past 2 years. That’s too much time and too many stories to ignore.

    DRJ (51a774)

  6. On the other hand, I’ve read suggestions that the AP and the Iraqi MOI have reached detente on this issue. If so, then the AP may have cooperated with the MOI and that probably means this story is over because the central parties want it to be.

    DRJ (51a774)

  7. OK Jamil AKA you take your pick.

    The bottom line is did six Sunnis and six Sunni mosques burn? The later does not appear to be true so that calls into question the former.

    Let’s not forget the good captain has been the source of stories all over fricken Baghdad. The guy does get around or he’s relying on other people.

    Let’s see if there are any things out there that would tend to support his other stories.

    Further does there seem to be a Shiia/Sunni twist to these stories.

    RBT’s gut feeling is Jamil is Sunni, has ties to the former Saddam Regime, and is hyping perhaps creating these stories to further inflame fellow Sunnis to rise up against the Shiia. The AP is a willing ear.

    RBT

    rocketsbrain (6afb08)

  8. This Jamil Whatever story is getting so confusing, I may stop trying to follow it, at least for a while. There are so many contrary facts coming out, its impossible to know what to believe.

    Yes, you’ve certainly done you’re darndest to make that so. Congrats, hope you’re proud of yourself. You’ve made it that much harder for us to get a full picture of what’s going on in our names.

    [Yeah, whatever. I think it was Allah who said: “You suck.” He was both pithy and right. — P]

    THeDRiFTeR (42fcbd)

  9. Proven: “Jamil Hussein” does not exist! (Updated, bumped)…

    Part 36 of a series. Continued from this post.J-DAMNConfederate Yankee And so a major Associated Press claim in Jamilgate takes an apparently fatal hit. According to Bill Costlow of CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Team) in Baghdad, and as fo…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  10. Curt had Mr Redacted’s full name on his blog for a while and decided after a round of emails with other bloggers to redact it. I followed his lead in doing so, after having the full name on my blog for a few minutes. There’s no point in getting holes drilled in the guy’s head if he really isn’t APs source, and he still says he isn’t. I favor giving him a fair trial, then stringing him up.

    Bill Faith (3cc7e8)

  11. On further thought, there is a logical argument and some evidence that discredits the AP on this issue. Here’s what the AP has said:

    (A). Capt. Jamil Hussein was an AP source.
    (B). The AP’s source exists.

    Therefore:

    (C). Capt. Jamil Hussein exists.

    The AP told us (A) so presumably (A) is true. According to the AP, the Iraqi MOI said (B) is true. The AP’s subsequent statements have stated or implied that (C) is true but we don’t know that because we don’t have the text of the MOI’s statements, nor do we have a quote from the MOI spokesman. What we have is an AP statement that Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf “… said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station …” Is that exactly what Khalaf said, or did he say Jamil G. [redacted but not Hussein] is an officer? Maybe a police officer named Capt. Jamil Hussein exists, or maybe the AP’s source is a person/police officer who has another name. At this point, we don’t know because, to my knowledge, the AP has never provided a direct quote nor published an official statement.

    So let’s assume the MOI issued a statement that a person named Capt. Jamil Hussein exists who is or could be the AP’s source. If that’s true, then why didn’t the AP print the full text of that statement for the world to read, or provide a direct quote from the MOI spokesman? Why summarize when the admission would be so much more compelling?

    Thus, I think it’s logical that the MOI spokesman’s statement was (B) the AP’s source exists, rather than (C) Capt. Jamil Hussein exists. If that’s the case, then the MOI has been accurate: First, there is no Capt. Jamil Hussein; and, Second, the AP’s source does exist – albeit under another name. And if the MOI has been accurate, then the AP’s statements are unsettling.

    So while I remain open to the possibility that the AP has acted to protect the safety of its source, I think there is a scintilla of evidence (the AP’s failure to provide a quote or the text of the MOI statements regarding Capt. Jamil Hussein) that casts doubt on the AP’s position.

    DRJ (51a774)

  12. Is there anyone who considers ‘Jamil Hussein’ a credible source now?

    If a named source won’t stand up and be identified, he is less credible than an anonymous e-mail. And considering AP used him as a major source or only source in over 60 stories, the focus should be on AP’s practices.

