Getting The News From The Enemy, Update III

MAJOR UPDATE BELOW
IRAQ GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE CAPT. HUSSEIN IS NOT WHO HE SAYS HE IS
****

First of all I apologize for the late response to the AP’s rebuttal on this Burning Six story. Loooong day and night at work last night so had no idea this was all taking place yesterday.

Secondly, please go check out Michelle’s latest Vent broadcast for a rundown of the latest happenings on this story.

On to the rebuttal:

The Associated Press rejects unfounded attacks on its story about six Sunni worshippers burned to death outside their mosque on Friday, November 24.

AP reporters who have been working in Iraq throughout the conflict learned of the mosque incident through witnesses and later corroborated it with police.

The AP received an email communication late Monday signed by a U.S. military public affairs officer, Navy Lt. Michael B. Dean, alleging that the police captain cited in our story “is not a Baghdad police office or MOI (Ministry of Interior) employee’’ and raising questions about whether or not he actually exists.

In fact, that captain has long been know to the AP reporters and has had a record of reliability and truthfulness. He has been based at the police station at Yarmouk, and more recently at al-Khadra, another Baghdad district, and has been interviewed by the AP several times at his office and by telephone. His full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein.

After the AP story was questioned by the U.S. military, Hussein was contacted again and confirmed that the incident took place. The AP also located additional witnesses outside the mosque in the al-Hurriyah district.

According to the witnesses interviewed by the AP, there was no U.S. military present at the time of the incident Friday, and the subsequent U.S. military statement about it cited only reports the U.S. military had received later from the Iraqi army.

If this Capt. has been a police officer for sometime why is there no record of him being employed by the Police nor the MoI? The AP believes him because he has provided information before? That’s it? That’s their whole basis for trusting this source?

Out of those 10 stories I dug up where he has provided information before how many of the allegations were independently verified? How do we know he didn’t make up other “atrocities” in the past?

I mean if he indeed lied about being a police officer how in the world can they say he is a trusted source?