|
November 29, 2006
The moral equivalency of fake phonies and phony fakes
Forgive this exercise in the surreal, but that's how I'm feeling about the apparently phony Iraqi police official called "Jamil Hussein," who is now claimed to be real after all. I know it sounds nutty, but this whole thing had been reminding me of an old friend named "George Harleigh" until Jamil Hussein's apparent resurrection from the phony to the realm of real life. Might it be time to bring back George Harleigh? I don't know how many readers remember him, but George Harleigh was a famous Political Science professor who had worked in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and who was always heard to sound off against Bush at a "news" site called "Capitol Hill Blue." At the time, it didn't make sense to me that any news site could do this consistently and get away with it. But the guy who ran the site was once a regular reporter. How, I wondered, could a formerly "good" reporter could "go bad"? I assumed that he had once learned how to do proper reporting, but that somehow he had become corrupt or lazy. In light of the Jamil Hussein allegations (which came on the heels of things like the phony ambulance attack, photoshopped smoke, the Green Helmet man, and more), I was beginning to think that George Harleigh might not have resulted from the imagination of a reporter who became corrupted, but that using fictitious sources is just the way things are done. Bloggers have seen this so many times that the natural reaction of many is to believe CENTCOM's assertion that there was no Jamil Hussein in the Iraqi police. Gateway Pundit (via Glenn Reynolds) had a remarkable post about the Jamil Hussein "Iraqi police captain" affair. Flopping Aces seems to have uncovered the hoax, and NewsBusters had more. I liked Jeff Goldstein's explanation of the dynamics: Whether this narrative is the product of willful distortion or merely the laziness that comes with being fed stories that match your preconceptions is, in effect, beside the point--though the former is clearly more despicable, and, should it prove to be the case, has the practical effect of undermining a representative democracy that can only work properly if citizens are being given accurate accountings of events by those purporting to do so.Purporting is right. Reporters are often little more than purporters. The moral lesson is seen as the primary concern, and if the right facts and characters can't be found, they must be invented. Jamil Hussein the moral lesson is more important than Jamil Hussein the character. If he doesn't exist, he might as well have -- and so he might as well will! And of course, if it turns out that he did exist after all, those who claimed he didn't will be more than wrong. They'll be morally evil -- to the core. And their moral wrongness is the most damning argument possible in favor of absolute and unconditional withdrawal from this absolutely immoral war! Real or not, Hussein is of course as replaceable as "George Harleigh." The important thing is what Americans must remember (especially in November): Leaving aside the elitist and racist underpinnings informing such a subtext, what is important to note here is that the majority of Americans who don't follow politics closely will remember nothing but the ghastly imagery and the message it is intended to further: that we are dealing with a society of savages who, given the opportunity for freedom, will reject it in favor of bloodsport and retribution.For their part, the George Harleigh folks (whoever they may purport to be at any given time) have run at least three of the "Jamil Hussein" reports. (Hope they're still there, because I hated hunting down the Google caches when I wrote about Harleigh and company.) As to those who still manage to support the war, they're mentally ill: The dwindling few who still, for reasons known only to God or their psychiatrist, support President George W. Bush's failed invasion if Iraq, continue to claim the situation is not as bad as portrayed by the media.Assuming for the sake of argument that I am mentally ill, and putting aside whether Jamil Hussein is fake, I think there's a downside to arguing over whether the situation is "as bad as portrayed by the media" or even whether it's worse. Isn't there an assumption that a war which is apparently being lost should be lost? And now that the fake Jamil Hussein story is claimed to have been true and accurate after all, apologies are being demanded. From bloggers of course! (Did they not believe the evil lying lies from the evil lying military?) here we have so many conservative bloggers, after days of castigating the Associated Press for running what the wingnuts claimed was a fictitious story about six Sunnis being burned alive in sectarian violence in Iraq on