|
January 11, 2007
At this rate, my skepticism will soon be unretractable!
I'm having trouble counting the the number of times the story over the existence of "Jamil Hussein" has changed. The twists and turns are unbelievable. According to a new post by Bob Owen, there is no such Iraqi police captain as "Jamil Hussein," and the name was used as a pseudonym without disclosure by the AP: Flopping Aces has more, and saying that the source (whoever he may be) denies that he is the source: A man exists who denies he is the source, additionally he is not named Jamil Hussein...that's it. The only other information we get is that the Iraqi MoI has confirmed that he was the source for the AP which I question since how in the world do they confirm he is the source if he DENIES being the source?A man who is not Jamil Hussein but who is said to be a source named "Jamil Hussein" denies being Jamil Hussein and denies being the source? Is this news, or is it the Twilight Zone? I'm thinking that I might have to retract my retraction and stick with my original skepticism. Because truth, like, matters, you know? And I am sure truth matters to Glenn Greenwald, who is probably busy right now retracting all the unkind things he said about the "Jamil Hussein" skeptics. Must be a long post, as it isn't there yet. Just imagine how much fun it would be to retract a gem like this: And now the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are -- a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip, base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. They operate in packs, constantly repeating each other's innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof.Come on, Glenn Greenwald, don't be a sourpuss! Retract! I retracted, and you can too. Retraction is good for the soul. Plus, it's fun! However, none of these retractions and counter-retractions will help poor Jamil Hussein. He might exist and then, he might not exist. He might be accurate, but then, he might not. He might deny his existence and his status as a source, but then, he might not. He might as well have existed, even if he might as well not have. But hey, at least he has a blog. posted by Eric on 01.11.07 at 12:57 PM |
|
January 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2007
December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
My leetle fren' has more fun than Hugo and Mahmoud!
I Found A Moderate Muslim It's not about Iraq. Or nukes. Or Iran.... Must have experience with diapers! I Believe In America Its Official The Word Is Father To The Deed Religious Liberty If homo lovers are liberal, then mullah lovers are conservative? Oil Outlook
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Greenwalds comments were interesting. As anyone of sound mind knows, if you just replace conservative with liberal in his rant, you would be right on top of the truth. Thanks Glenn, and thanks to myself!