BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
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.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.
As far as him being "one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people" who were the other sources? I'm not saying there weren't any, but I've yet to see a mention of any other named sources confirming that story.
The AP used Hussein as a source in 61 stories. Confederate Yankee has pored over 40 of the AP stories that used Hussein as a source and concluded: "Put bluntly, a search for other news agency accounts of the events described by Jamil Hussein seems to indicate that most of these events simply do not exist anywhere else except in AP reporting. I was completely unable to find a definitive corroborating account of any of Jamil Hussein's accounts, anywhere." He did find two stories "approaching possible corroboration."
It's still not looking good for the AP. Even if Hussein is confirmed, it still looks like sloppy reporting and sourcing from the AP.
Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)
It seems Mr Axel is tone deaf to the real issue at hand. And here he is only cutting and pasting a published article - he sure is quick to criticize such when it is a poster with a differing point of view.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/05 - 1:04am.
Wow, RedDog -- did you find your spell checker?
Mr Axel is tone deaf to the real issue at hand.
The real issue, as you see it, is that the "good news" is being supressed by the "MSM," right?
A good friend of mine works for the State Dept. and she and her husband are currently living in Baghdad in the Green Zone. A dud Katyusha rocket landed about 150' from their living quarters a few months ago.
So who's your source telling you about the smiles and sunshine available if we'd only just look for them?
Axel - The real issue, as you see it, is that the "good news" is being supressed by the "MSM," right?
Wrong - the real issue is that it appears that the AP is being used as a propaganda tool for the terrorist. Captain J Hussein has served (been attributed by the AP) as the sole source for scores of "bad news" stories from wide-ranging areas of Baghdad. For a city the size of Baghdad it is unlikely he would be attributed for so many stories outside of his precinct.
And then there is the matter of the AP photographer cooperating with the terrorist in staged photo ops. Fortunately he has been nabbed by the good guys.
PS Mr Axel - your spelling is definitively lacking as noted in your quote. So quick to criticize aren't you? Or are you just using new words the rest of us do not know? Try 2 Ps next time.
Isn't the point here that reporting from a war zone is inherently unreliable? American journalists in Iraq rarely leave the Green Zone without military escorts, and the bulk of their information comes from the military.
So one of these reporters has found an Iraqi official willing to provide information and be quoted by name, and he's leaning too hard on one source. Is that really an outrage? Is it worse than leaning too hard on military press releases and embeds, which is what 95% of the American reporters do? Is it better, because at least this reporter is trying to diversify his sources? Would you guys prefer the same standards of corroboration apply in a war zone as everywhere else?
Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/05 - 7:43pm.
Isn't the point here that reporting from a war zone is inherently unreliable? American journalists in Iraq rarely leave the Green Zone without military escorts, and the bulk of their information comes from the military.
There's also the component of "if the source is an Arab, the information is under double secret probation until proven true." Unless, of course, the source is Ahmed Chalabi. ;-)
In any event, I'm reserving judgment until the unbroken stream of good news hits these shores once Michelle Malkin gets over to Baghdad.
(And although it would be a fate she didn't deserve, she'll do well to remember the stories she gleefully linked to slime Jill Carroll, should she manage to get herself kidnapped.)
Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/05 - 9:00pm.
Wrong - the real issue is that it appears that the AP is being used as a propaganda tool for the terrorist
Funny. The accusation being levelled against Jamil Hussein is that his existence was fabricated in order to tell the story that Shi'ite loyalists in the Iraqi government were actively covering up for Shi'ite atrocities. (How that squares with supporting terrorists, I'm not quite sure.)
At any rate, now that we've seen -- courtesy of the cameraphone coverage of the Saddam Hussein execution -- that the Iraqi Interior Ministry is infiltrated by loyalists to Muqtada al-Sadr (a Shi'ite cleric, warlord, and rabid anti-American), maybe those accusations aren't so inaccurate after all.
And now, Jamil Hussein's very real life is in danger because he talked to journalists.
Submitted by Les Jones on Fri, 2007/01/05 - 10:17am.
"Take a breath, Les. Up until today, people were insisting he didn't even exist."
That's true. He does seem to exist. And as Mickey Kaus said this morning, "That's one important component of credibility!"
Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)
Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/01/05 - 11:18am.
Out of curiosity, I followed the link. Nothing of substance there, as per usual. It read like the same snickering bullshit that has become Kaus' stock in trade.
Andy, I admire your willingness to argue with people who contstantly shift the goalposts of their arguments while maintaining willful ignorance of the reality all around them.
I believe it's time for another episide of Wingnut Rhetoric Theatre ...
Wingnut: AP's faked a source to make things look bad in Iraq!
Rational Liberal: No, it turns out Jamil Hussein is a real person.
Wingnut: Yeah, well, OK, but there's no verification for the things he said!
Rational Liberal: Actually, AP had several other sources for the big story with which Hussein is associated, about the people being burned outside the Sunni mosque.
Wingnut: But AP luvs teh terrorists! Iraq's going great!
Submitted by Rich Hailey on Mon, 2007/01/08 - 10:21pm.
Were six Muslims burned alive while Iraqi police stood by and watched, or not? Were 4 mosques torched per the initial reports, or only one, as the AP back tracked?
Is anybody still interested in whether what the AP reported was accurate, or are we having too much fun gloating over a side issue to care?
I'm still distracted by the penetrating and critical question Fox News was asking just before the first woman Speaker of the House was sworn in: Who has more power, Nancy Pelosi or Cindy Sheehan?
He was also the only source for the burning of four named mosques, none of which could ever be confirmed.