Friday, having to once again face what a bunch of putzes they really are.Ouch? Why am I feeling no pain? No pain, no shame, and no gain. I don't know whether I should feel any shame, as this post is about more than whether the story is phony. Frankly, I don't know whether it is, and I don't especially care. Have we forgotten the maxim going back to Aeschylus? In war, truth is the first casualty. Whether this story turns out to be true or not, why should it be an argument in favor of defeat? Is the goal to win this war, or is wanting to win the war a symptom of my mental illness? Anyway, the AP is sticking by the story, and they're now claiming that a reporter went to visit Jamil Hussein after bloggers raised a fuss, and that he definitely exists: ...[T]he U.S. military said in a letter to the AP late Monday, three days after the incident, that it had checked with the Iraqi Interior Ministry and was told that no one by the name of Jamil Hussein works for the ministry or as a Baghdad police officer. Lt. Michael B. Dean, a public affairs officer of theI'll say. If this isn't a showdown between the military and the media, I don't know what is. For its part, the AP makes it quite clear which side it's on: The AP reported on Sept. 26 that a Washington-based firm, the Lincoln Group, had won a two-year contract to monitor reporting on the Iraq conflict in English-language and Arabic media outlets.I guess that's presented as background. Now onto the real story -- the claim that there has been confirmation that Jamil Hussein is real: Seeking further information about Friday's attack, an AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time about the incident to confirm there was no error. The captain has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions. The captain, who gave his full name as Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, said six people were indeed set on fire.So that's it? An AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time? Who was this reporter? How do we know he exists? I thought I should attempt to contact George Harleigh again, and I found him apparently alive and well. While he wasn't reported as predicting defeat in Iraq, I have to give him credit for predicting defeat in November: The rapidly-multiplying scandals ripping through Washington like a category five hurricane has Republicans reassessing their political futures while Democrats rub their hands with glee amid dreams of massive gains in the 2006 midterm elections.What this means is that you don't have to be real to be right. George Washington was right to tell his father the truth about cutting down the cherry tree, even if he didn't. MORE: Austin Bay looks at the Jamil Hussein affair, and concludes that there are many questions: MNCI could be wrong, but the distinct possibility exists that the AP has been misled by its own stringers or duped by an enemy propaganda operation. The AP insists it reported the basic story accurately. However, if Jamil is another Jimmy," the APs story as a weapon in a war of perception-- is far more damaging than Janet Cookes Washington fiction. MORE: CBS News reports that AP is "hitting back" and speculates that the fight is just beginning: The message between the lines in all this is that the AP believes the government is going to be more aggressive in challenging the press - even when they don't have the goods to back it up, as the AP believes is the case here. "I have infinitely more faith in the U.S. military than in the Associated Press, but that doesn't mean the military is always right or the AP always wrong," writes Powerline. "It seems that the AP believes it is in a strong position. I'm tempted to say that one institution or the other must emerge from this affair with its credibility damaged." This could be one fight that's just beginning.It seems to me that it ought to be a relatively simple matter to determine whether the story is true or not. Once the truth has been determined, that should end the fight over the facts. The fight over credibility of sources is a different matter. MORE: Michelle Malkin is keeping track of the story with numerous updates. UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all new readers. (And welcome back, George Harleigh! I missed him so much that maybe I should write some new quotes just for him.) posted by Eric on 11.29.06 at 11:12 AM
Comments
