And he's willing to accompany them. While he's there, maybe Jordan can find out about one of those journalists he claimed were murdered by US troops. Just one. Not the body, just a name.

Until then I will buy him lunch anytime, so long as it's the all-you-can-eat special at the Crow Buffet.

Does anyone think Malkin has the guts to go to Iraq and prove that Jamil Hussein doesn't exist?

I don't. And I'm glad of that -- because Iraqi police officers, and their families, are prime targets of the terrorists, and one can assume that once she found Hussein, Malkin would include the kind of details about him that would make sure he was never a source for bad news about the US occupation again.

luka, wanna bet?

I have no doubt that she'll go, if Eason comes through - and I have no doubt that he'll come through.

I'm still trying to collect from monkeyboy, but I'll take something new on...

A.L.

Now everyone will want to go. If Eason leaves the Green Zone without a full military escort i'll eat my fist. Not that that is wise, its just kind of pathetic that Jordan puts out this challenge as though he's out beating the streets, placing his life in jepordy by enjoying the cocktail bar in the Baghdad Hilton.

Here is my prediction- Malkin will indeed go, but the reports that come back will look like this:

Day 1, Jordan- We are searching high and low, turning over every rock!

Day 1, Malkin- We havent left the hotel. Jordan is having lunch with the stringers and scribbling furiously.

Day 2, Jordan- We found Hussein!

Day 2, Malkin- The stringers claim he exists. Thats all we've found.

Day 3, Jordan- Packing bags, quick dip before the valet arrives.

Day 3, Malkin- Michael Yon is in Hurriyah. Should have some answers soon.

Day 4, Jordan- The food on this flight is barely passable. I wonder if the military is intentionally poisoning me. Something to save for Davos.

etc...
Snipe- Snipe- Snipe. Nothin is going to get resolved from this, im pretty positive of that.

If Eason leaves the Green Zone without a full military escort i'll eat my fist.

If Malkin leaves the Green Zone without a massive security entourage I'll eat your fist.

In fact, I predict that will be her excuse for not going. Claim Eason refused to pony up for sufficient security.

Which will leave the world wondering if Michelle takes 20 guys from Blackwater USA with her every time she goes out for coffee in Philadelphia.

"Which will leave the world wondering if Michelle takes 20 guys from Blackwater USA with her every time she goes out for coffee in Philadelphia."

Wow, most guys would save the cracks until she actually chickened out.

I dont expect Malkin to leave the Greenzone either. I have no idea if they can arrange a military escort to actual get their boots on the ground, but i doubt it and i doubt Jordan will try - judging PURELY by the way MSM has behaved to date in their reporting.

Look, thats fine, i dont expect Jordan or Malkin to commit suicide. But Jordan could at least have the decency to stop pretending he's doing something extraordinarilly dangerous just by being there. And you guys might want to think that over before bagging on Malkin for chickening out before she does. Because she wont. Because reporting from Baghdad is not that dangerous, honestly. Because no-one leaves the Green Zone.

Armed Liberal, obsessive warblogger.

Read another account here

The AP stood by its story, though, calling CENTCOM's allegations "ludicrous" and noting that Hussein had been providing AP reporters with reliable information for months. The AP also didn't think much of CENTCOM's suggestion that reporters only quote people found on the government's approved list of sources

For the record, along with Hussein, the AP based its Burned Alive reporting on an account from Imad al-Hashimi, a Sunni elder who told Al-Arabiya television about the killings. (He later recanted his story after being visited by a representative of the defense minister.) The AP also spoke to three independent eyewitnesses (two shopkeepers and a physician) and confirmed the story with hospital and morgue workers. Nonetheless, CENTCOM raised doubts about Hussein, so warbloggers, hearing a reassuring narrative they loved, pronounced the AP guilty of manufacturing news and quickly referred to Hussein as a "fake policeman" and to the Burned Alive story as a "fairy tale."

Why the obsession with THIS particular story? Does it have a larger point? Do you generalize from this ONE story, to ALL of the media? What's the deal? What about all the other releases from AP, other sources? Mistakes happen - but you are blowing up this ONE story, while ignoring the 1000 the AP gets right!

And that is only if your frame is accepted, of course. It is so clearly propaganda.

