Live, From AP: The Jamil Hussein Dog and Pony Show

Michelle Malkin just returned from Baghdad, Iraq, and among the things she saw there were some disturbing sights. She was able to view the still standing mosques that the AP's Jamil Hussein said were damaged and destroyed by firebombings and that anywhere from 24 to six people were torched while onlookers (including Iraqi security) did nothing. The facts bear our a different tale:

Well, Bryan Preston and I visited the area during our Iraq trip last week. Several mosques did, in fact, come under attack by Mahdi Army forces. But the "destroyed" mosques all still stand. Iraqi and U.S. Army officials say that two of them received no fire damage whatsoever. Another, which we filmed, was abandoned and empty when it was attacked.

WE obtained summary reports and photos filed at the time by Iraqi and U.S. Army troops on the scene. They contain no corroborating evidence of Hussein's claim that "Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene."

One of the mosques identified by the AP, the Nidaa Alah mosque, had been abandoned and vacant at the time it was hit with small-arms fire, say Iraqi and U.S. Army officials. Two of its inside rooms were burned out by a lobbed firebomb, according to an Army report.

Three other mosques in the area - the al Muhaymin, al Mushahiba and Ahbab Mustafa mosques - sustained small-arms fire damage to their exteriors; the Mustafa mosque also had two rooms burned out by a firebomb.

Contrary to Hussein and the AP's account, military reports note that Iraqi Army battalion members were on the scene - pursuing attackers, securing the area, calling the fire department, providing support and an outer cordon.

Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post was able to confirm AP's story.

The AP quoted one corroborating witness, Imad al-Hasimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriya, who "confirmed Hussein's account" of the immolated Sunnis on Al-Arabiya television. When Al-Hasimi later recanted, AP implied that it was due to pressure from Iraqi government officials. The other possibility: He recanted because it wasn't true.

Capt. Aaron Kaufman of Task Force Justice, which works closely with the Iraqi Army battalion that was on the scene and monitored events as they happened, told us: "It was blown way out of proportion, there was nobody lit on fire."

Capt. Stacy Bare, the civil-affairs officer who took us on patrol in Hurriya, concurred: "There were no six Sunnis burned."

Exaggerated? Invented details? Lack of corroboration from the reports on the matter? Curious. Very curious.

So, what does the AP say about all this? Well, they continue to stand by their story as of yesterday. They continue to stonewall on answering basic questions posed by Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee (and here).

And, if the AP were honest about their reporting, they would have found those reports rebutting Jamil Hussein's statements. They would be more transparent on their use of local reporters and stringers whose intentions may not be about getting the news out but rather pushing propaganda.

The AP's stonewalling on details of the Jamil Hussein reporting remain an impediment to getting to the basic facts of the situations on which he reported. There are more than 60 stories to which he was a source. What other stories did he weave that cannot be confirmed? Is anyone over at the AP concerned about the veracity of the reporting or are they treating this as simply one of thousands of stories coming from Iraq that may not have panned out - get over it? That is a very troubling position for the media outlet to take, since if these stories and this source may not be accurately reporting the events there, and no one at AP appears concerned about fact checking, what other stories are coming out of places like Iraq that are similarly fact checked (which is to say, they're not)?

UPDATE:
Here's a photo montage and more commentary from Malkin at her website. This is the kind of stuff that the AP should have done months ago, but chose to stand by the word of Jamil Hussein.

Charles at LGF wonders if anyone will be offering up apologies. I doubt it. I really doubt it. It's all down the memory hole.

Others blogging: Hot Air, Confederate Yankee, Jammie Wearing Fool, Don Surber, and Right Voices.

UPDATE:
Still others weighing in include Dave Price at Esmay's, and he thinks that this whole incident is lurid, irresponsible journalism that furthers someone's agenda.

Power Line wonders why the AP has ceased using Hussein as a source once the questions arose over the mosque story and why the AP hasn't issued corrections on the original reporting. Ed Morrissey also weighs in and finds that the AP rushed these stories to print without even basic fact checking, and once questions arose, instead of doing the fact checking engaged in attacking those who questioned the accuracy and veracity of the reports.

UPDATE:
Confederate Yankee adds the following in a comment at LGF:

We know who Jamil Hussein is. He is an Iraqi police officer, named Jamil Gulaim "XX," according to his personnel records. A handful of us have his real name, but have chosen not to publish is second middle name nor his last name (NOT Hussein, or even close) for his safety. He is, in my mind, now a separate but related issue. MOI and AP apparently struck a deal where AP is allowed to claim Jamil Hussein exists, and in exchange, MOI and AP will work together better, weeding out anonymous police sources from the picture. A win-win/CYA for the major players, and one that should prevent future Jamil Husseins... not that it addresses his past sourcing in any way at all.

Now that Hurriyah is conclusively debunked, and it appears that the assassination of Iraqi Police Captain Amir Kamil is uncorroborated as well (click the link in the main post to my site, and scroll), the game now moves on to the bonus round: how many of Jamil's stories were faked, and is Jamil the only bogus AP source?

UPDATE:
Patterico pulls out Lexis-Nexis and finds that AP still hasn't issued a correction on its original mosque destruction story. Unless AP utilizes a different definition of destroyed than one that most folks would consider destroyed, they are clearly wrong in their characterization of the events that occurred.

UPDATE:
Curt at Flopping Aces weighs in on Malkin's findings. Simply put, he finds AP to be carrying the water for the propagandist known as Jamil Hussein and criticizes AP for not doing a damned thing to corroborate the story - instead choosing to stonewall.

Dan Riehl finds Hussein to not be a credible source. The AP continues to disagree. Go figure.

Austin Bay wonders about the future of journalism and how the events have been personalized in the form of Jamil Hussein and the difficulties of getting stories straight in a war zone. The problem here, however, is that the AP refuses to recognize that they could have been suckered by Jamil Hussein. Instead of launching a proper investigation, they stonewalled.

Others weighing in: Bill's Bites, Ed Driscoll, and Blue Crab Boulevard.