Who was the AP reporter sent to verify? Dan Rather, of course. Cris · November 29, 2006 06:48 PM Excellent post. I added a link to it at Centcom says AP’s "Iraqi police source" isn’t Iraqi police -- Part 4 Bill Faith · November 29, 2006 07:20 PM Congrats on the instalanche. M. Simon · November 29, 2006 08:44 PM All the AP really needs to do to prove its story is to produce the Iraqi police captain cited as the source and other witnesses as well for all to see. I bet the cannot, and will not. Tim · November 29, 2006 08:53 PM Just tell the truth!!!!!!! gm · November 29, 2006 09:33 PM This post is an instant classic! -David Manning David Manning · November 29, 2006 09:45 PM qdqe · November 29, 2006 10:27 PM gfer · November 29, 2006 10:27 PM Some pics of 6 fresh graves would go a long way towards backing up AP's version... Surely someone would have pics of this...if it existed that is. Purple Avenger · November 29, 2006 10:43 PM Why should anyone take what the AP sez at face value? I mean...let me say two words: Bilal Hussein Darleen · November 30, 2006 01:19 AM The Firesign Theater used to say "Everything You Know Is Wrong". Now we know why. M. Simon · November 30, 2006 05:37 AM In all of Iraq EVERYONE tells only the absolute truth. Why, just the other day a Shiite was in a Sunni neighborhood and he was asked if he was a Sunni - "I cannot tell a lie, I am not - I am a proud Shia." The crowd applauded his honesty - then prompted stoned him to death. I know this because Jamil Gholaiem Hussein told me. He is a police Corporal-Captain (a new rank just below Sargeant-Major). And even if fake - is it not accurate, in that troubled land? Californio · November 30, 2006 12:52 PM "Isn't there an assumption that a war which is apparently being lost should be lost?" WTF??? Leaving aside the truthiness of the real or not Iraqi policeman, what difference would it make whether some blogger thinks the war should be lost? It will succeed or fail quite independently of blogger wishes. There are people whom we elected to be in charge of these sorts of things. When they prove themselves to be inept, we hold them accountable. A policy cannot be turned from failure to success by shear force of will. Nor can a policy decision that failed be blamed on those that opposed it from the outside looking in. Iraq is a failed policy decision. The AP isn't responsible for that, the Bush Administration is. NYNick · November 30, 2006 03:35 PM "Whether this story turns out to be true or not, why should it be an argument in favor of defeat?" That's the nub of it. The liberals I've seen never address the fundamental question. They assume that all wars are wrong, but never address why. It's like "violence never solved anything," a patently false cliche if there ever were one. They take so much nonsense on blind faith, especially John Lennon's fatuous lyrics to "Give peace a chance" and "Imagine." Didn't we give Saddam Hussein every chance to have peace? The left assumes that all people are good at heart, except for conservatives and other Republicans. If they had half the tolerance toward George Bush that they grant bin Laden and the ChiComs, there'd be no doubts about this war. There'd be reports about American troops as heroes and liberators, instead of the constant drumbeat of defeat we get from the media every time we try to make the world better. AST · November 30, 2006 06:22 PM AST, You say, "That's the nub of it. The liberals I've seen never address the fundamental question. They assume that all wars are wrong, but never address why." That is just patently false. Liberals don't assume any such thing. We have an historical record of wars fought by Presidents that were Democrats. WWII was fought by two Democratic presidents. They were not afraid to commit young men to combat for a just cause. It's not war we object to, it's this war and the way it's been sold, executed and managed. NYNick · December 1, 2006 12:35 PM Okay, AST. You don't like the way it's been sold, managed and executed. Question is whether you want us to win or lose. Keep in mind that if we win, Bush looks good and if we lose, Bush looks bad.... Richard Aubrey · December 1, 2006 02:15 PM R. Aubrey, "Question is whether you want us to win or lose. Keep in mind that if we win, Bush looks good and if we lose, Bush looks bad...." Look, policy decisions matter. What we do has consequences. Failing here is a monumental disaster for all of us, left, right, in the middle. I am not responsible for making policy decisions, that's the job of congress and president. What I or anyone thinks of Bush personally or his job performance has only one outlet that matters and that is the voting booth. We are in deep trouble in Iraq. That isn't going to change because the AP is biased or because dislike the president. NYNick · December 1, 2006 08:54 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 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
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The arrogance of the AP is unbelievable. After Reuters allowed themselves to be duped in Lebanon and South Vietnam, one would think that the AP would be very cautious when challenged. I guess you don’t have to worry when you are among the “always right” elite of this world.