    The ‘Jamil’ questions has become more a curiosity to the story than what is important about the story.

    jpm100 (851d24)

  13. Who is on first?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  14. I argued with someone on another blog a while back who was saying the emphasis on Jamil Hussein in this story was a mistake (though for different reasons) but I felt confident if the point was pressed JH would prove to have been a total fraud.

    I may have been wrong on that, and that person was right, for the wrong reasons, as few people even talk about the main point now – accuracy in reporting (particularly from Iraq). I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but it does seem that the story at the heart of this, as reported by the AP, is essentially untrue. I’d say there’s more weight behind that than there ever was against Jamil Hussein being a fraud or complete fabrication. And this development is very unfortunate.

    This man was a source for over 60 stories, right? How many of those were rumors floating around that were granted a solid legitimacy by the AP simply because Jamil Hussein said “Yes, I confirm that.” Maybe none, maybe some, maybe almost all. Because when it comes right down to it, that’s pretty much all the AP went with on this story. The word of this man.

    Someone recently went through the other stories he was involved with (I think) and none of them had independent confirmation either. What if all of those stories are untrue or exaggerated? That’s the story, and I think it’s simply become a side point to some, in their zeal to win the battle of Jamil G. [or not]Hussein. But I’m not sure people outside the blogosphere are going to care anymore unless there is a smoking gun demonstrating the inherent dishonesty of the initial reporting. Photographs showing all of the mosques untouched would be a start, but would be insufficient by themselves. The AP would simply ignore it and so would everyone else who went out on a limb and got burned on this story before. Other aspects of the story would have to be debunked, which conveniently pretty much can not be since they were either anonymous confirmations or never existed or are dead and buried in…well, who knows where.

    thelinyguy (e32b76)

  15. It may be that I’m looking at this topic in too much of a lawyer-like fashion but it’s often the case that we can’t tell who is telling the truth in a dispute. In those cases, it is helpful to evaluate the credibility of the people involved and any circumstantial evidence. The Duke case is an extreme example of this type of case – a “he said/she said” case where the circumstantial evidence and credibility of the parties aids in determining the truth. Similarly, I think it’s important to evaluate any circumstantial evidence and the credibility of the AP, the MOI, and Capt. Jamil Hussein in the past weeks as well as trying to verify the specific AP articles.

    Capt. Jamil Hussein isn’t going to make me believe or disbelieve everything the AP publishes, but it contributes to my decision.

    DRJ (51a774)

  16. It’s possible (and might even be likely or true) that there’s a real person (JG Alpha) who was a source for the AP, calling himself JG Beta to protect himself; and then the AP stringer (not knowing he was really JGA) called him JG Hussain to protect him. Those in the AP here have no knowedge of this — somewhat innocent — double deception, and it all follows from that.

    It does break their rules about using a pseudonym, however. As it stands, they have someone that they consider a “named source” that the rest of the media can’t find. An embarrassing position to be in, leading to the angry denials and subsequent nasty replies.

    Welcome to planet Earth.

    htom (412a17)

  17. HTOM,

    Agreed but, once again, I think it depends on what the Iraqi MOI told the AP:

    1. If the MOI told the AP: “There is a Capt. Jamil Hussein and we were wrong when we said there wasn’t,” then the AP is vindicated. There is still the question of whether Capt. Hussein’s stories are reliable, but the AP’s insistence that he existed and was a police officer would be validated.

    2. If, on the other hand, the MOI told the AP: “There is not a Capt. Jamil Hussein but there is a police officer by another name who is or might have been your source,” then in my view the AP is still in trouble … but not because of the pseudonym issue. In the circumstances in Baghdad, it might be wise to use a pseudonym if you are a semi-public person and don’t have bodyguards, although I think journalistic ethics require that the AP should have used him as an unnamed source rather then under a fictitious name.

    However, the problem is the way the AP wrote its articles after the MOI announced that the AP’s source exists. If the MOI told the AP that its source has another name – a name the AP did not know about – then the AP should not have attacked its critics so vocally because there was a legitimate reason to be concerned about Capt. Jamil Hussein. Similarly, if the AP knew about the pseudonym all along, an explanation would still be in order, such as “Our source exists but because we had taken steps to protect his identity, that contributed to the MOI’s initial confusion in identifying him.”

