Jump to content

Saving Jessica Lynch


daniel

Recommended Posts

Its the media who is responsible for the sensationalism, not the government. Yes, the Pentagon shared the story with the media because it was a positive development, but the media blew it out of proportion, labeling her a hero and what not.

I think its understandable that the millitary would jump on the opportunity to say," hey, look what we did here. This shows how much each human life means to us." I don't think that intent is dishonorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the manner of the resuce, but its portrayal and subsequent propaganda around Lynch (ie. emptied her weapon at the attackers, was beaten and raped etc. etc.) that's the issue here. the U.S. wanted a rallying point, a symbol and a hero so they tried to create one (What could be more perfect than a white, blonde haired, blue-eyed, Mid-Western, All-American girl fighting off a gang of swarth Ay-rabs single-handed?) Too bad for them the story was bogus.

Remembere the headlines from the Imbedded Reporters? "Bogged Down" "Viet Nam" "Elite Republican Guard" "Stiff Resistance" and so on and forth? The biggest story of all would have been;

"Army Tries to Make Hero With Crap Evidence"

Rueters;

From the White House down to the battle front heads are rolling over the order to make a hero out of a young girl captured in combat.  Although Imbedded Reporters knew that she was not a hero the President ordered them to report her as one otherwise they would be sent back to the US sources say.  "This truely is a black day for freedom of the press" the CEO of Time Warner said refering to Bush's order that all press releases now be written by himself.

Reached for comment Bush said in passing "Damm the torpedos, full steam ahead" in reference to the nulification of all free speech that had, with the breaking of this story become obselete in the USA.

Naw, considering the anti war fervor that sold as many papers as pro, can't see any reporter giving up a chance to write this one. They didn't though. Wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remembere the headlines from the Imbedded Reporters? "Bogged Down" "Viet Nam" "Elite Republican Guard" "Stiff Resistance" and so on and forth? The biggest story of all would have been;

And who can forget "liberation" "Coalition of the Willing" and the Big One: "Weapons of Mass destruction".

Naw, considering the anti war fervor that sold as many papers as pro, can't see any reporter giving up a chance to write this one. They didn't though. Wonder why?

Pay attention. most major media outlets ran with the "official version" until the truth started coming out from intervioews with the Iraqis doctors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pay attentiion yourself professor. Not much of an outcry for a story that according to you is tantamount to hijacking the minds of the American people. Like I said, blame the press. Is investigative journalism dead here or what?

And who can forget "liberation" "Coalition of the Willing" and the Big One: "Weapons of Mass destruction".

Direct quotes. Hmmm, now the journalists are getting fed the news wheras before they were reporting it. They never complained? Like I said, the way you portray it it amounts to the destruction of all America stands for, make a hell of a story. It hasn't been reported as such so far though for a good reason; the press made it after getting briefed erroniously.

Tell you what, you show me a reliable source that says that the press had nothing to do with JL until they were spoon fed the story. Then show me how they asked no questions, but simply ran with it as the brass kept on feeding them with body counts of JL playing Rambo and so on and forth. Show me where this was anything more than a egar press running with a story before they had verified it. Show me this and I will say that the Pentagon (a non prtisan organisation) is fabricating it's own press and then ask why nobody except you and a few others cares about this loss of freedom of the press. I know I would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The things I've read point to the press[cough Washington Post, NYT]running with an unconfirmed story about a brave female in the Army, that was seeded by some Clintonestra feminists in the Pentagon. Women in the military - yes - look what they can do...look pretty but shoot the bad guys left and right...right on!

I think half the story was right but the other half was feminist fantasy. Jessica Lynch was used all right...but it wasn't by Bush or by Rumsfield to promote the war. It was the "PC" media along with the Clintonestra feminists in the military establishment to promote the idea of women can do anything, including fight a war..

After Lynch's rape revelation, I heard one feminist commentator claim that as awful as it is, it should not be used to keep women from serving in the frontlines of America's military. Why the heck not?
Lynch says the army used her to promote the war. Wrong. Feminists, more than anyone, used it to advance their "I-am-woman-hear-me-roar" and "I-can-do-anything-better-than-you" mentality. More specifically, feminists, well represented within the military establishment itself, used her story to advance their cause of integrating women deeper into the frontlines of combat. In fact, the capture of American women by Iraqis was hailed by American feminists as a major advance for the gentler sex. Before POW Shoshana Johnson was even rescued, the New York Times praised her in an editorial for helping to break the "glass ceiling" of women in the military. They concluded her capture proved women could and should be put into even more dangerous combat positions. What?
.

