Comments on: On Rhetorical (?) Questions About Outing Jamil Hussein

By: Another Drew

Another Drew — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:38:32 +0000

No, we (the VRWC) should not release his actual identity. Since the Left is infamous for eating its’ own, they will eventually reveal to the world who he is.

By: DRJ

DRJ — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:05:16 +0000

I agree with Patterico that it might endanger Jamil [not] Hussein, plus there is minimal benefit from outing him. The story now is not Jamil’s true identity. The story is the AP itself and whether it can substantiate its last 2 years of questionable Jamil Hussein reports and its Baghdad reports in general. Outing Jamil lets the AP divert public scrutiny away from its questionable reports and put the focus back on Jamil, something it seems very willing to let happen if it will help this story go away.

By: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:20:58 +0000

I think it’s sufficient to have shown that “Jamil” is a pseudonym. If “Jamil” is actually trying to stoke the flames of civil war, then the Iraqi authorities should arrest and try him for that offense, or at least fire him. I wonder why they haven’t done so. (Of course, I’m assuming that if CY can uncover “Jamil’s” true identity, the Iraqi authorities certainly must know).

By: Veeshir

Veeshir — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:47:06 +0000

Patterico,
How many people has Jamil Hussein killed? How many retaliations have there been for the multiple, never-confirmed, possibly-to-probably false stories that used him as a source?

Who are you protecting him from? Certainly not the Baathist jihadis, he’s obviously on their side. Probably not the al Quaeda jihadis as those stories advanced their chosen story-line. Probably not the criminals acting as jihadis, they are only in it for themselves. No, you’re protecting him from the people he’s quite obviously at war with, shiite jihadis and the Iraqi Army (no, the shiite jihadis and the Iraqi Army aren’t, or shouldn’t be, on the same side, but they can be against the same people, the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend).

I don’t know if I think it’s right to out him, but the facts aren’t as clear cut as you seem to think. Jamil Hussein is obviously at war and is using the media as his weapon. All of his stories, that I know of, portrayed the shiites as murderously rampaging amone innocent sunnis. Does he get a pass? Would you have outed Lord Haw Haw? Tokyo Rose? Just because he’s some cut-rate, AP source, doesn’t mean he isn’t spreading enemy propaganda and therefore, is the enemy to the people who are trying to make Iraq into a stable, free, democratic-republic.

I have to admit, I thought pretty much as you did until I noticed the last block quote at Confederate Yankee’s post Jamil is a proven bad source whose stories seem designed to help the Sunnis and the insurgents at the expense of the Iraqi Army……. It is fair game to out sources who lie like that”
So no, the issue isn’t so clear cut.

By: TCO

TCO — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:59:20 +0000

Bullshit. Reveal the name. Share news. Tell the truth. Let the sun shine in. Let the chips fall.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39:10 +0000

Patterico:

Here’s a very simple point that cannot be made too often:

If the Left is saying “don’t reveal Jamil Hussein’s real name,” then they are admitting that there is no “Jamil Hussein.” Not under that name.

At best, there was another person masquerading under that name… and therefore, the conservatives were right all along.

Am I missing some link in this chain of logic?

Dafydd

By: papertiger

papertiger — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:44:28 +0000

I don’t need to know AP stringer’s real name
However I will require more then “scientist’s agree” when the papers write on the subject of global warming. Our politico’s are actually making laws based on this unsubstanciated, anonymously accredited, seudo science.