Leftist Bloggers Jump on Jamil Hussein with a Vengeance

Further to my previous post, the lefty bloggers are all over Jamil Hussein.

I say, welcome to the party. Better late than never.

Now, grab yourself a beer & start paying attention, and you just might learn something.

Today, this Kossack lays into the Jawa Report for questioning the Jamil Hussein story:

If I wanted to, I am certain that I or others could document hundreds of more examples [of Bush lies]. That won't matter to the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Jawa Report and elsewhere in Right Wing World who will continue to believe whatever the Bush administration and the Pentagon tell them, and will continue to doubt any media report which disputes the officially approved narrative regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror.

Those of us on the "left" do not always blindly accept at face value major news reports because of a well documented bias in the mainstream US media favoring President Bush and Republicans, and attacking liberals, progressives, Democrats and anyone else who publicly dissents regarding the Bush administration’s well documented history of disinformation, lies and propaganda. However, I think in this instance we are more than justified in granting the Associated Press more credibility when it comes to their Iraq reporting than the official statements offered by our President and his government about what's happening "over there." The track record of the AP in Iraq may not be perfect, but it shines like a solid gold trophy in comparison to the Bush administration’s record for truth.

Nice strawman. This is a very common liberal "debate" tactic. It goes lilke this. Party A criticizes Party B (in this case, the AP). Liberal Defender shows up on the scene and dismisses criticism of Party B based on the argument that Party C (in this case, George Bush) is worse than Party B. Because Party C (Bush) is considered worse than Party B (AP), we should be talking about Party C and not Party B. If you fall for it, your're then talking about the badness of Party C rather than the badness of Party B, and the tactic is successful. The lefties consider this particularly effective if Party C can be somehow linked to Party A, thereby raising the spectre of hypocrisy. It works like this:

MORE BELOW THE FOLD

Right Blogger : "William Jefferson had $100,000 in cash stashed in his freezer. Looks pretty fishy."

Left Blogger : "What?!?!? You've GOT to be KIDDING ME!!!! You want to talk about THAT, when there's so much WORSE going on!?!?!? What about Duke Cunningham? What about Bob Ney? What about Richard F-ing NIXON, for crap's SAKE!!! What about Ulysses S. Grant!?!?!? You wingnuts are INCREDIBLY hypocritical!!! Why do you IGNORE the massive corruption by your BEST FRIENDS??? I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS!!!"

Right Blogger : "But, we were talking about William Jefferson, a sitting congressman."

Left Blogger : "YOU WINGNUTS JUST DON'T GET IT!!! You're ALWAYS WRONG ALL THE TIME ABOUT EVERYTHING. I really can't believe this. You are so BLINDED by your faith in everything that the BushCheneyChimpyMcHitlerBurton propaganda machine spits out, I can't even carry on a conversation with you."

etc., etc.

This is what passes for reasoned debate on the left side of the blogosphere. If you stay on point and press the issue, they'll usually just stop talking to you, but only after throwing a wall of nasty invective and chaff at you in order to distract you. This is how they operate. Modus operandi.

Another leftist, who apparently fully understands the conflict in Iraq, had this to say about all of us "incredible stupid idiots" on the right:

My other link is something that was obvious except to the incredible stupid idiots that make up the right wing blogosphere - the Iraq Shiite controlled Interior Ministry admits that Capt. Jamil Hussein exists. For weeks the right has been claiming that the AP had made him up, to me further proving they lack any understanding of the Iraqi conflict or the role of a free media. The E&P article only further emphasizes the lack of knowledge of the current Right-Wing bloggers. As I stated a month ago it was obvious that the Interior Ministry was lying, they had all the reasons to - the AP had none and had continued to state the obvious: they had numerous contacts with the Hussien for over a year in his uniform and at his post. It is hard to overstate the idiocy and reality denying nature of the right in this case.

It was "obvious" that the Iraqi Ministry was lying? Is this guy clairvoyant? Does he carry on regular conversations with Jamil Hussein? Dude, guessing and being right is not the same as "knowing." The AP had plenty of reasons to lie if Jamil Hussein was a fabrication. They could've been covering their own butts and hoping the story just went away. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. And what incentive did the Iraqi Ministry have to lie? Unless they were planning to kill off Jamil Hussein, they would've known he would pop up eventually, making them look like fools or liars. The most reasonable explanation is that they made a mistake. It looks like AP has been making some mistakes, too. The Iraqi Ministry has owned up to its mistake. If it turns out the original "burning six" story was flawed, will the AP own up to its mistakes?

More sweetness and light from the left here:

It looks like the francosphere is in full bore celebration mode now that Jamil Hussein's arrest has made you look like fools. I hope you don't let their laughter get to you. It doesn't matter that you wrote dozens and dozens of posts claiming that Hussein was a fictional AP source. It's the reason you did it that's important. Hussein's quotes to the AP were losing the war for us. You stopped him. I think that makes you heroes.

Yeah, that was it. Way to completely miss the point. AGAIN.

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:59 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1004 words, total size 6 kb.