Who is Jamil Hussein?

[101A]

Why, with the war going so poorly, do "they" make crap up? (http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1543)

The link takes you to a blog by Austin Bay. To get the full gist of the story, you have to follow at least of couple of links there; that's why I didn't post the text.

Anyway, the deal is there have been several stories, some horrific, about going's on in Iraq reported whose source was credited as "Captain Jamil Hussein". All the stories are of a, "this war is going horribly and is hopeless variety", and date back throughout this year. Problem is, Hussein doesn't exist, and there is no corroboration for the stories beyond him. These are AP, and have been picked up by many of the major networks and outlets; and run as gospel truth.

Why is this happening?

[xrayzebra]

I heard this on the news yesterday. Why am I not surprised. Well first, NYT cant
wait to publish classified information that hurts our country. MSNBC makes a
political decisiion to call Iraq a civil war and AP has certainly not been a fan of
United States in any of their stories.

It seems no one but us war mongers want us to win this war. I have to wonder
on who's side the media is on most of the time.

But I would almost bet you that nothing will come of this information about Hussein.
Just like some other false stories that have come to light. They die a slow,
natural death.

[101A]

... They die a slow,
natural death.

"Buried" as this story will no doubt be, causes quick death.

And why should it live? Obviously most people don't want to see, think about, or contemplate the ramifications of this level of consistent misrepresentation coming from the media.

Pravda, anyone?

Where are the people who are beside themselves with disdain about the exeutive branch misleading us to further its agenda, when the 4th branch does it to (apparently) further its own?

That begs the question: what is their agenda? How are they manipulating this DEMOCRACY - and to what end?

What is the result if the rule of the people is absolute, but the people are being mislead and never make informed decisions? Isn't that why the congressman who voted for allowing the president to get us into this war get a pass - because they were mislead?

The answer to those questions literally sends chills up my spine.

[boutons_]

Very worrisome, but if we ignore all stories sourced from "Captain Jamil Hussein", does dubya's Iraq catastrophe simply disappear.

Much more worrisome and fatal is the disinformation we get from dubya/dickhead/Army such as

WMD in Iraq,
Saddam-terror lin,
Saddam-WTC link,
"Mission Accomllished",
"last throes",
"stay the course",
"full speed ahead with current policy",
etc, etc.

You right wingers don't ask "Why is this happening?" in those cases.

[101A]

You right wingers don't ask "Why is this happening?" in those cases.

Bullshit I don't.

I very much question the motives of my government at all times. I question why oil companies are now the most profitable in the nation while we have two oilmen in the White House; just like I questioned why Wal Mart was the most profitable when Arkansas's governor was there!

I also feel sorry as shit for the people of Iraq.

My country invaded theirs.

My country toppled their leader and destroyed their infrastructure (such as it was).

My country has not done enough to prevent elements within, and from outside, their country from fomenting ancient bigotry and hatred and violence to the point that if their country isn't currently in a civil war, it soon will be. NOW, my country, like some big, out of control Loki, is tired of this amusing endeavor, has changed it's mind, and is planning to leave. In fact, those among us who claim the highest of moral ground, want us out yesterday. What a very nice treat for the citizens of Iraq! A gift from your benevolent superpower.

Whether you were for this war, or against it; YOUR country got into it, and needs to be big enough to stay until the job is done. At this point IT'S NOT ABOUT US ANYMORE! We owe it to them. Of course I understand that absolutes of right and wrong are real big on many of your radar screens.

Why does the world hate us? Because we are a bully? No. Because we are a fickle as fuck bully..

[xrayzebra]

For boutons, you think the war in Iraq is as bad as portrayed by the media, well I
differ with you. Here is a letter, and it is an actual letter. I have deleted the
officers name, but you might find it interesting. Especially when you read the last
few lines.