    Thus, if the AP’s source is not named Jamil Hussein, when did the AP learn this and what did it do after that point?

    DRJ (51a774)

  18. We are getting caught up in the minutia of this guys name and completely ignoring the fact that his stories are bogus.

    I dont care what he calls himself its his stories that are phoney and its the AP News that allowed phoney stories to be published.

    [How is it a “fact” that his stories are bogus? — P]

    Bill Amos (32969c)

  19. It’s the dog not barking… me thinks the proof that the AP’s source was using a pseudonym can be found in the AP’s not trotting the guy out and proving his identity.

    There are but a few reasons I can think of why they haven’t done so. One: they knew he used a pseudonym and don’t want to admit it, especially to a bunch of idiotic bloggers. Two: they didn’t know he used a pseudonym but are unwilling to fess up to a bunch of idiotic bloggers that they were had. Three: the guy didn’t use a pseudonym and the AP is passing up the opportunity to make a bunch of idiotic bloggers look even more ridiculous.

    Given that we can all agree that #3 is a tad unlikely, that the MSM would never pass up the opportunity to jump on conservative bloggers, I’m figuring it’s got to be one of the first two possibilities… and given the choice between admitting to having been had and having people think they were dishonest, I figure that had the AP been deceived by their source, they would admit as such to both correct the record and to remove the suspicion that they were dishonest.

    So, since they haven’t stepped up, I’m okay with thinking they knew he was using a pseudonym…

    steve sturm (9e95c8)

  20. I find the AP failure to provide Jamil when questioned troubling. At the least, it is arrogant. At the most, it is covering up a mistake. Probably, it is covering not knowing what the hell they were doing. Even if we are looking at the least case, we have AP failing to follow their motto (of providing news), since the prescence or lack of prescense of Jamil is news. Instead of looking for news (even if it shows them looking bad), they seem interested in defending themselves. Reminds me of the CBS response to the Rather memos. These journalists are really not that smart or that Roman judge-like honest.

    TCO (139e4c)

  21. Jamil, We Hardly Knew Ye…

    Under no circumstances should anybody even imagine, even for a nanosecond entertain the notion, that this post is by our dearest Michelle (who is either in Iraq or in next-door Okinawa, as I understand it, but I’ve never been either……

    Michelle Malkin (3ca10e)

  22. First off, has anyone tried to get copies of those MOI statements independently of AP?

    Second, I agree with the commenters who say this is a sideshow. It boils down to this: there is–a an Iraqi policeman named Jamil, with a dubious last name, whom AP used as a source of what seems to be fairly dubious information. I’m much more concerned about the dubious information than I am with the dubious policeman.

    Was there any independent confirmation of any of the information Jamil provided AP? If there is, did AP provide it, and if AP did not provide it, why didn’t they provide it. If there is no independent confirmation [which seems to be the case, going by the comments above], why did AP not get any? (This applies whether or not the stories sourced to Jamil turn out to be true.)

    Or did AP reporters go to the same school of journalism as Reuters photographers?

    kishnevi (36db12)

  23. Kishnevi,

    This Confederate Yankee post (cross-posted at NewsBusters) is the only thing I’ve found where someone tried to corroborate the Jamil Hussein stories with other stories on the web.

    DRJ (51a774)

  24. Jamil is not a name, it’s a nickname. It just means “good-looking” in Arabic. Coupled with “Hussein” it’s the equivalent of Pretty Boy Smith.

    nk (d7a872)

  25. [How is it a “fact” that his stories are bogus? — P]

    Lets take the burning mosques story. Even the AP now states the ONLY source of this story is jamil and some unkown people who say the bodies were taken to a morgue that DOES NOT EXIST !

    Its AP’s follow up that troubles me alot. They went in with the idea that they needed to back up Jamil with other info RATHER than seeing if this story was true or not.

    In their attempt to paint their story as the truth rather than attempt to find the truth really makes the AP News appear bad here.

    Remember US troops and others have been to the area and have seen no evidence of this event having happened.

    So again where is the proof this story exists outside of Jamil saying it does ?

