And it also probably indicates that Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war is most likely a bad idea: because we can’t be sure enough about intelligence to accurately assess future risks. Unfortunately that means we probably have to allow some attacks to occur before we act in our own defense.

It’s getting boring, I know, but as usual… I agree completely. Well said Christine.

It’s funny how you look at AP and other news agencies through a particular microscope but you supported an invasion based on half truths and un-reliable unknown sources.

Wow, shocker, that the standards for sources of intelligence should be different than standards for journalistic sources. Who’dathunkit?

Did the administration misread the intelligence, possibly because of their preexisting biases? Probably. Is that a serious error that puts responsibility on them? Yep. Does it mean that they should only have used named sources and found multiple sources for all intelligence information? No, I would not apply that standard. I’d simply say that those who examine intelligence should be more cautious in overinterpreting it or interpreting it with bias (see the post by MvdG about “Why Hawks Win”, for example.) And it also probably indicates that Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war is most likely a bad idea: because we can’t be sure enough about intelligence to accurately assess future risks. Unfortunately that means we probably have to allow some attacks to occur before we act in our own defense.

I have a question for you Michael, don’t take it as an accusation or recrimination, but I would like to know. Does it make you at all uneasy the idea that this man could have been placed at great risk or may even be imprisoned or killed because of the extra attention he’s gotten? I understand wanting to investigate sources, but when you do it in Iraq, the result might be the literal elimination of the source, so I would think one would want to tread carefully.

The AP made his name public.

Confederate Yankee2: “We also know that “police Capt. Jamil Hussein,” who was the key witness leaning credibility to the AP’s allegations, simply does not exist.” http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/207320.php

Perhaps the first step would be to make damn sure this man doesn’t get killed over this. Second would be to apologize for irresponsible assertions challenging facts on the ground that these weasels have not a change of knowing about. Third would be to apologize for promoting such a wrongheaded war in the first place.

tata

Frankly, the AP is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the AP.

Frankly, the Administration is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the Administration.

Frankly, the AP is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the AP.

I get it! I was confused.

By “AP” you really mean “Administration of the President”.

Make perfect sense now.

Don’t blame AP, blame Malkin and Reihl, and definately don’t make excuses for yourselves.

For all those criticizing me, when o when did I say that Hussein didn’t exist? If I remember correctly, I constantly used “appears� and “seems�.

Ahh.. the meaning of “is” defense.

Hey Joe, here’s an idea, why not add Dan Reihl to your list of contributors.

Ya know, just to counterbalance the new conservative tint here.

;0)

For all those criticizing me, when o when did I say that Hussein didn’t exist? If I remember correctly, I constantly used “appears” and “seems”. In fact, my main focus was that it was – at least – suspicious and that it as such is a good thing that bloggers investigated it.

And I am really not worried about “credibility”. Those who say that I lose credibility make a habit out of it so it seems. Whenever I post something controversial, they start talking about credibility.

The story was very suspicious. It should have been investigated. The AP published falsehoods in the past, bloggers uncovered it.

I also always said that this didn’t mean that the violence in Iraq is “fake”. It was not about whether or not Iraq is torn apart by civil war, it was about whether or not the AP reported falsehoods or made up sources.

All of it didn’t start out about Hussein. It started out about the stories for which the AP used him as a source. Some of those stories still have to be accounted for.

Frankly, the AP is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the AP.

They have to answer when people ask questions.

Lastly – again – Julie I had a good laugh about your comment. Whether or not you work for the AP, your comment was absolutely hilarious. “WE have to account”

Muwhaha

It’s funny how you look at AP and other news agencies through a particular microscope but you supported an invasion based on half truths and un-reliable unknown sources. When I read people who fell for the rosey scenarios before the invasion many still seem to be reaching for something that supports their original position. The MSM in USA is a shadow of what it once was and that’s a shame, I’d much rather have a ferocious skeptical media than the hyper-nationalistic version we’re getting now. And to say stories like AP’s are fueling the insurgency implies you still haven’t accepted reality.

OK, what more do you want them to provide? You are holding the AP to a much higher standard than is commonly applied to journalists.

How so? I’m not trained in journalism so it would be interesting if Joe or Shaun or some other resident expert would comment, but I believe that journalistic standards include multiple sourcing (and no, I’m not terribly satisfied with the statement in the original story that there were other witnesses: it’s one thing to not name names, but some background should be given as to who these witnesses were. Did they have any official status, or were they residents of the area? Or were they members of a Sunni militia whose account of this event may have been completely false or overblown in order to stir up anger against the Shiites?)

If these standards are overly strict, then you have a point, but to me these seem like common sense practices for journalists and personally I’d apply the same standards to other news agencies as well.

I didn’t say that the AP is fueling the insurgency, I said that this information was fueling it.

Either way I believe you are incorrect. Iraqis know what’s happening around them in Iraq, they don’t need the AP to report it to them.

The insurgency is fueled by one thing and one thing only. The desire for power, control over the billions in potential oil money and revenge against different sects going back over 800 years.

but I’m not as inclined as you are to give the AP the complete benefit of the doubt

OK, what more do you want them to provide? You are holding the AP to a much higher standard than is commonly applied to journalists. Why? Because someone photoshopped two dark clouds into three?

I’m not crucifying anyone. And that’s a rather tasteless application of the term. I’m merely holding them to the same standards they applied to the media in this case.

And they are failing miserably.

Of all the people, politicians, media pundits, Iraqi exiles, DOD spokespersons, etc. who have told you so many lies over the past 5 years and done such incredible harm to our nation and the world as a whole, you guys decide to apply your energy into questioning a story that had absolutely no viable impact.