Dear Family and Friends,
Another Thanksgiving come and gone. I got to sleep late today and woke up at 1130, just in time to go to the chow hall with my friend Chuck. The chow hall was festively decorated with fall colors and a lot of food and ice sculptures. the fare was turkey, stuffing, candied yams, shrimp cocktail and cheesy mac for me and for dessert a piece of chocolate cheese cake. After 20 minutes Thanksgiving was over. Then the jaysh al madhi started to mortar us, but none of the rounds made it on the FOB. they also mortared us about 45 minutes ago. You would think they would bring food and gifts to our pilgrim fort in the spirit of Thanksgiving, but no such luck. haha. Sadr city got messed up today with a few car bombs. So it serves them right. The Secretary of the Army visited our FOB today and sequestered himself in the patriot room of our chow hall and didn't come out. I guess he was deciding to go long, go short , or go home. he should have eaten with the troops, but i guess the 100 Pakistani and Indian workers were to much of a security risk for him. It was surreal eating our T-day meal next to so many foreigners.
Recently my team has been attached to a company of Infantry guys. It is a God send. They provide me with the protection I need to get my mission done. If anyone has seen the documentary Gunner Palace, that is where we stay. it is in the heart of Adhamiya right on the banks of the Tigris river. Adhamiya is the heart of the Sunni insurgency in Baghdad. Al Qaida is there in force, but every day their numbers get fewer and fewer because we are killing them or arresting them. Adhamiya has a big dilemma because there are many groups vying for power. There are a couple of gangs that are funded by Al Qaida and they do all the kidnappings and murders, then you have the JAM infiltrating from the shia areas outside of Adhamiya and a couple other Sunni extremist groups. The other day when Saddam was convicted to hang , alot of these bad guys came out with their AK47s and rpgs and tried to get tough, so the infantry guys killed about 40 of them without suffering one casualty.{/B] It was a good day.
I have been talking to the local government a lot and they have just had an election of a new chairamn and seem like they want to improve the security of their city. this is the top priority for them, so we can oblige them by doing projects in their area. [B]We have recently fixed all the sewer breaks and have brought the electricity up to 8-10 hours a day, which by our standards is horrible but to them it is a 1000% increase because they had none a few moths ago. we have recently started to refurbish a lot of the schools in the area. All this we use to leverage information about bad guys. So it is going well. I am back with my own kind.
My team is doing well and one of my specialists just got back from Italy. My team Sgt recently returned from Wisconsin and saw his daughter who is just about to take her first steps, he left when she was about 2 weeks old. I will take my leave in three weeks. I can't wait! It has been over a year since i have been home for any extended period of time. Two weeks will be great. It is all I can think about. the only thing I will have to worry about is which topping I want on my pizza. After my leave I will only have 4 months to go until I am home for good. 18 months is way to long to be gone, especially for this country, its not worth it.
I had a discussion with one of the members of the Adhamiya District council the other day . I asked him what he thought was the best way to improve the security of Adhamiya. he said " the US must pull out immediately and let us have our civil war, it is the only way for Iraq to become a country. we don't believe in the government of Iraq because it is sectarian and it favors shia, we don't get anything from the government." this is what i have to rationalize with. but he does have a point. All the Iraqis understand is bloodshed and the sword, they want the sword so I say give it to them. they kill each other already by the hundreds. The council member i was talking to said it would take about three months of civil war and then it would be over. I laughed in his face. it will take a long time, i believe if the US forces pulled out of adhamiya right now, the shia militias would run through this place and kill or displace everyone in this part of the city. So, i think he overestimates his position, but if that is what he feels then it will be impossible for me to change his mind, believe me I have tried. Any way, that is the news from the front.
I truly appreciate all the letters and packages I get from all of you. they are always morale boosters. I am thankful for a strong supportive family. I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving, and I am thinking about you.

[Extra Stout]

For boutons, you think the war in Iraq is as bad as portrayed by the media, well I
differ with you. Here is a letter, and it is an actual letter. I have deleted the
officers name, but you might find it interesting.
The letter says that Al Qaeda is there in force, though they are steadily being killed off, but that AQ is merely one faction among many fighting for power, and that even a member of the local council is eager for civil war.

Oh, and it says that the infrastructure is terrible, though it is better than it was a few months ago.

Oh, and our soldiers are still fighting hard and haven't given up.

How exactly does this differ from what the media is reporting?

[101A]

The letter says that Al Qaeda is there in force, though they are steadily being killed off, but that AQ is merely one faction among many fighting for power, and that even a member of the local council is eager for civil war.

Oh, and it says that the infrastructure is terrible, though it is better than it was a few months ago.

Oh, and our soldiers are still fighting hard and haven't given up.

How exactly does this differ from what the media is reporting?


Please find me report recently filed that indicates that either infrastructure is improving or that Al Queda is being killed off; I haven't seen it.

Also, if this letter was to be reported on, the headline would read:

"Sunni Leader says "Leave and let us have our Civil War"."

[Yonivore]

I notice the regular Bush-bashers are staying away from this story.

Here's a couple of perspectives in which I place a lot of credibility:

A Terminally Flawed Methodology (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/206844.php)

Kathleen Carroll, pretend I'm from Missouri: Show me Jamil Hussein! (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/206875.php)

Information Operations, Anyone? (http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/11/information-operations-anyone.html)

And, if you combine the woefully inadequate reporting with the stupidity of the Left, it's impossible for the American public to be informed about what's happening in Iraq.

In a very important piece, wretchard, at The Belmont Club, makes a compelling argument for how things actually are. Most of the comments to his thread are fairly intelligent, as well.

But deliver us from evil (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/11/but-deliver-us-from-evil.html#links)

Granted, he appears to favor reconciliation with the Sunnis in order to quell the violence -- even while stating that may be impossible at this point -- so, I'll also point to one of the comments to his thread with which I agree.


Now let me see if I have this straight. Because the Sunnis lost, the US needs to do something to allow them to reestablish parity with the Shiites. The Sunnis have done everything possible to resists a stabilization of Iraq including the original election boycott. The only thing that can save the Sunnis is to help them establish a zone of security. Then what? What happens when secure, they decide it is time to reestablish their rightful place at the head of the table?

Nonsense. Translate Darwin into Arabic. Air drop the pamphlets on them and wish them well.

To which wretchard responded:


2164,

You've got a sense of humor don't you. I suppose there would be some justice in sending "Hope You Get Feel Better" cards to the Sunni insurgents from departing aircraft. But thinking back on history, it was the ironic priority of Truman to turn both Germany and Japan into prosperous powerhouses. The ultimate consequence of defeat for Japan was to be freed of its antiquated system and rise to the second largest economy in the world.

The ironies of fighting America. Once upon a time there was movie called the "Mouse that Roared" which was about -- well you know the story.

One of the standard jokes in the Philippines involves one penniless Filipino talking to another. Seemingly mired in poverty, one pauper concocts a plan to escape from penury. He tells the other, "let's convince the government to declare war on the United States. After we lose, we'll be incorporated as the 51st State and become rich Americans." The other man ponders the problem and comes up with an unanswerable objection. "Yeah, but what if we win?"
At least these people make intelligent arguments.

[clambake]

Things couldn't be better over there.

[boutons_]

The Marines themselves reported this week they are abandoning, (cutting/running) Anbar province to the Sunni insurgents allied to al Quaida, and moving back into Bagdad.