As far as him being "one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people" who were the other sources? I'm not saying there weren't any, but I've yet to see a mention of any other named sources confirming that story.
The AP used Hussein as a source in 61 stories. Confederate Yankee has pored over 40 of the AP stories that used Hussein as a source and concluded: "Put bluntly, a search for other news agency accounts of the events described by Jamil Hussein seems to indicate that most of these events simply do not exist anywhere else except in AP reporting. I was completely unable to find a definitive corroborating account of any of Jamil Hussein's accounts, anywhere." He did find two stories "approaching possible corroboration."
It's still not looking good for the AP. Even if Hussein is confirmed, it still looks like sloppy reporting and sourcing from the AP.
Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)
Thank you Les Jones -
It seems Mr Axel is tone deaf to the real issue at hand. And here he is only cutting and pasting a published article - he sure is quick to criticize such when it is a poster with a differing point of view.
Wow, RedDog -- did you find your spell checker?
The real issue, as you see it, is that the "good news" is being supressed by the "MSM," right?
A good friend of mine works for the State Dept. and she and her husband are currently living in Baghdad in the Green Zone. A dud Katyusha rocket landed about 150' from their living quarters a few months ago.
So who's your source telling you about the smiles and sunshine available if we'd only just look for them?
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
Wrong - the real issue is that it appears that the AP is being used as a propaganda tool for the terrorist. Captain J Hussein has served (been attributed by the AP) as the sole source for scores of "bad news" stories from wide-ranging areas of Baghdad. For a city the size of Baghdad it is unlikely he would be attributed for so many stories outside of his precinct.
And then there is the matter of the AP photographer cooperating with the terrorist in staged photo ops. Fortunately he has been nabbed by the good guys.
PS Mr Axel - your spelling is definitively lacking as noted in your quote. So quick to criticize aren't you? Or are you just using new words the rest of us do not know? Try 2 Ps next time.
it appears that the AP is being used as a propaganda tool for the terrorist.
Are you alleging Hussein is "the terrorist?" Or did you mean to write "terrorists." Or both?
Isn't the point here that reporting from a war zone is inherently unreliable? American journalists in Iraq rarely leave the Green Zone without military escorts, and the bulk of their information comes from the military.
So one of these reporters has found an Iraqi official willing to provide information and be quoted by name, and he's leaning too hard on one source. Is that really an outrage? Is it worse than leaning too hard on military press releases and embeds, which is what 95% of the American reporters do? Is it better, because at least this reporter is trying to diversify his sources? Would you guys prefer the same standards of corroboration apply in a war zone as everywhere else?
reporting from a war zone is inherently unreliable
Eh, the 82nd Chairborne don't need no fog of war to be unreliable. Clouds of Cheeto dust will suffice.
There's also the component of "if the source is an Arab, the information is under double secret probation until proven true." Unless, of course, the source is Ahmed Chalabi. ;-)
In any event, I'm reserving judgment until the unbroken stream of good news hits these shores once Michelle Malkin gets over to Baghdad.
(And although it would be a fate she didn't deserve, she'll do well to remember the stories she gleefully linked to slime Jill Carroll, should she manage to get herself kidnapped.)
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
Funny. The accusation being levelled against Jamil Hussein is that his existence was fabricated in order to tell the story that Shi'ite loyalists in the Iraqi government were actively covering up for Shi'ite atrocities. (How that squares with supporting terrorists, I'm not quite sure.)
At any rate, now that we've seen -- courtesy of the cameraphone coverage of the Saddam Hussein execution -- that the Iraqi Interior Ministry is infiltrated by loyalists to Muqtada al-Sadr (a Shi'ite cleric, warlord, and rabid anti-American), maybe those accusations aren't so inaccurate after all.
And now, Jamil Hussein's very real life is in danger because he talked to journalists.
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
Take a breath, Les. Up until today, people were insisting he didn't even exist.
Well, we can count on PJM's favorite "anchor baby" to get it all sorted out when she's finding the good news over in Iraq.
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
"Take a breath, Les. Up until today, people were insisting he didn't even exist."
That's true. He does seem to exist. And as Mickey Kaus said this morning, "That's one important component of credibility!"
Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)
Out of curiosity, I followed the link. Nothing of substance there, as per usual. It read like the same snickering bullshit that has become Kaus' stock in trade.
(Linking lucianne.com? Impeccable sourcing there.)
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
Andy, I admire your willingness to argue with people who contstantly shift the goalposts of their arguments while maintaining willful ignorance of the reality all around them.
I believe it's time for another episide of Wingnut Rhetoric Theatre ...
Wingnut: AP's faked a source to make things look bad in Iraq!
Rational Liberal: No, it turns out Jamil Hussein is a real person.
Wingnut: Yeah, well, OK, but there's no verification for the things he said!
Rational Liberal: Actually, AP had several other sources for the big story with which Hussein is associated, about the people being burned outside the Sunni mosque.
Wingnut: But AP luvs teh terrorists! Iraq's going great!
Rational Liberal: What's that smell?
Wingnut: Oops -- wet 'um.
Rational Liberal: Yeesh.
And the "lonely Kerry" story is whole-cloth fiction, too.
____________________________
Dirty mouth language -- it's the new black.
Were six Muslims burned alive while Iraqi police stood by and watched, or not? Were 4 mosques torched per the initial reports, or only one, as the AP back tracked?
Is anybody still interested in whether what the AP reported was accurate, or are we having too much fun gloating over a side issue to care?
OK, that's three questions.
I'm still distracted by the penetrating and critical question Fox News was asking just before the first woman Speaker of the House was sworn in: Who has more power, Nancy Pelosi or Cindy Sheehan?
Post new comment