    Bill Amos (32969c)

  26. Going by Confederate Yankee, there’s one story out of 60 that can be confirmed by sources outside AP.

    But I was thinking of something different–did AP ever try to verify Jamil’s stories from other sources before publishing them? Is there any sign of a second source inside the AP stories themselves. (Not having read the stories myself, I have a hunch that none of them do.) If AP didn’t, then that by itself is a pretty damning evidence of their practices–even if the Jamil stories were all 100 percent accurate.

    BTW, there is at least on Jamil online who is a reliable source of information. Although it’s a pseudonym, and he transcribes it Jameel, and he’s in the Shomrom, not Iraq:
    http://muqata.blogspot.com/

    kishnevi (6b3828)

  27. Iraq is a civil paradise.

    The idea that six people could be murdered by being soaked with accelerants and burned alive is preposterous!

    Darn that MSM!!!111

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  28. To whom are you sarcastically responding?

    And don’t think I didn’t notice that you didn’t answer my recent questions.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  29. 1. There are transliteration issues between names in Arabic and in English. Is his name Jamail or Djamil or Djamel or Jamel? Hussein or Husein or Husayen?

    2. American/Western name protocols are different from Arab name protocols. For example, I have a friend whose name is el-Mansouri Mohammed el-Hassan. His passport says Hassan Mansouri, however. Abbas in Palestine goes by the “nom de guerre” of Abu Mazzen. You’re reaching around the world into a different culture and language. Don’t be surprised if things work somewhat differently from how they work in Peoria or Norman, Oklahoma.

    3. There is an extremely violent war with senseless sectarian killing taking place all around him. Is it any wonder if it turns out that he has intentionally added a small measure of obfuscation to his name?

    Remember Occam’s Razor, folks.

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  30. I agree with all that, actually.

    Doesn’t mean you’re answering my questions.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  31. That’s why our culture and way of life is superior in every respect, Librul Avenger.

    When my 300 pound wife gave birth in our trailer, it’s not like I wondered whether I should name our blood-bought baptized son Jethro, or Gethro, or Djethrow…

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  32. I couldn’t find your questions.

    Which questions do you mean?

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  33. TLA,

    One would think Iraqis (such as the Iraqi police and the MOI) would have some experience with Arab names. Who could have imagined that they would be as confused by Jamil Hussein’s name as we Americans?

    DRJ (51a774)

  34. These questions.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  35. 1. My name is Brian M. What’s your name?

    2. My point is that it is ironic that you and yours consider yourselves to be Iraq experts, reinterpreting the war from the safety of your basements. You look very foolish fanning the flames of your own conservative blogger assumptions about the war while simultaneously shitting upon the work of professional journalists who are living and working in Iraq proper.

    Make sense?

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  36. One would think Iraqis (such as the Iraqi police and the MOI) would have some experience with Arab names. Who could have imagined that they would be as confused by Jamil Hussein’s name as we Americans?

    I hear tell of the funky letterings what they use in A-rabistan—unlike Latin transliterations, the A-rabic alphabet can unambiguously represent words in the A-rabic language. So it’s not likely that those camel jockeys would work with a furrin (superior) alphabet as well.

    They use a different language than us? *hic* Queers.

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  37. 1. My name is Brian M. What’s your name?

    It’s Brian M.?

    “M”???

    Should I dial you for murder?

    My name is hardly a secret. If you really cared to know, you’d know. It’s all over the site.

    2. My point is that it is ironic that you and yours consider yourselves to be Iraq experts, reinterpreting the war from the safety of your basements. You look very foolish fanning the flames of your own conservative blogger assumptions about the war while simultaneously shitting upon the work of professional journalists who are living and working in Iraq proper.

    Make sense?

    No.

    I consider myself an Iraq expert?

    I have a basement?

    I’ve actually been working on a post that responds to a question you meant as snark, but which I decided to take as serious: how is my Iraq reporting different from the AP’s Jamil Hussein reporting? I start by noting several ways in which my reporting is inferior. #1 is that I’m not there.

    In short, you’re full of shit. Typical of you, you lump me in with a bunch of other right-wingers and don’t look at what I say.

    And your name isn’t really “Brian M.”

    Come on. If you’re going to answer the questions, do so honestly.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  38. I have a basement?

    I’ll give you that. Brian M. is wrong on this account: trailers don’t have basements.

