Following Up On Michael Ware

Yesterday Hugh Hewitt had an interview with the Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief. In this interview, Mr. Ware admitted to embedding himself within the insurgency and the jihadists in Iraq. He excused his over-exuberance with following the story as just that; he was merely following a story. Now for those that feel as Thomas and I do, yes we dislike this move by the veteran war reporter. We would disapprove of such a move by ANY journalist who would decide to take this step in reporting a conflict.

Simply put, no one cares about our enemy. We do not care about their grievances, their point of view, or whether or not they are truly "human;" that is a given as we are not fighting Martians in this war.

But Thomas picked up on something that popped up in that interview.

HH: He was there before the war began. He had come back and forth to Afghanistan. In your dealings with the insurgents, had they dealt with him prior to the war?

MW: No. I did uncover some documents, however, that referred to his presence, here in some form. Now it seemed to be covert and unofficial, and one can only guess. However, I did receive a document written by one of his right hand men, a man who was killed in 2004 by a U.S. JDAM in his vehicle, who wrote an after action report of the first battle of Fallujah, in the course of which he said well, you know, Abu bil-Bloggs (phonetic spelling) was killed at this point. You know Abu bil-Bloggs. He was the one who saw Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war.

HH: Did you publish that?

MW: Yeah.

HH: In Time Magazine.

MW: Yeah.

Here is our problem, dear readers: We cannot find this story he claims was printed in Time. I spent the better part of the day today searching. I searched: Google, Yahoo, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, and none of them have any link that pertains to that story. Not in any interview they have ever conducted, nor did he reference it in any of those interviews. He injected it in the interview yesterday, and as yet, it cannot be found.

From this point, we must assume that this is a lie. There is no other way to look at this. The other story he referenced in that interview--the one about the Zarqawi tape--was easily found. And there is a sort of non-admission in the story that Zarqawi might--mind you might--have been in Iraq prior to our invasion, but it is not definite or solid. Actually, it is sort of wishy-washy in it's language.

So, until Mr. Ware comes forward and delivers a link to Hugh Hewitt to that story, we must take what he said as a lie. Time has not printed a story admitting that Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to our invasion. This does not bode well for him. As a professional correspondant, and one who has seen much of this war from both sides, his journalistic integrity hangs in the balance. We want that link. It is not because we are looking for another head on the wall. But at this point, the onus to prove our assertions wrong falls in his lap. We want the link. The link will clear this up. If it does not show up, then we must go back to the original assumption.

Michael Ware lied, and he is one the record doing so.

The Bunny ;)