I'm sure the Marines could have "won" Anbar, but it was probably a case of too few Marine boots compounded by Bagdad going up in flames.

What's the point of winning Anbar but losing Bagdad?

[101A]

The Marines themselves reported this week they are abandoning, (cutting/running) Anbar province to the Sunni insurgents allied to al Quaida, and moving back into Bagdad.

I'm sure the Marines could have "won" Anbar, but it was probably a case of too few Marine boots compounded by Bagdad going up in flames.

What's the point of winning Anbar but losing Bagdad?


Not doubting you, B; but where did you get your info? How do we KNOW it is accurate?

[101A]

Things couldn't be better over there.

Way to add to the discussion.

That's NOT what this is about.

And again, how IS it going over there?

How do you know?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I have a suggestion for all of those who criticize the the media for what they report. Why don't all of you 'reporter wannabees' go to Iraq and report the good stories yourself? Complaining about it without offering a solution (where have you heard that before) is useless? Right? I find it hilarious that the same folks who whine about the biased coverage want no part in going over there and do it themselves.. If it is so good then all of you need to be there on the ground..

[Yonivore]

I have a suggestion for all of those who criticize the the media for what they report. Why don't all of you 'reporter wannabees' go to Iraq and report the good stories yourself? Complaining about it without offering a solution (where have you heard that before) is useless? Right? I find it hilarious that the same folks who whine about the biased coverage want no part in going over there and do it themselves.. If it is so good then all of you need to be there on the ground..
There are reputable people already doing that. Unfortunately, Reuters, the AP, and other news outlets won't use their stories because they don't fit the media's slant that America is losing in Iraq and that it's some kind of quagmire.

they'd rather depend on reports filed from a Baghdad hotel, informed by stringers of unknown repute or qualifications.

Here's two from whom you could learn much.

Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/) and Pat Dollard (http://www.patdollard.com/templates/section-view.php?id=3)

Also, you could read blogs that rely heavily on in-country military connections...otherwise known as milblogs. There are dozens.

[clambake]

101A, all I know for sure is big changes have taken place. Rummies gone, senior is involved along with Syria and Iran, Al-Sadr's act is showing in the big room.

That's quite the flip-flop, wouldn't you agree?

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are reputable people already doing that. Unfortunately, Reuters, the AP, and other news outlets won't use their stories because they don't fit the media's slant that America is losing in Iraq and that it's some kind of quagmire.


SO if I am following correctly the AP and Rueters are in cahoots to portray that we are lsoing in Iraq? Let's assume your right don't you think that one person of authority in these organizations would have spoken out at the blatant slant and organizations actual ulterior motives? Or if I am to believe you..everyone is in on it and they have been able to silence every detractor ( if there is one) all of this time? Does that make any sense? Or is it easier to just label everyone becaue you don't like what they are reproting?

[101A]

101A, all I know for sure is big changes have taken place. Rummies gone, senior is involved along with Syria and Iran, Al-Sadr's act is showing in the big room.

That's quite the flip-flop, wouldn't you agree?

I don't understand your point, or how it relates to this thread. It's not about the WH - it's about apparent media manipulations of the information that is being provided to the citizens of this country through the major media outlets.

SINCE this is a democracy, those reports no doubt have an effect on how the war is going to be waged. Ultimately, the public WILL get what they (think) they want. A democracy runs on its knowledge. If that knowledge is wrong...again isn't that what all of you are SO pissed at GW for doing? LYING to get us into a war?

I guess it's okay for the media to lie to get us out? Is that why it's O.K?

[101A]

There are reputable people already doing that. Unfortunately, Reuters, the AP, and other news outlets won't use their stories because they don't fit the media's slant that America is losing in Iraq and that it's some kind of quagmire.


SO if I am following correctly the AP and Rueters are in cahoots to portray that we are lsoing in Iraq? Let's assume your right don't you think that one person of authority in these organizations would have spoken out at the blatant slant and organizations actual ulterior motives? Or if I am to believe you..everyone is in on it and they have been able to silence every detractor ( if there is one) all of this time? Does that make any sense? Or is it easier to just label everyone becaue you don't like what they are reproting?


This thread is about a series of reports, all damaging to the war effort which apparently never happened and all source a PERSON WHO DOES NOT EXIST!!!! What the hell are we supposed to think the purpose of it is? Can YOU explain it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

This thread is about a series of reports, all damaging to the war effort which apparently never happened and all source a PERSON WHO DOES NOT EXIST!!!! What the hell are we supposed to think the purpose of it is? Can YOU explain it?


I actually agree with you.. so would I be safe to assume that if we were given information from someone who either did not exist or was outright lying then we could in turn question the motives of those parties that used their information... is this right?


If someone knowingly used information they knew to be false or could not be verified and reported it as fact would be guilty as well correct?

[johnsmith]

I actually agree with you.. so would I be safe to assume that if we were given information from someone who either did not exist or was outright lying then we could in turn question the motives of those parties that used their information... is this right?


If someone knowingly used information they knew to be false or could not be verified and reported it as fact would be guilty as well correct?