    But that’s besides the point. If you think the A-rabs are such a menace to Western civilization, then enlist in the military and you can blog from Iraq with credibility.

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  39. I have never met a person with a real name yet who advances the chickenhawk argument. It is reserved for use exclusively by people like yourself, who accuse others of cowardice, but are too cowardly even to post comments on the Internet using your real name — an act that would require far less bravery than enlisting.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  40. I don’t recall ever deploying the chickenhawk argument. Not here. Not anywhere.

    As for me, I’m not interested in joining the service. I have other priorities.*

    I think I’m also too old, although I’ve heard that we’ve been scraping the bottom of the barrel lately in order to keep supplying our cannons in Iraq with fodder.


    *”I had other priorities” is how Dick Cheney explained his multiple deferments from entering the service during the Vietnam War. He spent the war as a teacher’s assistant in the economics department of a small, private, midwestern colleg.

    [I believe you implied I am a coward for not going to Iraq — from behind your veil of semi-anonymity. Mr. “M.” — P (aka Patrick Frey)]

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  41. Happy, asshole?

    Assuming that is your real name—who the hell has a name like Patterico anyway? Sounds like Italian slang for ‘chickenhawk conservative’.

    [What do you do for a living, Mr. Made Up Name? And where? — P]

    Theerasak Photha (2c641e)

  42. Well, I, Theerasak Photha am going to be a college student in a few days.

    Where? I’m not telling you. Stop stalking me. I won’t be your butt-buddy.

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  43. Well, I, Theerasak Photha am going to be a college student in a few days.

    Honestly, who thought this gent was over the age of 18, given the quality of his commenting…

    LIBERAL AVENGER, DON’T GIVE OUT YER NAME! IT IS A TRAP! You KNOW the second you do, Malkin’s trained group of attack readers will track you down and GUT YOU LIKE A FISH, because that is what ALL conservatives on the internets do.

    Because, you know, unlike liberals, conservatives are very intolerant of those who disagree with them.

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  44. What is the origin of the name OHNOES? Is it Finnish or something?

    I pity you and Patterico both. Had you come out of a hole just a few inches away, you might have been human.

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  45. I see… childish namecalling. That’s it. Look, if I want childish namecalling, I’ll engage liberals in person. I mean, I’m sure you believe… whatever it is you do so strongly that you simply must caricature your opponents childishly to avoid engaging them… but that’s hardly enough to merit a response. I mean, look at you… you’re casting conservatives as exceptionalist hicks. Geez louise, you’re on the CUTTING EDGE of comedy gold, man!

    Then again, you’re, what, 17? 18? I thought I was funny at that age, too.

    Buddy, do all of us, yourself included, a favor and hightail it back to whatever echo-chamber linked Patterico and sent ye here. Come back in a few years, depending on the college, you might have actually learned that there is more to conversation on the vast internets than name-calling.

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  46. What name did I call you, other than the (presumably fake) one you gave me?

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  47. Hehe… yeah, have a good night. You need the sleep more than I do, kid.

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  48. Well, I’m waiting for an answer, OHNOES.

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  49. Buddy, do all of us, yourself included, a favor and hightail it back to whatever echo-chamber linked Patterico and sent ye here. Come back in a few years, depending on the college, you might have actually learned that there is more to conversation on the vast internets than name-calling.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    This is what happens when you spend too much time in front of the Read-Eval-Print loop.

    (BTW—don’t you find it ironic that you used Dubya’s retard neologism ‘internets’ to mock me?)

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  50. No – I wasn’t implying that you are a coward for not going to Iraq. I have seen no indications that you are a coward.

    I am, however, critical of your schtick of late. You are a blogger from Los Angeles, and you appear to be operating under the assumption that you are in possession of the truth about what is happening in Iraq, while the Associated Press (or the LA Times or Reuters or …) is either deliberately spreading falsehoods or too incompetent to be trusted.

    That’s all.

    The Liberal Avenger (c93dac)

  51. Brian, Brian, Brian—how many times must I tell you? Those fancy-pants libruls in the Associated Press who are burying their dead in Iraq don’t have CORNBREAD COMMON SENSE.

    *sigh*

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  52. 2. My point is that it is ironic that you and yours consider yourselves to be Iraq experts, reinterpreting the war from the safety of your basements.