Keep in mind that in the seven days surrounding the Burned Alive story, hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis were killed in sectarian violence. Here's a very small sampling, via Reuters, of the bloodshed that flowed around the time of the Burned Alive dispatch

To date, warbloggers have not raised serious questions about any of those slayings or the reporting surrounding them. Yet viewing Iraq through the soda straw that is the Burned Alive story, they insist the press, thanks to its pro-terrorist sympathies, is creating the illusion of "chaos" in Iraq.

So AL, why is THIS story worth 4 posts, and yet all those other deaths due to sectarian violence aren't?

A footnote: It's odd that warbloggers have expended an enormous amount of time and energy trying to pick apart a single source from a single, relatively brief AP dispatch, arguing that the misleading information in that article somehow calls into question all of the Iraq reporting, yet warbloggers have been relatively silent about the recent string of book-length critiques of the war. I'm thinking in particular about Thomas Ricks' excellent book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (Penguin Press, July 2006), which, in its first 100 pages, tells readers all they need to know about the botched war. Warbloggers either don't read books, or are so completely overwhelmed by the definitive evidence produced in a book like Fiasco, which relies heavily on sources from within the U.S. military to paint its convincing picture of Bush administration incompetence, that warbloggers simply have no choice but to turn away and focus their attention on evil AP stringers.

Yep.

well, hypocracy I'll fess up - I'm obsessed with Iraq, because the level of failure or success there will drive a lot of future outcomes.

I'm suspicious both of the 'it's all good' and of the 'it's all f**ked' arguments; reality is typically far more messed-up than that.

I'm very wary of the media reporting coming out of Iraq because it's coming almost entirely through stringers - who may or may not have explicit agendas - and because with the exception of major events - big bombings - very little of the information is verifiable.

We also have a Karen Toshima issue - she's the WLA woman who was killed by gang crossfire in 1990; for two years afterward, the gang issue in LA was a huge news priority - even though the stats didn't reflect it. And so everyone's perceptions of Los Angeles were shaped - by one newsworthy event.

A.L.

A.L.

You aren't addressing my questions, but that's your prerogative.

One last thing - and a bit of snark here -

Since I started commenting here, oh, six months ago? - you have constantly, in your replies, been mis-spelling hypocrisy as "hypocracy". In all responses to me (feel free to look it up)

For awhile, I thought it may be an alternate spelling. But when I look it up at dictionary.com - and in the dictionary I have at home - that spelling doesn't seem to exist.

Is there some sort of in-joke there, or are you simply as horrible at spelling - as your are formulating or analyzing realistic and effective national and global responses to terrorist threats?

:)

hypocrisy - just having a bit of fun, actually. I recall your first correction. If annoys you, I may keep it up. Or if you lower the level of snark and really debate, maybe I'll stop.

So on to answers:

First, it's not the one story, it's the 61 articles for which he was a source. He's a loose thread that runs deeply into the fabric of AP's coverage of the war.

Am I saying that Iraq is like Torrance? Nope. Not a bit. As noted in my posts below, I think things are bad and getting worse. The qualitative question of how bad matters a lot, though. As someone who lived in Venice Beach during the worst of the LA gang hysteria, I'll suggest that things pretty much sucked in gang neighborhoods then - but that I lived in one, and travelled through others, and ate at others and never had a problem.

Does this mean that LA's antigang police work was wasted? No. But the impression we get from the media is that Baghdad is more like the landing scene in Saving Private Ryan.

It may not be. And if it isn't - and if we've been overreacting to real, photogenic violence and possibly to lies about violence as well - that has some pretty serious implications for what we think about the war and where it's going.

Which is why, in part, the unhinged reaction to Malkin's trip is spreading through the lefty blogs right now.

I have posted on the problems in Iraq, and from before the invasion, I posted that it would be long, bloody and difficult. Maybe that's why I don't necessarily plan to change my mind simply because it's long, bloody and difficult.

A.L.

First, it's not the one story, it's the 61 articles for which he was a source.

are you questioning the accuracy of those stories? Do you have a list of them? Does anyone?

Yes, and if you Google for five minutes, you can too.

A.L.

AL,
Do you know when they are supposed to go and what part of Iraq they'll be looking in for this guy?

I really wouldn't go over there JUST for this but would be interested in going over to do some real reporting there. I nearly went to Kurdistan over the summer but my full time job and the threat of losing it for good prevented me.