Gosh, I wonder where you are going with this? :rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gosh, I wonder where you are going with this? :rolleyes


There are some of us who questioned the motives of the administration but we were branded with many labels. What I was trying to point is that if those who support this administration question the motives of the media and the Dems..then they should also accept that the questioning of the administration's motives becuse of the sources they used as legit issue.. I took all of the names and players out of my post on purpose because I genuinely agreed with the post about using a source you know is not either ,verifiable , or is a known liar is wrong and those motives should be questioned.. I am not a hypocrite like some others on this board. You should agree with my previous post..take today's players out of it and you should agree 100%

[clambake]

In the big picture, how damaging do you think it is? How big a role do you think it has played? Do you think any actions were taken based solely on false reports? You have to accept the whole thing from conception has been chocked full of lies. Nobody has achieved a higher standard. Would the truth have made any real difference?

[johnsmith]

There are some of us who questioned the motives of the administration but we were branded with many labels. What I was trying to point is that if those who support this administration question the motives of the media and the Dems..then they should also accept that the questioning of the administration's motives becuse of the sources they used as legit issue.. I took all of the names and players out of my post on purpose because I genuinely agreed with the post about using a source you know is not either ,verifiable , or is a known liar is wrong and those motives should be questioned.. I am not a hypocrite like some others on this board. You should agree with my previous post..take today's players out of it and you should agree 100%


Yeah, I can agree with that.

[johnsmith]

In the big picture, how damaging do you think it is? How big a role do you think it has played? Do you think any actions were taken based solely on false reports? You have to accept the whole thing from conception has been chocked full of lies. Nobody has achieved a higher standard. Would the truth have made any real difference?


I don't think this particular story is all that damaging but it does bring up the question of how often has this happened? So the entire body of work may be more damaging then just this portion of it. Then again, maybe not.

[ChumpDumper]

Hell, we went to war based on shit that was made up. Why is anyone surprised now?

[Nbadan]

This is like trying to exagerate the sinking of the Titanic. Why? If it's true it could be psy-ops to undermine the credibility of real tragic news stories coming from legit sources in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the AP went back and got cooboration for the disputed story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-11-28-iraq-fire_x.htm

It mentions the Jamil issue as well. We'll see where it goes from here.

[Bob Lanier]

Wait, wait, wait - did Yonivore just try to support his argument with a link to something called "confederateyankee.mu.nu"? Extremely credible?

[ChumpDumper]

"mu.nu -- your security blanket on the web"

Actual site title.

http://asg.homelinux.org/albums/cbrown/Linus_blanket.jpg

Yoni just got a new nickname.

[Yonivore]

Wait, wait, wait - did Yonivore just try to support his argument with a link to something called "confederateyankee.mu.nu"? Extremely credible?
Who links to Michael Yon and Pat Dollard and they are extremely credible.

[Yonivore]

"mu.nu -- your security blanket on the web"

Actual site title.

http://asg.homelinux.org/albums/cbrown/Linus_blanket.jpg

Yoni just got a new nickname.
I'm still waiting for a list of your credible sites.

[ChumpDumper]

For what?

A man that may or may not exist?

I said the AP went back and got corroboration. Feel free to go there yourself to debunk them, Linus.

[Yonivore]

For what?

A man that may or may not exist?

I said the AP went back and got corroboration. Feel free to go there yourself to debunk them, Linus.
Who corroborated their story?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not going to read the story for you, Linus.

[gtownspur]

I'm not going to read the story, Linus.


Fixed it.

[ChumpDumper]

RIF, douche.

[Yonivore]

I'm not going to read the story for you, Linus.
Although I liked gtownspurs fix "I'm not going to read the story, Linus," because, well, you probably didn't; I went back and re-read it.

For those of you who might have forgotten how this got started, it went a little something like this (http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061125/WIRE/211250312/-1/news):



Six burned alive in Iraq

BAGHDAD, IRAQ -Revenge-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking the Iraqi capital a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad's main Shiite district.

Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

Most of the thousands of dead bodies that have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq in recent months have been of victims who were tortured and then shot to death, according to police. The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated.

But burning victims alive introduced a new method of brutality that was likely to be reciprocated by the other sect as the Shiites and Sunnis continue killing one another in unprecedented numbers. The gruesome attack, which came despite a curfew in Baghdad, capped a day in which at least 87 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence across Iraq.

In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said.

Residents of the troubled district claim the Mahdi Army has begun kidnapping and holding Sunni hostages to use in ritual slaughter at the funerals of Shiite victims of Baghdad's raging sectarian war.

Such claims cannot be verified but speak to the deep fear that grips Baghdad, where retaliation has become a part of daily life.

President Jalal Talabani emerged from lengthy meetings with other Iraqi leaders late Friday and said the defense minister, Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi, indicated that the Hurriyah neighborhood had been quiet throughout the day.

But Imad al-Hasimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, confirmed Hussein's account of the immolations. He told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were drenched in kerosene and then set afire, burning to death before his eyes.

Two workers at Kazamiyah Hospital also confirmed that bodies from the clashes and immolation had been taken to the morgue at their facility.

They refused to be identified by name, saying they feared retribution.

And the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques. It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.

That is how the story was reported by the Associated Press, and yet, much of what was stated in this article is unsubstantiated. In fact, this may be a story that never was.

We know several things about this original article are categorically false. We know that though the Associated Press article claims four mosques were burnt and blown up, that simply didn’t happen. One mosque had its doorway set on fire which was extinguished, and graffiti was painted on the building. Limited fire damage and spray paint on one mosque is a far, far cry for four mosques being blown up.

We also know that "police Capt. Jamil Hussein," who was the key witness leaning credibility to the AP’s allegations, simply does not exist. The Iraqi interior ministry has confirmed that they have no employees by the name of Jamil Hussein, as a police captain or otherwise… and yet, the fictional Captain Hussein has been a source in no fewer than 61 AP stories (http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/JamilHussein.txt).

al-Hasimi (alternately al-Hashimi), the Sunni elder who is credited with witnessing the attack in the original story, now says that he did not.

