Wondering about Kit’s honesty

June 29, 2006 in Political Animals | 7 comments

Kit Jarrell demonstrates her tenuous grasp of the facts again.

Quoting a CNN report, she claims that witnesses to the killing of an Iraqi civilian are "lying". What does the CNN report actually say?

An autopsy report on the Iraqi civilian a squad of Marines are accused of murdering in April indicates the man may not have been disabled as his family reported, defense sources said Wednesday.

A preliminary, partial report released to defense lawyers does not mention any deformity or other injury consistent with a permanent disability, a source familiar with the evidence told CNN.

Seven Marines and a Navy medical corpsman have been charged with killing Hasham Ibrahim Awad in the town of Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad, on April 26. Prosecutors began handing over computer discs that contain the evidence against the men to their lawyers last week.

Awad’s body had been exhumed as part of the investigation. The remains were severely decomposed by the time the autopsy was performed, sources told CNN.

Let’s see… this CNN report is based on a “preliminary, partial report” of an autopsy on a body that was “severely decomposed by the time the autopsy was performed”. The report is one that Kit herself has not seen. Yet she knows for a fact that the witnesses were lying.

I wonder what else Kit knows without having any evidence to support her accusations.

(Aside: I can find no indication that the new Euphoric Reality site accepts trackbacks. Gotta wonder if Kit and Heidi are trying hard to insulate themselves from any criticism…)

  1. Kit Jarrell on June 29, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Actually, it’s more like I’m not done coding the site yet. But go ahead and make your crackpot assumptions. I’ll add the trackbacks to the list of things I already need to finish on the site (as mentioned here. http://www.kitjarrell.com/?p=18). Your own site could use some coding help too, but we’ve already discussed that.

    As for the news report, for the love of God. Do some actual “thinking” for once in your life. It says, very plainly, ”...the man may not have been disabled as his family reported.” This means that his family reported that he was disabled. However, the (preliminary, partial) report says there is no evidence of that.

    Now, if they said he was disabled and he was not disabled, as this report says, that means they said something untrue. That means they lied. This isn’t rocket science.

    Of course, the insinuation that the report’s wrong is priceless, since during the Terri Schiavo thing you liberals camped out on the reports that said she was pretty much a non-functioning vegetable, and ignored the reports from others. Are you now changing your mind and saying that autopsy reports are sometimes wrong?

    Look, I’m arguing like a liberal.

  2. meatbrain on June 29, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    “However, the (preliminary, partial) report says there is no evidence of that.”

    Which is a much different thing from saying that there was evidence that he was not disabled.

    “Now, if they said he was disabled and he was not disabled, as this report says, that means they said something untrue. That means they lied.”

    Now, if Kit says that the report said Awad was not disabled, which it does not say, that means Kit said something untrue. That means Kit lied.

    “Of course, the insinuation that the report’s wrong is priceless…”

    Of course, there is no insinuation in my post that the report is wrong. I did note exactly what CNN says: the report is preliminary and partial. Kit’s ability to see things that are not there is priceless. Useless, too, but priceless.

    “Look, I’m arguing like a liberal.”

    Look, Kit is lying like… well, like Kit Jarrell.

  3. Kit Jarrell on June 29, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    LOL!! Dear God you amuse me.

    1. I never once said there was evidence that he was not disabled. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    What I said was, “Turns out the “witnesses” weren’t quite telling the truth about the man’s ‘permanent disability.’” Which, according to the report, they were not.

    I also said, “I wonder what else the witnesses were lying about.” Since we’ve already established that the report “indicates the man may not have been disabled as his family reported” (CNN’s words, not mine), then my comment is perfectly fine, since it refers to the fact that the family was less than truthful about the information. To coin a phrase, “Read for comprehension, dear.”

    As for the insinuation, well, you can deny that all you like, just like you can claim I’m lying all you want. However, that doesn’t change what I actually typed. The fact that the report is “preliminary and partial” doesn’t change anything, really. What happens if it comes out that the REAL, SUPER-FINISHED AND FINAL report simply backs up the insignificant preliminary report? What will you say then?

    And you didn’t answer my question. Funny how that works. It’s just a simple question, Mr. Meat. A simple yes or no would suffice.

  4. meatbrain on June 29, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    “I never once said there was evidence that he was not disabled.”

    If you do not have evidence that Awad was not disabled, then from whence comes the claim that the witnesses were lying?

    “What I said was, “Turns out the “witnesses” weren’t quite telling the truth about the man’s ‘permanent disability.’” Which, according to the report, they were not.”

    False. What CNN said was:

    An autopsy report on the Iraqi civilian a squad of Marines are accused of murdering in April indicates the man may not have been disabled as his family reported, defense sources said Wednesday.A preliminary, partial report released to defense lawyers does not mention any deformity or other injury consistent with a permanent disability…

    ”...may not have been disabled…”

    ”...does not mention…”

    You’ve decided that the witnesses were lying, when all we really know at this point is that there is a lack of corroborating evidence.

    Why do you suppose you’ve assumed — absent any positive evidence — that these folks were lying, Kit? Can it be because they are Muslims?

    “What happens if it comes out that the REAL, SUPER-FINISHED AND FINAL report simply backs up the insignificant preliminary report? What will you say then?”

    Then there will be forensic evidence that the witnesses lied.

    Now there is no such evidence. But you make the claim that the witnesses lied anyway — because it is convenient for you to do so. The facts we have now simply do not support that claim.

    “And you didn’t answer my question.”

    You are referring, I take it, to the following:

    Are you now changing your mind and saying that autopsy reports are sometimes wrong?

    It’s a perfectly silly question, since it rests on the assumption that I have held the view that autopsy reports are always right: ”...you liberals camped out on the reports…”.

    Tell me, from what exact viewpoint of mine am I supposed to have “chang[ed] [my] mind”? When did I express that viewpoint?

    And if I didn’t express any viewpoint on the accuracy of autopsy reports, why are you now insinuating that I have changed my mind?

  5. Kit Jarrell on June 29, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH!

    OMG. Do you ever actually read what you write? Seriously.

    Thanks. That was honestly, truly funny. Now I’m going to go have an actual conversation with someone. Have a great day.

  6. meatbrain on June 29, 2006 at 8:54 pm

    And Kit runs away from the hard questions — as always.

  7. Mikey on June 30, 2006 at 1:39 am

    Go easy on her, MB. She’s been very busy writing racist rantings on her new site. That takes a lot of time – there’s none left for facts or reason.