Mark
www.regimeofterror.com

Mark-

Not sure, but I'd presume Baghdad, since that's where Hussein is supposed to be a cop...I'm tracking it at Iraqslogger and Malkin's site, but they are (sensibly) talking offline now.

This is going to be quite interesting.

A.L.

"are you questioning the accuracy of those stories? Do you have a list of them? Does anyone?"

Are you suggesting that if the source is fabricated the stories may not be? Fake but true yet again?

hypocrisyrules: I think it's a matter of record that someone used to post comments who spelled his name "hypocracyrules". I remember it most distinctly.

Are you willing to go on record that that was never you? IP address records are interesting things. I haven't looked at them yet.

Not snarking, just asking.

Which will leave the world wondering if Michelle takes 20 guys from Blackwater USA with her every time she goes out for coffee in Philadelphia.

What I was actually wondering is if you're the kind of guy who goes around picking fights with women by calling them cowards, or do you just sucker punch them?

as actually wondering is if you're the kind of guy who goes around picking fights with women by calling them cowards, or do you just sucker punch them?

I know for a fact that you knew exactly what I meant by my Philadelphia reference so we'll just label this as avoidance and not ignorance.

And do you really think that pointing out Michelle's hypocrisy is picking a fight?

Well, I suppose you do. It's better to feel victimized than to take responsibility for you past comments isn't it?

Poor poor pitiful you.

"And do you really think that pointing out Michelle's hypocrisy is picking a fight?"

Thats right Davebo, get your licks in now before the alleged hypocracy takes place. Its all you've got apparently. Can we expect an apology if Malkin actually gets to Iraq?

Mark,

Yes, if Malkin walks around Baghdad looking for the AP stringer without a large security contingent I will not only apologize, I'll contribute to her memorial service.

Happy now?

Geez!

"Yes, if Malkin walks around Baghdad looking for the AP stringer without a large security contingent I will not only apologize, I'll contribute to her memorial service."

Anything less makes her a hypocrite? I dont get it.

Davebo - does she have to be nude when she does it? And shouting anti-Islamic insults in Arabic?

It's a war zone. Of course she needs to act in a rational way.

My freaking god, that's the lamest thing I've heard all week. And you're not alone in saying it, which depresses me even more.

A.L.

It seems now you have to go into a war zone in order to be able to comment about war zone reporting.

I wonder what the next standard will be? Perhaps we'll have to hit ourselves in the head with sledgehammers to talk about the taste of hamburgers at Wendy's.

I will say this, Michelle is going to have the spotlight on this one. As much complaining about shoddy MSM journalism as there has been, what she does over there is going to be scrutinized by both sides. She will need to be creative and get some stories nobody else is getting, or regardless of whether this Hussein character is ever found it will be a defeat for the critics.

Like I said, that doesnt mean doing anything suicidal. But it does mean getting out of the Green Zone to some extent, and certainly doing a lot of good old fashion followup work- difficult with a sketchy, shady, and confused beuracracy we know the Iraqi government to be.

The Hussein case is entirely ridiculous, which is why some people are speculating Jordan is setting her up (I dont buy that). Basically it only requires asking the stringer to ask Hussein who's name is on his paycheck. Follow the money, journalism 101. If this guy is for real he is being paid, if he is being paid, somebody can confirm his existance. Simple. Makes you wonder if its simple hubris, fear of being wrong, or amazing incompetance that the AP is displaying in all this- because it must be one of those (or all I suppose).

t's a war zone. Of course she needs to act in a rational way.

No, it's no more dangerous than Philadelphia or DC AL. Haven't you heard?

Davebo, the issue is how intense the war is. There are low-intensity wars - one is going on in Tel Aviv right now - and there are higher-intensity wars - one is going on in Darfur right now - and there are high-intensity wars - we had one outside of Baghdad a few years ago.

At the lowest levels of intensity, war looks not very different than a gang-ridden city. At the highest, it looks like World War II.

Even in World War II, people could walk through many cities and lead lives close to normal.

In Baghdad - in some areas - local Iraqis can move relatively freely. In some, they can't. In virtually none would a recognizable Westerner be free to walk around - any more than a black Piru Crip would be free to walk through a Hispanic V13 neighborhood back in '89.

A.L.

Davebo, the issue is how intense the war is.

Fine, so what intensity is the war in Philadelphia at today?

Look, I know Baghdad is a dangerous place. Dangerous for Iraqis and dangerous for westerners.