Even the most key element of the story, that six men had been burned alive, seems to be false.

Nevertheless, the AP circled the wagons and continues to insist the story is real, despite the overwhelming evidence that mosques were not burned and blown up. 18 people did not die "in an inferno" at the al-Muhaimin mosque, for the al-Muhaimin mosque was never destoryed, just as six men were never pulled into the street, doused in kerosene, and set on fire.

This entire series of events is an apparent fiction from which the Associated Press will not back down, and a lie to which the new York Times seems unwilling to seriously question (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/business/media/04link.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1165208528-JezARKEaIEl9RRZ9jyTOdQ&oref=slogin).

There are no charred bodies numbering between 6-18, nor four blown-up mosques, nor a police captain named Jamil Hussein who has been cited in 61 media reports. In one of the most graphic images of sectarian violence manufactured in the Iraq war yet, this incident seems quite entirely fabricated out of thin air. No other news organization will back the Associated Press’s account of burning mosques and men. Even Rueters cannot find the artificial police captains or anonymous sources to back such a claim.

If the Associated Press produces evidence that Jamil Hussein exists, or else admits that they were duped as part of a long running insurgent propaganda campaign, we can at least say the Associated Press got the wrong facts via an honest attempt to report the news. They can then go back and see if they can verify if the other 60 stories they wrote consulting the imaginary captain were real, or also part of a work of extended insurgent fiction.

Instead of looking for the truth, however, Kathleen Carroll seems to be rallying the troops around a "fake, but accurate" defense.

That response hasn't worked out too well for Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, and I suspect that it won't work much better for Kathleen Carroll, and the curiously incorporeal captain, Jamil Hussein.

[ChumpDumper]

Credit the blogs you steal from, Linus.

Good to know everything is perfect in Iraq and that bad ol' AP lied about everything that ever happened there. We can now stay the course.

[Yonivore]

Credit the blogs you steal from, Linus.

Good to know everything is perfect in Iraq and that bad ol' AP lied about everything that ever happened there. We can now stay the course.
I guess your meter only goes full left or full right. Why does the discovery of the AP lying have to necessarily mean we're claiming all is pollyannaish in Iraq? I do think things are much better than is being portrayed in the media...and, I believe that because of revelations like this.

You're kind of like the sore loser bully who, when caught cheating, messes up the board and walks away.

The Associated Press is a major contributor, along with Reuters (caught fabricating news in Lebanon), to almost every newspaper in the country. Don't you think that if they are caught lying about a major story, it should be major news and that they should be raked over the coals for it?

I guess not.

[101A]

I guess your meter only goes full left or full right. Why does the discovery of the AP lying have to necessarily mean we're claiming all is pollyannaish in Iraq? I do think things are much better than is being portrayed in the media...and, I believe that because of revelations like this.

You're kind of like the sore loser bully who, when caught cheating, messes up the board and walks away.

The Associated Press is a major contributor, along with Reuters (caught fabricating news in Lebanon), to almost every newspaper in the country. Don't you think that if they are caught lying about a major story, it should be major news and that they should be raked over the coals for it?

I guess not.

No, but if Fox puts the wrong label on a Republican child molestor, we'll get 3 threads about it...

Priorities, Yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

I do think things are much better than is being portrayed in the mediaSo well that the new Secretary of Defense says we're not winning.

You can rake whomever you want whenever you want. The fact the AP has to rely on Iraqis for their stories speaks for itself.

[Yonivore]

So well that the new Secretary of Defense says we're not winning.
Probably got that impression from the media. He also said he doesn't believe we are losing either. What! Don't tell me the media didn't report that part.


You can rake whomever you want whenever you want. The fact the AP has to rely on Iraqis for their stories speaks for itself.
Yeah, it says they're chicken shits or lazy, or both. There are plenty of reputable and legitimate embeds from whom the AP could quote and get stories.

[ChumpDumper]

Probably got that impression from the media.:lmao So you're saying he's ignorant now.
He also said he doesn't believe we are losing either. What! Don't tell me the media didn't report that part.:lmao again! Is he saying we're tying in Iraq? There are only three choices here. The news is he said we weren't winning when Bushie said we absolutely were winning. Who's right, Linus?
Yeah, it says they're chicken shits or lazy, or both. There are plenty of reputable and legitimate embeds from whom the AP could quote and get stories.Why are there embeds in a safe, flourishing democracy?

[Yonivore]

:lmao So you're saying he's ignorant now.
No, I was being flippant. Sorry to confuse you.


:lmao again! Is he saying we're tying in Iraq? There are only three choices here. The news is he said we weren't winning when Bushie said we absolutely were winning. Who's right, Linus?
Well, considering he's coming from a public sector job outside the defense establishment, he answered the question as best he could based on the information he has to date.

In response to the question asked, he said he, "...believes the United States is neither winning nor losing, 'at this point.'"

In a pre-hearing questionnaire, he had this to say about Iraq.


"I agreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners have served admirably there, and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with them on a daily basis to help make the future better for the Iraqi people.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a dangerous and disruptive force in the region. By the late 1990s, it was clear that his dictatorial regime needed to be removed from power. The Oil for Food program was a failure. Saddam’s continual defiance of the international community was unacceptable.

In 2002, I supported UN Resolution 1441, which called for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq’s illegal weapons in order to give inspections another chance. Again, Saddam thumbed his nose at the international community. I believed that he possessed WMD or the capacity for building WMD, and that with the collapse of sanctions he would aggressively pursue an effort to increase his WMD capability.