    Well first off that’s a strawman. Most people have an interest in Iraq, and having opinions on it does not mean those people think they’re experts anymore than you do.

    You look very foolish fanning the flames of your own conservative blogger assumptions about the war while simultaneously shitting upon the work of professional journalists who are living and working in Iraq proper.

    You know, I really just don’t get it. There are quite a few indications that many of the stories the AP puts out are nothing more than rumors that are only reported because of the word of Jamail Hussein. There is no other independent confirmation. It appears the story in focus is at the very least not completely true, and may be completely fabricated, which calls into question the 60 other stories of his that also have no other independent confirmation.

    That doesn’t bother you? No? Well, perhaps this thing has sailed right over your head because it fits your assumptions of the war. Everyone realizes there’s violence, but it always seems to be liberals that don’t really mind it being exaggerated by false reports. Truth be damned, I guess, if it doesn’t serve the bigger truth.

    As for shitting on the AP’s work, if it wasn’t so inherently shitty people wouldn’t criticize it. That’s how things work. Not many dispute the bravery of those who are actually in Iraq, but if they’re not going to get it right, they sure as hell shouldn’t just print any old thing they hear about.

    thelinyguy (e32b76)

  53. I think I’m also too old, although I’ve heard that we’ve been scraping the bottom of the barrel lately in order to keep supplying our cannons in Iraq with fodder.

    Where did you hear that, LA? And how old are you? You don’t really want to be a pussy like Cheney, do you? You could be Army Strong, baby!

    You are a blogger from Los Angeles, and you appear to be operating under the assumption that you are in possession of the truth about what is happening in Iraq, while the Associated Press (or the LA Times or Reuters or …) is either deliberately spreading falsehoods or too incompetent to be trusted.

    So, that’s what you think of Patterico, huh? That’s kind of funny given that you’re a blogger from someplace or other, and you think you’ve got the truth about what is happening in Iraq, so much so that you even support lies that bend it into the right shape.

    Ahhhhh…liberalism. Such an easy way of (not) thinking.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  54. Just want to make clear that, although I am a liberal and oppose the war, I support the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel troops.

    The Liberal Asswiper (82d7ad)

  55. LA, good grief, is that the parody of Patterico to which you subscribe? No wonder we’re always talking at cross purposes; your base assumptions aren’t worth the effort it takes to pound them out on a keyboard.

    There’s a difference between finding fault in others’ reporting and having OUR OWN HIGHER TRUTH, man, and it’d REALLY behoove you to learn that. Seeing some of the trolls these days, I am learning to appreciate a liberal voice that is willing to engage. So I’m willing to help you help yourself. Our own would-be truth about Iraq is an entirely different discussion from the flaws in the AP’s reporting. I don’t get it… are you saying we’re unworthy of fact-checking the AP? That not only are they completely unbiased from tip to bottom, that their reporting is going to always be perfect (As it is usually assumed to be)?

    OHNOES (3b3653)

  56. Patterico: It is not a proven fact. It’s speculation. What got you on the fact kick? We are trying to figure out what happened. What the most likely inferences. It’s also not a “fact” that OJ Simpson killed Nicole. It’s likely. Lot of things pointing to it. Worth thinking about. Not a proven fact. It is a fact that he made a dash for the border. Also IS a fact that AP did not provide their source (and still really hasn’t) when challenged.

    TCO (5e2e67)

  57. Where did you hear that, LA? And how old are you? You don’t really want to be a pussy like Cheney, do you? You could be Army Strong, baby!

    There’s a critical difference between him and a chickenhawk. He is not puffing out his chest, bragging about what a badass he-man he is. Thus he does not have to live up to that expectation.

    Everyone realizes there’s violence, but it always seems to be liberals that don’t really mind it being exaggerated by false reports. Truth be damned, I guess, if it doesn’t serve the bigger truth.

    You’re right. Let’s not blow the violence in Iraq out of proportion or anything (*ha*).

    Abu Wingnut (2c641e)

  58. I always thought chickenhawks were middleaged gay guys trolling for teenage male prostitutes in Times Square. I never heard about them bragging what badass he-men they were. Abu Wingnut, what rock did you crawl under from?

    nk (50d578)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2917 secs.