Tim Blair seems ready to dismiss the story that emerged yesterday of Iraq’s new PM Allawi shooting 6 prisoners to death as nothing more than a silly rumor. And it may be.
However, The Age is sticking to its story, and if they aren’t telling outright lies, I have to believe the story is credible (not certifiably true, but definitely worth learning more about). Is the following an outright lie?
The witnesses did not perceive themselves as whistle-blowers. In interviews with The Age they enthusiastically supported Dr Allawi for the killings. One justified the alleged killings and said: “These criminals were terrorists. They are the ones who plant the bombs. Allawi said they deserved worse than death; that they didn’t need to be sent to court.”
The two witnesses were independently and separately found by The Age; neither approached the newspaper. Nor were they put forward by, or through, others. They were interviewed on different days in a private home in Baghdad, without being told that the other had spoken.
A condition of the co-operation of each man was that no personal information would be published, but others known to The Age have vouched for their credibility. Both interviews lasted more than 90 minutes and were conducted through an interpreter – with another journalist in the room for one of the meetings. The witnesses were not paid for the interviews.
….
Neither witness could give a specific date for the killings. But the number of days that each said had lapsed since the shootings narrowed the time frame to on or around the third weekend in June – about a week before the rushed handover of power in Iraq and more than three weeks after Dr Allawi was named interim Prime Minister.
They said that as many as five of the dead were Iraqis, two of whom came from Samarra, a volatile town to the north of the capital, where an insurgency attack on the home of the Interior Minister had killed four of Mr Naqib’s bodyguards on June 19.
I really don’t know. It’s certainly very specific, but it may turn out ot be a well-orchestrated deception. But the question I need to ask is this:
How come some conservative bloggers seem so eager to swallow Blair’s explanation and write it all off as a rumor, while just yesterday they were standing up and declaring Annie Jacobsen a national hero for telling her “frightening story” of watching possible Syrian hijackers/bombers as they….went to the toilet? If any story qualifies for the rumor award, it’s Annie’s.
InstaPunidt posted an email he received from a pilot that provides some clarity:
There are a lot of details in the article such as those involving crew actions that are either flat out wrong or that she couldn’t possibly have known enough about to assess things as she did. Based on subsequent news (like Malkin’s confirmation of some aspects of the incident), I’ll accept that the gist of her story is valid but embellished with uninformed speculation and conventional wisdom.
And it was the many speculations that made the story so maddening.
Maybe it says something about our willingness to accept what we want to and reject what we don’t. But it seemed so flat-out obvious to me that the Jacobsen story was fishy, I was dumbfounded that it gained so much traction. The Allawi story may turn out also to be an invention, but it at least appeared to provide enough evidence to make the story believable. Whether that evidence was all a hoax remains to be seen.
Comments