I believe that leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come.
Frankly, I'm not surprised the media would report only half the answer and declare that Gates believes we are not winning, or as Yahoo! News reported:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/Yahoo297.jpg


Why are there embeds in a safe, flourishing democracy?
Because there are units in which to embed. Otherwise, they'd be roving reporters. Oh, and I would call them a "fledgling" democracy. Not yet flourishing.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, considering he's coming from a public sector job outside the defense establishment, he answered the question as best he could based on the information he has to date.Linus, he was a member of the Iraq Study Group. Do you think he might have learned something about Iraq in his time as a member of the Iraq Study Group? Yes or no, Linus.
Because there are units in which to embed. Otherwise, they'd be roving reporters.And why can they not rove in a peaceful, flourishing, safe democracy such as Iraq where everything is better than anyone could possibly know including members of the Iraq Study Group, Linus?

[johnsmith]

The Linus thing was funny at first, but now you're just over-using it.

[spurster]

I listened to an interview of a women Iraqi journalist today on NPR. Among the things she has to do are:

1) She doesn't tell her family or relatives that she is a reporter.
2) She doesn't use her full real name on any of her reports.
3) Interviews are done as quickly as possible to avoid being a target.
4) She dresses like a Sunni or Shiite when in their areas to avoid being a target.

Basically, life is slowly downhill from the few months after the American invasion.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6581029

[ChumpDumper]

The Linus thing was funny at first, but now you're just over-using it.I'm not doing it for you.

[Yonivore]

Linus, he was a member of the Iraq Study Group. Do you think he might have learned something about Iraq in his time as a member of the Iraq Study Group? Yes or no, Linus.
Yep but, again, He didn't say we were losing either.


And why can they not rove in a peaceful, flourishing, safe democracy such as Iraq where everything is better than anyone could possibly know including members of the Iraq Study Group, Linus?
For the same reason you can't rove in peaceful, flourishing South Central Los Angeles -- it's dangerous.

Again, your needle is either point left or right. Why can't there be a middle ground?

[johnsmith]

I'm not doing it for you.


But you're doing it FOR someone else?

[ChumpDumper]

Yep but, again, He didn't say we were losing either.But again, he said we weren't winning when Bushie said we were.
Again, your needle is either point left or right. Why can't there be a middle ground?The middle ground is this -- we fucked up enormously in Iraq and now we're scrambling for ways to cover our asses on the way out.

[ChumpDumper]

But you're doing it FOR someone else?Nope, just myself.

[johnsmith]

Nope, just myself.


Noted.

[clambake]

Ray makes the Iraq/miami connection and Yoni makes the Iraq/LA connection. Unbelievable.

You just compared Iraq to LA. unreal.

[ChumpDumper]

When do we invade LA?

[Yonivore]

But you're doing it FOR someone else?
No worries; at least Linus knows the true meaning of Christmas

Linus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKk9rv2hUfA)

[Yonivore]

When do we invade LA?
Next time they start breaking concrete blocks over the heads of innocent truck drivers again, I would imagine.

[ChumpDumper]

The estate of Charles Schultz will sue and call for the arrest of whoever stole that video.

Merry Christmas, anonymous YouTube criminal.

[ChumpDumper]

Next time they start breaking concrete blocks over the heads of innocent truck drivers again, I would imagine.When they bother white folks? Good to know where your priorites lie.

[Yonivore]

When they bother white folks? Good to know where your priorites lie.
Did say anything about race?

[ChumpDumper]

Did say anything about race?It's understood with you. Yours is not the enigma code.

[clambake]

Yoni, his answer was "we are not winning".

Gates goes to lunch and comes back to say "I stand behind what I said, but, were not losing either".

I think it's safe to say: Gates lunch menu= sandwich, iced tea, 2 earfulls of whispers.

[Yonivore]

It's understood with you. Yours is not the enigma code.
I believe that makes you the racist.

[ChumpDumper]

No, saying Francisco Elson doesn't know the defense makes me a racist.

[xrayzebra]

Ray makes the Iraq/miami connection and Yoni makes the Iraq/LA connection. Unbelievable.

You just compared Iraq to LA. unreal.

I do/did? When pray tell. Clam, me thinks maybe you
dream crap up. Have you been smoking those thing very
long? Or have you been in the juice?

[PixelPusher]

I do/did? When pray tell. Clam, me thinks maybe you
dream crap up. Have you been smoking those thing very
long? Or have you been in the juice?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53252&highlight=Miami

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53252&highlight=MiamiOuch.

With "Miami" in blood red, no less....

[xrayzebra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53252&highlight=Miami


Uh, I believe I posted an article that stated that. And
red it good, because it makes the point that you folks
seem to want to ignore.

But I do agree our media makes an issue out violence in
Iraq but ignores our own cities. I also read, that
Washington, D.C. has more violent deaths than Baghdad.

[Yonivore]

No, saying Francisco Elson doesn't know the defense makes me a racist.
Well, whatever makes you one, you're living up to the label.

[clambake]

More violent deaths in DC than in Baghdad, huh Ray.

Officially Insane.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, whatever makes you one, you're living up to the label.:lol Yoni, I respect the opinion of the guy who called me a racist on the spurs board more than yours because he's not a liar and a thief.

[Yonivore]

:lol Yoni, I respect the opinion of the guy who called me a racist on the spurs board more than yours because he's not a liar and a thief.
Okay. I respect his opinion too. I also agree with it.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Consider your opinions discounted, liar.

