Media Matters shill Eric Boehlert is at it again, with another bilious rant about “warbloggers:” Michelle Malkin and the warbloggers get everything wrong — again.

I wouldn’t even bother with Boehlert’s nonsense, except that his description of our coverage of AP photographer Bilal Hussein’s release under an Iraqi amnesty law is so laughably dishonest it needs a reply.

Ditto for warblogging central, Little Green Footballs: “The Associated Press story about the release of photographer Bilal Hussein, strangely, does not explain that Hussein was released because of a new Iraqi amnesty law — not because the charges were found to be without merit.”

But where were the details about this amnesty law? Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence? Did warbloggers quote U.S. military officials? Did they research Iraqi law? Did they even cite news accounts? No — they just liked the sound of the amnesty spin.

No, actually our report about the amnesty law comes directly from none other than the Associated Press. Here’s our quote from the AP article, since Boehlert appears to have missed it somehow:

BAGHDAD (AP) - An Iraqi judicial committee has dismissed terrorism-related allegations against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein and ordered him freed after nearly two years in U.S. military custody.

The decision by a four-judge panel says Hussein’s case falls under a new amnesty law and orders Iraqi courts to “cease legal proceedings.”

The shill continues:

Still curious as to how LGF could be so certain in its April 16 item about the details of the amnesty law and how it represented Hussein’s bogus, get-of-jail card, I went back and looked at what LGF wrote following the April 9 news that the Iraqi judges had dismissed charges against Hussein.

LGF posted this: “AP photographer Bilal Hussein has received amnesty from the Iraqi government, under a new law. I was unable to find any details about this ‘new law,’ but apparently it covers Hussein.” [emphasis added]

Oh, my. Warbloggers maintain this fantasy that they were right all along about Hussein being a terrorist and it was only the creation of a new amnesty law that saved him from a certain prison sentence. But in truth, warbloggers have no idea what the amnesty law means.

Interesting that Boehlert “went back and looked at what LGF wrote,” and yet somehow missed the update we posted 11 minutes after the original post, with details about the amnesty law in question. Of course, mentioning that wouldn’t fit the “narrative” he’s creating.

Media Matters, of course, is a hard left propaganda outfit funded by George Soros. They are heavily invested in promoting the kind of biased reporting that is a natural outcome of mainstream media’s use of local stringers in Iraq; it’s important for them to discredit anyone who pulls back the curtain, so the propaganda can continue to flow. And these are the tactics they use: selective quoting and exaggerated misrepresentations of their opponent’s views.

For example, this is what I actually wrote about Hussein’s amnesty release:

Amnesty, of course, does not necessarily equal innocence. We’ll have to see what the military decides to do next.

But in Boehlert’s distorted fun-house mirror version:

Where were the facts that proved that Iraqi judges, in an extraordinarily high-profile case against a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and in a case the U.S. military was heavily invested in, never examined the evidence presented against Hussein and simply allowed him to walk free regardless of his guilt or innocence?

These are opinions that I never expressed; they come from nowhere except Boehlert’s fevered imagination.

Boehlert concludes by stating that Bilal Hussein was completely innocent of all the allegations against him. Boehlert’s source for this? Bilal Hussein’s AP-funded lawyer.

Now there’s an unbiased source.

UPDATE at 4/23/08 12:56:47 pm:

Since this smear piece was posted at Media Matters, we’ve gotten all of 14 … yes, 14 … hits from their page.