I'm having trouble counting the the number of times the story over the existence of "Jamil Hussein" has changed. The twists and turns are unbelievable.

According to a new post by Bob Owen, there is no such Iraqi police captain as "Jamil Hussein," and the name was used as a pseudonym without disclosure by the AP:

There is no Baghdad police officer at the Khadra police station named Captain Jamil Hussein, and never has been. Jamil Hussein, and Jamil Gholaiem Hussein are pseudonyms for Jamil Gulaim "XX".

The Associated Press published a pseudonym without acknowledging that fact, apparently knowing, if BG Abdul-Kareem is correct, that they were publishing a false identity. Is that a big deal? HUGE. This is a major breach of journalistic ethics.

A man exists who denies he is the source, additionally he is not named Jamil Hussein...that's it. The only other information we get is that the Iraqi MoI has confirmed that he was the source for the AP which I question since how in the world do they confirm he is the source if he DENIES being the source?

Is this news, or is it the Twilight Zone?

I'm thinking that I might have to retract my retraction and stick with my original skepticism.

Because truth, like, matters, you know?

And I am sure truth matters to Glenn Greenwald, who is probably busy right now retracting all the unkind things he said about the "Jamil Hussein" skeptics.

Must be a long post, as it isn't there yet. Just imagine how much fun it would be to retract a gem like this:

And now the right-wing blogosphere stands revealed as what they are -- a pack of gossip-mongering hysterics who routinely attack any press reports that reflect poorly on their Leader or his policies, with rank innuendo, Internet gossip, base speculation, and wholesale error as their most frequent tools of the trade. They operate in packs, constantly repeating each other's innuendo and expanding on it incrementally, and they then cite to each other endlessly in one self-feeding, self-affirming orgy of links, as though that constitutes proof.

And they are wrong over and over and over -- and not just in error, but embarrassingly so, because so frequently their claims are transparently, laughably absurd, and they spew the most righteous accusations without any sort of evidence at all. The New Republic has its Stephen Glass and The New York Times has its Jayson Blair. But those are one-off incidents. The right-wing blogosphere is driven by Jayson Blairs. They are exposed as frauds and gossip-mongerers on an almost weekly basis. The only thing that can compete with the consistency of their errors is the viciousness of their accusations and their pompous self-regard as "citizen journalists."

[...]

Nobody is less interested in media accuracy than they are. Correcting media mistakes is so plainly not their agenda. They are nothing more than hyper-partisan hysterics who jump on any innuendo or rumor or whispered suspicion as long as it promotes their rigid ideological views and political loyalties and hatreds. ...

Retract!

I retracted, and you can too. Retraction is good for the soul. Plus, it's fun!

However, none of these retractions and counter-retractions will help poor Jamil Hussein. He might exist and then, he might not exist. He might be accurate, but then, he might not. He might deny his existence and his status as a source, but then, he might not. He might as well have existed, even if he might as well not have.

But hey, at least he has a blog.