[Yonivore]

:lol

Consider your opinions discounted, liar.
Okay. By you.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, two internet dumbasses, one an exposed liar and admitted thief, called me a racist. I just don't feel that bad about it. They're wrong.

[Yonivore]

Hey, two internet dumbasses, one an exposed liar and admitted thief, called me a racist. I just don't feel that bad about it. They're wrong.
Well, at least you respected one of their opinions. That's good enough for me, particularly when the opinion was derogative towards yourself. Why should I argue with an opinion, you respect, that characterizes you as a racist?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, at least you respected one of their opinions.I respected it more than yours, "very, very little" > "none at all." RIF.
Why should I argue with an opinion, you respect, that characterizes you as a racist?
They're wrong.Are the words too big for you?

[Yonivore]

I respected it more than yours, "very, very little" > "none at all." RIF.
Okay.


Are the words too big for you?
No, but since I discount everything you post -- except, of course, for when you actually respect an derogatory post about yourself --, your "They're wrong" assessment carries little weight.

[ChumpDumper]

And since you're a dumbass, liar and thief, I have no problem knowing you're wrong.

[Yonivore]

And since you're a dumbass, liar and thief, I have no problem knowing you're wrong.
Ah, but dumbasses, liars, and theives have all been right, at times. Therefore, knowing I'm wrong is not a function of my being a dumbass, liar, or thief. My being wrong would necessitate you not being a racist.

And, all I have to go on is your admission that you respect the opinion of someone who called you one.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, knowing I'm not a racist is all I need. That I respect someone more than you should be no surprise.

[Yonivore]

Nah, knowing I'm not a racist is all I need. That I respect someone more than you should be no surprise.
So, why are you so adamant about demonstrating my being a dumbass, liar, or theif invalidates the (more then me) respected opinion of a third party? I didn't bring him into the discussion, you did.

If you knowing it is all you need, why involve this poor guy from another forum? But, now that you did, I'm choosing to trust his opinion, over yours, because, well, no one would invoke the opinion of a third party that derogates themselves unless it has some merit.

[ChumpDumper]

If you knowing it is all you need, why involve this poor guy from another forum?It was a joke for viewers of that thread in the basketball forum.
But, now that you did, I'm choosing to trust his opinion, over yoursBeing a dumbass yourself, you are a noted follower of dumbasses. This is no surprise.

[Yonivore]

It was a joke for viewers of that thread in the basketball forum.
I don't read the basketball forum and you were addressing me.


Being a dumbass yourself, you are a noted follower of dumbasses. This is no surprise.
Obviously, I disagree with this characterization and, I can't point to any other posters -- whom I respect -- in this or any other forum that have made a similar characterization.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't read

[Yonivore]

Yeah, the same ploy you use against Secretary Gates and President Bush. It's a Leftie speciality.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for Gates. I hope he's better than Rummy, though I know that's setting the bar pretty low.

[clambake]

I hope he works out. Ten more dead american soldiers today.

[Yonivore]

I'm all for Gates. I hope he's better than Rummy, though I know that's setting the bar pretty low.
You keep saying this as if it's what the thread is about.

[ChumpDumper]

You keep bringing it up, dumbass.

[Yonivore]

You keep bringing it up, dumbass.
You have trouble with separating ideas and with critical thinking. The topic I keep raising is that you take things out of context, Secretary Gates' testimony and President Bush's statement as a more recent example. I've not said anything about whether or not Gates is a satisfactory appointment...but, you have...about 3 or 4 times now; and, in response to posts that have nothing to do with that.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you keep saying I'm against Bush in his nomination of Gates. Quite the contrary. You do need it pointed out to you since you don't get it. That there is a disconnect between what he said and what the president said is a good thing in my mind. Your doing cartwheels to try and say they are exactly on the same page doesn't work and in this case isn't even desirable.

[xrayzebra]

When do we invade LA?

No the question is: When do we start pulling out and
declare the crooks the winner. Can't we just get along.

[ChumpDumper]

When do we start pulling out and
declare the crooks the winner.So do nothing about LA?

[Yonivore]

No, you keep saying I'm against Bush in his nomination of Gates.
Quote me. And, since you say I "keep" saying it, quote me multiple times.


Quite the contrary. You do need it pointed out to you since you don't get it. That there is a disconnect between what he said and what the president said is a good thing in my mind. Your doing cartwheels to try and say they are exactly on the same page doesn't work and in this case isn't even desirable.
No, I never said they were exactly on the same page.

[xrayzebra]

So do nothing about LA?

No we surrender. Cut and Run. Well we have really already
done that, haven't we?

[ChumpDumper]

Have we?

[xrayzebra]

Have we?

Yep. We have. We no longer enforce our laws.

[ChumpDumper]

So the terraist have already won in LA and Miami.

All the more reason to make more abroad.

[xrayzebra]

So the terraist have already won in LA and Miami.

All the more reason to make more abroad.

That is your stated opinion. Not mine. I was talking about
violent deaths. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

And by the way it is spelled: terrorist.

[clambake]

You forgot DC, Ray.

[xrayzebra]

Clam, the stalker. No, I haven't forgotten any city. But obviously
you did. Most of DC is brain dead anyhow. After all that is where
the politicians hang out and just look at their actions. And the
condition of the city. Or maybe you have never been there. It is
slums from one end to the other.

[clambake]

I completely agree about the politicians thing. Can you believe the shit coming out of our white house?

Can you tell me anything about the ethnic makeup of the residents in DC?

[ChumpDumper]

And by the way it is spelled: terrorist.Bush doen't pronounce it that way.

