Mycroft, your commentary is an unrelenting stream of spin, much in the mold of LGF and the other dubious sources cited in your OP. And stunningly, the stream is unhindered by the revelation that you've been dead wrong from the get-go. For instance...
Disagreement with you is not in itself “spin.”
The Iraqi DOI denying the existence of Jamil Hussein was powerful reason to doubt the AP. That later Jamil Hussein proved to be real does not change that six weeks ago there was good reason to doubt. That’s not “spin”, that’s paying attention to the evidence.
1) Thread title: States something as fact even though the "fact" was in question.
I’ll give you that.
2) You support your position by
echoing agenda-driven echoes that are devoid of factual content. (All hail Kevin Bacon.)
Except they were not devoid of “factual content.” The important fact, that the Iraqi DOI had denied the existence of Jamil Hussein was reported.
3) You place expectations on AP/Hussein that defy credulity in the extreme, such as
expecting AP to draw targets onto Hussein's family members by publishing photographs of them.
If making him a public figure “draws a target” on his back, then the AP had already done that by quoting him by name in dozens of stories. The truth here is the AP had a credibility issue, and you were manufacturing excuses to give them a pass.
4) You
deny that posters are denying Hussein's existence, even though several are doing precisely that, and you even berate delphi_ote's reading comprehension when he points it out. Then
you turn around and suggest Hussein's non-existence
in the next breath.
And now I’ll berate
your reading comprehension.
Take a close look at that first link. Here, I’ll quote from it for you:
”Nobody asks that question because nobody is claiming that AP is lying about the guy.”
See? The topic is AP lying about Jamil Hussein. That’s a
very different topic from if Jamil Hussein exists or not.
Let’s recap:
I said nobody claimed AP was lying. Many speculated that the AP had been duped, but that was just speculation with little evidence.
I
did not say nobody was denying Jamil Hussein’s existence. Clearly the Iraqi DOI was, which is what started this topic.
Clear?
5) You
refuse to acknowledge that "producing" Hussein became problematic when MOI announced that unauthorized people are forbidden from talking to the press.
Many things are “problematic”, that doesn’t make them insolvable. When MOI announced that unauthorized people are forbidden from talking to the press, that only made it
more important for AP to dig for the truth. Don’t you get that?
6) You
persist even once we learn that Hussein specifically faces arrest for talking to the press.
So now the Iraqi MOI is in a unique catch-22. They used their inability to affirm the existence of Jamil Hussein to justify creating this policy in the first place, now they want to use the policy to punish him.
Tell me, do you think Hussein’s best chances are with a lot of international press exposure on what the DOI is doing with him? Or in allowing it all to be quietly swept under the rug as you favor? I know if I were in his place, I’d want the public attention. Your way, if he's never heard from again, nobody will ever know.
7) You fail to acknowledge the
doubt cast on Dean/MOI's claims by the fact that the MOI spokesman himself is on the list of unauthorized sources.
I declined to respond when Nova Land produced dozens of long posts all at once. That does not equate to ignoring any one specific issue raised in one of those posts. The truth is that by the time I had a respons ready, it was made moot by the affirmation of Jamil Hussein.
8) You liken
record checking in Iraq -- a nation in complete chaos, in the midst of a civil war, with a barely functional government -- to record checking a
loan application in the US.
So?
If someone had said the records building had been blown up, that would have been a plausible excuse, but
nobody said that.
If someone had claimed that the “complete chaos” of a country in the midst of a civil war made record checking problematic and uncertain, then that might have been a plausible excuse too, but
nobody said that either.
In fact there is no evidence that Iraq’s “chaos” or “civil war” has anything at all to do with the MOI’s ability to check records. That’s really only an excuse made up by you. Unless you’re in Iraq and can personally testify to it, then you’re just making up excuses.
9) You
misrepresent AP's follow-up, facts be damned. And by
persisting even after we've learned that AP was right and MOI was wrong, you
boldly cross the threshold into blind zealotry and/or willful lie, take your pick.
First, I did not misrepresent anything.
Second, It’s great that the AP turned out to be right and Jamil Hussein really does exist, but 6 weeks ago that was in doubt. It makes no sense to argue from the position of hindsight that we should have had opinions based on evidence that didn't exist yet. When the Iraqi MOI said that Jamil Hussein
didn't exist, that created a descrepency that needed to be resolved. The
zealot here is the one that argued
against fact-checking, and that’s you.
"Incredible" falls short. It's surreal.
Agreed, though obviously for different reasons.