Who used Jessica Lynch.

And yes, Lynch was raped anally, Black Dog. It was confirmed by the military medical team who first examined her but only after her biography came out with that admission.

As for what the Iraqi doctors said, since they still need to stay alive in Baghdad with all those gentlemenly Mr. Feyadeens still running around, what else would you advise them to say????I think the lawyer who tipped off the US military as to where Lynch was being held and who is now safely esconced in the USA is more likely telling the truth than the Iraqi doctors who are scared to death of retribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think half the story was right but the other half was feminist fantasy. Jessica Lynch was used all right...but it wasn't by Bush or by Rumsfield to promote the war. It was the "PC" media along with the Clintonestra feminists in the military establishment to promote the idea of women can do anything, including fight a war..

What a load of bullshit. The Lynch story was by-the-numbers propaganda by the Bush admin and DoD, pure and simple. Hell, even the anti-feminist diatribe you link too says as much:

Cute, blond, and young sells.

the issue of women in frontline combat is a sidebar, with little bearing on the actual debate. However I will say that I finid it strange that some people have reservations about sending women into situations where they could be raped have no similar qualms about sending young men into situations where they can be maimed or killed in horrific fashion.

And yes, Lynch was raped anally, Black Dog. It was confirmed by the military medical team who first examined her but only after her biography came out with that admission.

The doctors who treated her have denied any such occurrance.

think the lawyer who tipped off the US military as to where Lynch was being held and who is now safely esconced in the USA is more likely telling the truth than the Iraqi doctors who are scared to death of retribution.

And he wouldn't have anything to gain from all this himself, now would he?

Al-Rehaief was granted asylum barely two weeks after arriving in the US. He is now the toast of Washington, with a fat $500,000 (£309,000) book deal.

KK, this war was themost carefully managed media event in history. Access to information was more tightly controlled than ever. the media had to take what they were given.

Read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a race against time for the film to be edited"

Believe it or not, I was hoping to get a real article. This is slanted so badly that it is difficult to sort facts from rant. As an example it starts off implying that it is a genuine May 15 article then moves into how the the US Military hoodwinked the press without a beat. No names, ranks or identities of the reporters who were given the briefing were mentioned. I'm not being a stickler on purpose here, but don't feed me crap.

And crap is what this report is, read it yourself with an objective mind and you will see what I mean. Then find an article that has detailed info of when, who, what, where and when without story bias. Questions that were asked, replies given and let us all decide for ourselves. Sometimes the left is their own worst enemy, I wouldn't in a lifetime consider this as evidence of anything because of all the obvious leanings. Please don't get me wrong, I, like many search for truth, this may be but in it's present form gives off the odor of a rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK, your criticisms of the article I linked too are so thin as to be laughable. I imagine you would say the same of any article, no matter how detailed or nuanced, simply becaus eit doesn't fit your preconcieved notion of the truth. It's a common phenomenon, really. It's known as cognitive dissonance.

This is slanted so badly that it is difficult to sort facts from rant. As an example it starts off implying that it is a genuine May 15 article then moves into how the the US Military hoodwinked the press without a beat.

Can you indicate anything to say it is not an article from May 15, 2003? Also: "hoodwinked" implies that the press were fooled, whereas anyone with a rudimentary understanding of PR tactics and media management could tell you that the conditions imposed by the U.S. military during Gulf War 2 were such that the media had access to precious little linformation beyond teh official line. That the real story of Jessica Lynch emerged at all is a testament to the few media outlets and journalists still concerned with getting to the truth. Come back to me when you have some legitimate concerns with the article, rather than merely bleating "bias!" because of the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Dog,

Here are my responses to your posts. I'm trying to restrain myself from shouting:

1. Re: you suggest that because Jessica was cute, blonde, and young this proves that she would not be a poster child for feminists in the military and left wing media...huh??? Perhaps you would be more convinced if the media and military feminists had focused on a middle aged, chunky, hairy armed/legged dy*e instead, to promote an image of can-do women in the military??? Hint: think Gloria Steinman, Naomi Wolff, and other "babe" feminists and get your chauvinist mind off Friedman. IMHO Jessica Lynch was the perfect example of a girl next door who Hillary and Bill wanted in the military, so as to screw it up like what was done to fire and police departments US wide.

