[Dean's World] Aziz P: the Associated Press is pro-victory

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
the Associated Press is pro-victory
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1164902622.shtml


   The Associated Press has faced considerable critique about its
   horrific story about six Shi'a men being burned alive by Sunnis in
   Baghdad. The critique hinges one the claim by the US military that the
   AP's source, a police captain Capt. Jamil Hussein, misrepresented
   himself. From a [1]letter written by Lt. Michael Dean to the
   Associated Press:

     We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story,
     police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an
     MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the
     Coalition Police Assistance Training Team.

     Also, we definitely know, as we told you several weeks ago through
     the MNC-I Media Relations cell, that another AP-popular IP
     spokesman, Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq, supposedly of the city's
     Yarmouk police station, does not work at that police station and is
     also not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP. The MOI has
     supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning. [...] Unless you
     have a credible source to corroborate the story of the people being
     burned alive, we respectfully request that AP issue a retraction,
     or a correction at a minimum, acknowledging that the source named
     in the story is not who he claimed he was.

   The AP however made it clear that their source was legitimate. From a
   [2]response letter written by AP International Editor John
   Daniszewski:

   AP reporters who have been working in Iraq throughout the conflict
   learned of the mosque incident through witnesses and neighborhood
   residents and corroborated it with a named police spokesmen and also
   through hospital and morgue workers.

     We have conducted a thorough review of the sourcing and reporting
     involved and plan to move a more detailed report about the entire
     incident soon, with greater detail provided by multiple eye
     witnesses. Several of those witnesses spoke to AP on the condition
     that their names would not be used because they fear reprisals.

     The police captain cited in our story has long been known to the AP
     reporters and has been interviewed in his office and by telephone
     on several occasions during the past two years.

     He is an officer at the police station in Yarmouk, with a record of
     reliability and truthfulness. His full name is Jamil Gholaiem
     Hussein.

     The AP stands by its story.

   In fact, the AP then produced the [3]follow-up with more sources as
   promised.

     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.

     On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah
     neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses
     who independently gave accounts of the attack. Others in the
     neighborhood said they were afraid to talk about what happened.

     Those who would talk said the assault began about 2:15 p.m., and
     they believed the attackers were from the Mahdi Army militia loyal
     to radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He and the Shiite
     militia are deeply rooted in and control the Sadr City enclave in
     northeastern Baghdad where suspected Sunni insurgents attacked with
     a series of car bombs and mortar shells, killing at least 215
     people a day before.

     The witnesses refused to allow the use of their names because they
     feared retribution either from the original attackers or the
     police, whose ranks are infiltrated by Mahdi Army members or its
     associated death squads.

     Two of the witnesses â a 45-year-old bookshop owner and a
     48-year-old neighborhood grocery owner â gave nearly identical
     accounts of what happened. A third, a physician, said he saw the
     attack on the mosque from his home, saw it burning and heard people
     in the streets screaming that people had been set on fire. All
     three men are Sunni Muslims.

   So let's recap here. The AP prinmts a story. The military objects,
   casting doubt on the source, and asks for either a retractio or to
   provide additional witnesses. The AP demonstrates that their source
   was in fact legitimate, and then also provides additional sources.

   This whole affair speaks to a larger issue of "news out of Iraq". The
   belief seems to be that if the general public is shielded from bad
   news, or that bad news is minimized, or even outright denied, then
   that will maintain support for the war, or at least counteract the
   increasing lack of support.

   This systematic campaign to delegitimize the media has backfired. By
   pretending that things are actually rosy and that good progress has
   been made (and it is no slight upon the honor and sacrifice of brave
   Iraqis or US soldiers to acknowledge otherwise), proponents of the
   campaign in Iraq have weakened their case. That is precisely why the
   public sentiment has hardened.

   Had the media simply been muzzled for the past five years, as the most
   extreme of the media critics demand, then the public may have been
   ignorant of the details on the ground, but the reason we are losing
   the war in Iraq against the forces of anarchy is the fault of the
   insurgents, and a lack on our side not of will to sacrifice and fight
   but simply in resources, planning, and organization. I mean, isn't is
   truly shameful that we are only hearing about "[4]going long" now,
   three years after the invasion? And make no mistake - it's liberals
   and Democrats who [5]came up with that idea first.

   To be honest, i still favor staying in Iraq. If we do withdraw fully,
   we will be ensuring that the brave voices of freedom upon whom the
   future liberty of all the oppressed masses in the middle east hinges,
   will [6]die hideous deaths. It would be supreme cynicism to abandon
   Iraq.

   The failure thus far is of execution, not principle, which is why the
   Administration is so desperate to whitewash the metrics by success or
   failure might by any reasonable standard be measured. And thus we see
   the Lancet study attacked, daily reports of deaths attacked, violence
   in iraq compared to urban street violence in the US, etc. To these
   critics I simply ask, what metric would YOU accept that would
   definitively show that we have failed in Iraq? But asking the question
   is pointless - especially since they have never been able to
   satisfactorily define victory. I mean, the Administration is so
   detached from the reality they'd prefer that they are actually
   [7]considering choosing sides in the civil war whose raging they still
   refuse to acknowledge.

   Elections were simply a (purple) fig leaf. But democracy is an end
   state, built upon a robust and rigorous foundation of stability,
   security, and personal freedom. The right of the individual as a
   sovereign must be secured by liberal constitutionlism first, before
   any talk of representative government can be entertained. Otherwise,
   you end up electing Hamas.

   What is needed now is indeed to go long. Follow Phil Carter's
   prescription to [8]abandon the superfortresses and increase the
   embedded advisers. Give Maliki an ultimatum: rein in the Shi'a
   militias, or lose control of your (still sovereign nation)'s armed
   forces. Engage Syria - there's plenty of carrots to [9]peel them off
   of Iran and re-align with us, to the benefit of Israel and to Iraq.

   And we need to celebrate the media for its role in keeping the
   pressure on. Because the Administration would rather "pick sides" and
   "declare victory and go home" rather than make the hard choices and
   the commitments that have been needed from the start.

References

   1. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/us_military_and.html
   2. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/us_military_and.html
   3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-11-28-iraq-fire_x.htm
   4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html
   5. http://www.slate.com/id/2151742/
   6. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=PPmV6kzp1WsvUJCqoFvcrm%3D%3D
   7. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rozen16nov16,0,1576363.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
   8. http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1161211014.shtml
   9. http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/11/probable_ussyrian_discussion_p.html