The "Jamil Hussein" Maneuver Rearing It's Ugly Head
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived | Beauchamp | jamil hussein | lies | Media Bias | Obama — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's how it works;
Liberal reporter or politician makes a multi-part claim of some atrocity or some other happening that can be be laid at the feet of the nearest Republican e.g. a soldier who is a Private by the name of John reports that his platoon regularly wore children's skulls as headgear, used armored cars to saw dogs in half all the while being forced to go out on missions/patrols without ammunition thanks to profits for Halliburton!
Conservatives and Republicans question the story because it sounds (and is) incredible. Liberal reporter/politician produce a Private whose first name is John and who once came across a grave yard where he saw some bones. They then declare themselves "vindicated" and then attempt to blow past the fact that no other person in the Private's unit or command line can verify a single one of his claims.
Ace puts it in his own distinct style here.
More below ...
In other words, it's the same thing as using one ounce of truth as a passport to credibility for a ton of lies. It's how the AP escaped having to account for the falsehoods they printed in the 61 Iraq-bylined stories they wrote citing "Jamil Hussein." That a "Jamil Ghulaim" existed was what they used to declare themselves "vindicated" and by implication, all their stories "confirmed" - notwithstanding the fact that, among other things, the mosques that were supposedly burnt down in their dispatches are still standing and unburnt.
Jake Tapper here is trying the AP's patented Jamil Hussein maneuver now to protect Barack Obama; "there was a Captain and replacement parts sometimes came in late, therefore it's all true!." However, the fact remains that the existence of the Captain (then Lieutenant) means that the only part of Obama's statement that was true was that a Captain spoke to him about minor logistical issues that occur in every military in both war and peace - and no amount of "hope" and "change" barring the invention of Star Trek like teleportation machines is going to change that.
Obama is trying to sell us a bill of goods, but considering that most of the Fourth Estate thinks the Universe regularly reorients itself to make all he says true, this just might get elevated to the status of "stuff everyone knows."
In the end, as Jeff says of Obama below, either;
- He is lying his ArmaniGucci pants off, on purpose.
- He is blowing smoke out his fourth point of contact just to be able to appease his base more
- He is so mind-blowingly ignorant of the military and its status in the GWOT that he either heard this story and believed it, or thought that nobody less mind-numbingly vacuous and stupid than him would see through it.
if it happened in reality at all.
It is not at all clear how long ago BHO learned about this.
The pieces of the story do not hold together well.
But if BHO wants to take an obscure incoherent story and use that as somehow a reason to declare defeat in the war, go for it.
It is his loss in the election.
If he learned of this story while he was actually being a Senator instead of a full time candidate who does no work, and he did nothing about it, then he deserves what he will get.
If the source is another phony pathetic liar, as seems very likely, then BHO really deserves what he gets.
Facts can be so troublesome and ambiguous. They might actually contradict your narrative, so they're of negative value.
Much better to invent facts to fit the narrative, all the better to show Bush/the Administration/the Pentagon/Congressional Republicans/Halliburton to be bumbling/ incompetent/greedy/mean evildoers.
Facts can be crunchy and hard to digest. A good narrative, people will slurp up like a milk shake.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
There were no claims of "atrocities". There are plenty of negative anecdotes about the supply chain. Is it such heresy to suggest that the military could do better?
Don't insult our intelligence.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
of the flaws of an overbearing blogosphere.
The problem I have with this particular outrage is that it has almost nothing to do with the military, their readiness, or any anecdotal claims made by Obama.
It is nothing more than a desperate desire by the right blogosphere to "prove" that Obama is anti-military.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
claiming that US troops are sent into combat sans weapons and ammunition, then yes.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
That this is the claim that was made by Obama.
How is that anti-military? Now even criticizing the logistical shortcomings, real/perceived/alleged/etc, of the military is anti-military?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
it was clearly an attempted attack on the Bush Administration -- not the military. He was attempting to slam the president as incompetent. He would not have reasoned that the logistics of provisioning the troops would NOT be the job of the President, but of the military itself, and so his attack was, at worst, poorly aimed.
This is not to say that I do not believe Obama is NOT anti-military. As a far left liberal Democrat it is in his genes to disdain the military. I do NOT, however, believe that the military was the target of this assault.
[My condolences, by the way, for the pummeling you took on that liberal site the other day for trying to be a voice of reason]
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
have a tendency to label every Lefty as anti-military. That is a gross oversimplification. By doing so you shield the real anti-military people and disparage those on the left that do support the military, yes we do exist.
I have not seen a thing from Obama that I consider even remotely anti-military. He is in favor of strengthening our effort in Afghanistan. IMO, he oppose Iraq for similar reasons as I do, namely that is is counter-productive.
Thanks for the condolences. You know I can take geting beat up here. At least you guys disagree with me on many policy issues. That place is just downright irrational. While some here many not believe it, you guys have been far more civil towards each other regarding your candidates than the Left is about their candidates.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
The problem is not that Obama said something that didn't pass the smell test of wargamers, let alone military personnel. It's that he apparently doesn't even have wargamers on his personal staff that can keep him making gaffes like this.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
As a person who was in the military and who has read a fair amount about military history, I see nothing outrageous in his claims.