[PixelPusher]

I'm gonna pull a Yoni and Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V from a blog.


Exposed: The right's sleazy strategy for deflecting bad news from Iraq (http://www.attytood.com/2006/12/exposed_the_rights_sleazy_stra.html)
Last week, we got a lot of traffic for writing about the bizarre and false claim (http://www.attytood.com/2006/11/whos_unhinged_now_1.html) that a grieving Iraqi woman in a Reuters news photograph was really a Photoshopped "Bush in a burqa." We noted that this was just part of a broader tactic, to denigrate all reporting about a war gone terribly wrong by nitpicking the photojournalism of the fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

This is done using a combination of phony allegations that photographers are working with the enemy (http://www.attytood.com/archives/001686.html) or their one big "get" -- fairly trivial, in the broader picture -- of a Reuters freelancer who added smoke (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002951326) to a Beirut bombing photo -- to claim that the real problem over there is biased reporting and not a failed policy that has claimed 2,900 American lives (http://www.attytood.com/2006/12/its_a_number_1.html) while plunging Iraq into civil war.

Now comes the flap over a mosque attack in Baghdad, and a dispute over the news account -- trumpted on this Daily News front page at top -- that six Sunni worshippers were burned alive. This Huffington Post post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/12/05/truth-and-rumor-in-iraq_e_35589.html) does a good job of breaking down the mixed signals on whether this event really happened as reported by the AP. It's clear to me that a) The AP based its article on information from a trusted and previously reliable source (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/peering-through-a-foggy-war-in-iraq/), which is no guarantee of avoiding an error but is also the proven and accepted way all over the world that journalists gather news and b) even if the report were wrong, and I'm not convinced that it is, it was in the context of horrific -- and demonstrably true -- escalating violence in Baghdad.

Now, Gal Beckerman from Columbia Journalism Review puts it all in its proper context (http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/the_curse_of_the_small_innaccu.php):

It is important to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal.

This is far from a Nazi tactic, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of note. Journalism, like any human endeavor, is inherently flawed. Getting a story wrong -- in a big way or a little way -- is unacceptable and reporters should (and do) strive to get everything right. When they fail in this effort, it is not a sign of a conspiracy or an indication that the effort was in bad faith. It is just a mistake.

In fact, it's almost not worth swatting at these gnats from the 101st Fighting Keyboard Commandos. I'd rather just concede, and let them have as their main talking points on the Middle East: The fact that smoke was added to a picture of a real Israeli bombing of Lebanon, that the AP printed an incorrect story about one of the hundreds of deadly acts of sectarian violence in Iraq, and even the allegation -- totally unproven and not resulting in any actual charges (http://www.ap.org/response/response_092006a.html) -- that one Iraqi photographer who has worked with the AP has ties to the insurgents.

For our main talking points that the Iraq war is immoral and that U.S. involvement needs to end, we'll take the lies about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda that didn't exist, and the unrelentingly sad fact that more than 2,900 Americans and tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have now died in an unnnecessary civil war, all for this mistake.

Let's see who wins that one.

[Yonivore]

I'm gonna pull a Yoni and Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V from a blog.
You're not near as good at it as I am. That made very little sense.

From your first link in the post:


There are two main objections. To sum them up, they claim the AP was aiding the enemy when one of its photographers, who has sources in the anti-U.S. insurgency, went to a rally and captured a shot of insurgents shooting two Iraqi election workers. The other is general, that too many of the pictures are "pro-insurgent" or that none of them depict "heroic" actions by American troops.
Powerline never said the workers or the murderers were at a rally. That was the whole reason to question the photographer's involvement. It was a seemingly random act that occurred in the middle of an intersection in sprawling Baghdad.

How did the AP Photographer just happen to be there?

I notice that Attytood has to change the circumstance in order to make it seem as though Powerline was exaggerating the suspicious nature of the picture.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaking-news-photography/works/warzone%20020.jpg
Baghdad - A gunman, left, shoots an Iraqi election worker during an attack on Haifa Street, a base of Sunni Arab insurgents. About 30 men attacked a car carrying five of the workers, executing three at point blank range. (Photo by AP stringer, December 19, 2004.)

Here's what Powerline actually said, to which Attytood linked.


The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?

Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:


A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety? The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.

Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:


Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.
That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.

There was no rally. There was no reason for the Photographer to be there except for the fact he was tipped off by the terrorists.

You suck at plaigerism.

[PixelPusher]

You're not near as good at it as I am. That made very little sense.
Sorry, I tried, but I just couldn't bring myself to not credit/link the sources the way you do.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni's reading helper is gone for the day. He won't understand anything until tmoorrow.

[Yonivore]

Yoni's reading helper is gone for the day. He won't understand anything until tmoorrow.
I decided to follow the first of his links. Read the edit. My reading helper decided to put in some overtime.

[PixelPusher]

You suck at plaigerism.
Let me try again, Yoni style.

It is important for me, PixelPusher, who is composing this as if it came from my own brain and not from some blog, to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal. That what I think, yes sir...

[Yonivore]

Let me try again, Yoni style.

It is important for me, PixelPusher, who is composing this as if it came from my own brain and not from some blog, to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal. That what I think, yes sir...
Oh I got that but, where is the evidence supporting his claim "it seems clear now that it might be true after all?" And what kind of conclusion is that in the first place?

If that's what you think, how 'bout the opposing argument that says AP reporting uses non-existent and anonymous source they cannot now produce and, therefore, all their reporting should be viewed skepticism?

After all, there is plenty of supporting evidence that the AP and Reuters have been faking their "accurate" news a la Dan Rather.