Keep in mind, I'm not the one touting claims that Baghdad is safer than Philadelphia. That's Curt the flopping ace.

But Davebo it makes a huge difference if the level of violence in Baghdad is comparable to Omaha Beach or to East Philly. That doesn't mean that it isn't more serious or chronic...but it does mean that our policy decisions need to be realistic.

A.L.

Give it up already AL.

I'm not asking you to denounce the idiotic claims of similarity. I know you now better.

I was merely pointing out that his opinion of the level of violence in Baghdad seems to have changed dramatically since he's found out he may be visiting there himself.

I personally hope neither of them go. It's a war zone and it's no place for amateurs. Especially considering the irrelevant purpose of the trip.

But Davebo it makes a huge difference if the level of violence in Baghdad is comparable to Omaha Beach or to East Philly.

as a resident of philadephia, I need to point out that there is no such place as "East Philly".

There's North Philly, South Philly, West Philly, Northeast Philly, Southwest Philly... but NO EAST PHILLY.

If you haven't seen it already, there's an interesting post on this issue at Media Matters (via Instapundit and Kausfiles).

bq The AP cites their source as being an officer in the Yarmouk district of Baghdad. Fine. Most people in the U.S. and the world don't know Baghdad's geography. But the question that hit me is "why is somebody in Yarmouk the main quoted source (originally) for a story about events in Hurriyah?" ... the AP went to the equivalent of a Brooklyn local police precinct for a story that occurred in northern Yonkers!

Here's the link.

Eason Jordan on iraq?

The first thing that came to mind was that Dante's first ring of Hell was reserved for opportunists like Jordan.

The second thought was that someone need abuse trust only once to lose it for a lifetime.

The third thought was that this rubs out any former line between media and press.

The final thought is that, still, the press has failed to continuously:

* Explain what in democracy is important.

* Explain why.

* Explain why what is important in democracy is important to others.

* Explain the methods that threaten it.

* Explain the conditions that allow it to happen.
* Explain how to combat it.

Let the Jordan gimmick sadly play itself out.

I'll ask again, with emphasis. I hope this doesn't become a "moderator matter".

hypocrisyrules: I think it's a matter of record that someone used to post comments who spelled his name "hypocracyrules". I remember it most distinctly.

Are you willing to go on record that that was never you? IP address records are interesting things. I haven't looked at them yet.

Not snarking, just asking.

L'Affaire 'Hypocracie'

OK, a little diligence turns up the following. I find precisely one comment currently in the WoC archives that is attributed to someone calling him/herself "hypocracyrules".

What's funny is that it contains the following:

Wake me up when you can admit fact, Joe. I use the label hypocrisyules, specifically for your type of spinning.

All posts by both spellings use the evidently bogus email address "nospam" at an ISP I will avoid naming (on the off chance it's actually a live account).

It seems that (at least sometimes) this poster him/herself has spelled the word "hypocracy".

I haven't heard differently from hypocrisyrules, and emails to the aforementioned address have not yielded a response (I wonder why? /sarcasm).

Why does this matter?

At the risk of harping overmuch: Read the WoC comments policy.

The relevant part is

Rule #3: Impersonate another poster by posting in their name, and you're deleted and site-banned on the first offense. No ifs, no ands, no buts ....
If it seems appropriate or necessary, we'll even spend the time systematically erasing your comments throughout the site and complain to your ISP.

So I wanted to find out if impersonation was taking place. I tried to do so in the most direct ways I could.

Identities are important in real life and online. To the extent that identities are fluid, accountability and reputation are diluted.

I use the same nom de plume I started with because, by golly, it's effectively my "brand" now.

"[H]ypocracyrules" was a dilution (at least on WoC) of the "hypocrisyrules" brand that was apparently committed by the "owner" of the brand .

Others (including myself) responded in good faith and called him/her that in following comments.

Now he/she objects.

How odd that both names have been used. I found myself wondering why.

I still wonder.

Conclusion

As far as I can determine, both names point to the same referent.

Absent any expressed interest on the part of hypocrisyrules for moderators to determine if someone was pretending to be him/her, and posting in his/her name, that appears to be where the matter rests.

On the information at hand, it is the opinion of this moderator that the poster calling him/herself hypocrisyrules is just gonna have to suck it up and allow the misspelling he/she apparently self-committed.