The United States military's logistical support is easily the best logistical support that has ever existed in human history. However that doesn't mean that it doesn't breakdown.
If you want to object to his politicizing the issue, that' fine. Your choice.
But to suggest that he is being anti-military is a counter-intuitive claim.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...respond to what I said, not what other people are saying. But let me repeat: it's not that he screwed up* repeating what he was told that's alarming; it's that there was apparently nobody in his inner circle that could do a reality check.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*He took a years-old story about one unit's logistical issues and turned it into a public announcement about how our troops need to take the Taliban's weapons away from them if they want to fight**. Sorry, but he did.
**"They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
But I still don't follow the problem. I don't know how old the story is. Has that been confirmed? Last I heard the only evidence that it was old was that the Captain was an Lt at the time.
Regardless I still don't see what the problem is. The Taliban still exist in Afghanistan even if they aren't what they were in the past. They are still killing people
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39136&Item...
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I have no idea how that is relevant.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
and is therefore immune from Obama-criticisms. Obama decides to speak of the war, and does he praise the progress? No
Does he send a deterrent message to our enemies? no
Rather he mischaracterizes a statement from an officer about minutia long ago to make the military look incompetent.
Great for morale.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
So foreign policy should be compared to inner city law enforcement? Interesting?
If you think his point was to make the MILITARY look incompetent, you clearly are reading something that I am not.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
And I think that you may want to consider, um, catching up on this story a bit.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I got back from California last night at 2 A.M. from a business trip.
I guess I missed the dateline being confirmed. Regardless I don't see how that really is pertinent to his comment.
I ask again what part doesn't pass the sniff test?
Here is the entire passage..
But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation -- whether or not to go to war in Iraq -- I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)
Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.
I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.
They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years -- going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right.
The anecdote was to support his argument that Iraq was a bad idea. As such the time frame really isn't relevant. His claim is that going into Iraq hindered our progress in Afghanistan.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
How does this kind of phony anecdote differ in spirit from urban legends of welfare queens, etc. that the left rightly denounced in the past?
"False but accurate" doesn't cut it with me, especially as the purpose is to bypass critical thinking and persuade by and appeal to emotions. If Obama wants to criticize our Iraq-Afghanistan priorities, he should support his position with facts and reasoning, not invented tales - especially tales that he states as fact.
what's interesting is that, unlike Dingy Harry and the tryingtoSpeaker, he goes back to 2003 instead of 2006 to trash the United States.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
It amazes me how you guys think you are the United States and that criticizing your side equates to criticizing the United States.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to say and do, and one could substitute many of Osama's speeches (as well as Saddam's former lawyer and MembersOnlyJacket-ijad) for Obama's and most ant dem and not have change many words.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
What was false about the anecdote? Other than perhaps quibbles about the details? Please explain.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...because our troops were shortchanged by their Commander-in-Chief.
The notion that American units go into combat without weapons and have to pick them up off of dead Taliban begs the question of how the unarmed Americans killed the armed Taliban in the first place. Unfortunately, I suspect that all too many of Obama's supporters never got that far in the chain of reasoning.
The 2003 vs. 2008 nonsense only came out after Jake Tapper tried to cover for Obambi in his interview with the unnamed infantry captain.
Flyerhawk, that was a lie. Obama knew it was a lie when he said it. Period. I knew that Obama was lying when he peddled the Urban Legend on national television. It's one of those "truthiness" moments in which the mask sort of comes off and you realize that the difference between Barack and Hillary is that Barack has Bill's talent and none of Hillary's clumsiness.
Conservatives should have perked up when this guy said that the kind of Republicans that Democrats should be reaching out to are Lugar and Hegel. Was anybody buying a vowel when Jesus Hussein Obama was handing out clues to his leftism earlier in the primary season? I don't think so. We were all pleased as punch that Obama was hammering She Who Must Not Be Named in state after state that we didn't bother to realize that Obambi has never voted against the interests of the Democratic Left in his entire career in the U.S. Senate.
As an aside, the notion that we can depend on the MSM to fact check the Young Jesus is another giggler that will remain a constant reality of this election year.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Because I can't recite the whole of the Tao while standing on one foot, and I won't repeat about four or five threads' worth of everything that was wrong with that statement (which, by the way, is already being walked back by the campaign).
Sorry, but we're clearly about eighteen hours ahead of you in the discussion timeline. There are plenty of links for you to catch up.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's a sad fact that we can't even trust the 'Media' to give us accurate weather reports (AGW accentuated) anymore. Everything they tell us is tainted by thier desire to shape the facts to advance thier leftist agenda. There will be no investigation by the 'Media' of obama's lies (other than to find any kind of supporting sources). What's really depressing is that I can say that with utter confidence. I can also say with utter confidence that vast resources will be spent on attemting to substantiate Mccains 'affair' with (whomever). 'Cuz that's the real scandal here ya know.
The Founders gave the 'Media' special protections afforded to no other members of our society, and we have been betrayed. Go back and re-read 1984. Orwell was prescient.