On the otherhand, Bush and Rumsfield have the exact opposite views of women having combat roles.They were both down-to-earth enough to realize that putting women in the front lines of combat actually placed male soldiers in greater danger. A 98 pound female soldier colleague could not be counted on to fight enemy combatants as well, and because of worrying about females' vulnerability to rape, male soldiers might take unnecessary risks to protect females from being captured and violated. It's Clintonestra feminists in the military who wanted to break all "barriers" for women in the military.

Booby traps in the Military.

Symbiotic relationship between the media and women in the military.

Jessica Lynch, modern myth.PBS on Women Warriors.

2. With regard to Mohammed the lawyer who helped in the rescue of Jessica Lynch. I stand by my claim that he was in a better position to tell the truth having been re-located to the D.C. area than the Iraqi doctors who still had to contend with fears of being visited by Al Feyadeen brutes.

Mohammed's interview about Jessica Lynch rescue

Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the Iraqi attorney, took considerable risk in tipping off the US troops about Jessica Lynch and his reward [and rightfully so IMHO] was to be granted asylum in the USA. Why not? I guess the only Iraqis the Left embraces are ones who shoot down US helicopters or those who live in fear of being attacked by Saddam's boys.

3. Anal rape of Jessica Lynch has been confirmed by medical records and her family lawyer, Stepphen Goodwin, confirms it too. Goodwin could be dis-barred for consciously making false statements to the press re: Lynch's medical records. When Lynch was rescued, she weighed 70 pounds. No wonder that Lynch looked like a "child" to Mohammed.

Jessica Lynch's lawyer confirms rape, which was confirmed by medical records in her new book.

Contrary to the insinuations of the May 15 article in the Guardian, Jessica had a horrific experience as a POW and will likely suffer physical and psychological pain for the rest of her life. I certainly wouldn't consider Jessica Lynch a hero, but she's welcome to any money she gets for her troubles s POW and I'd suggest there's not one weanie reporter at the Guardian who would trade places with her. "The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead." Source: Jessica Lynch 's biography.

4. Re: the media whores who ran with the Jessica Lynch story from "anonymous sources" in the military and then later spun their own errors in reporting into blame for the Bush Admin. for the hype. Puhleaaze.

Here's the original WP story that broke the Jessica Lynch rescue. a) Contrary to left wing net rumours, the Post's embellished details of Jessica Lynch's brave fighting DID NOT come from CENTCOM briefers but from "anonymous" officials reporting initial intelligence reports that at the time they noted were likely to change. B) With regards to stories about so-called Iraqi resistance, pay attention, a military officer right from the start said there was no shooting in the hospital and once Special Forces got inside they discovered the hospital had been pretty much abandoned:

She was fighting to the death, Washington Post, April 3, 2003

Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed. Reports thus far are based on battlefield intelligence, they said, which comes from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in Nasiriyah whose reliability has yet to be assessed. Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics but had no confirmation.
"There was shooting going in, there was some shooting going out," said one military officer briefed on the operation. "It was not intensive. There was no shooting in the building, but it was hairy, because no one knew what to expect. When they got inside, I don't think there was any resistance. It was fairly abandoned."

Also, if the BBC reporter [John Kampfner, May 18] had bothered to double check his stupid claim that Special Forces fired blanks, he would have discovered that the military would never use blanks when entering a hostile position, but because the Special Forces were entering a civilian location [hospital] controlled by the enemy, they wanted to ensure no resistance of the enemy as well as no deaths of civilians by the use of "flash-bang" grenades...that's what the BBC lame brains mistook for "blanks." The following are other instances of media tomfoolery de-bunked. As I said before the Jessica Lynch story was probably 50% correct[the Special Forces rescue part] and the rest was feminist fantasy[Jessica as Rambo combatant]. Unfortunately, the left wing media does not have the professionalism, by and large, to admit to their folly.

a. Reuters miss-used a reporter's name in the byline but made up facts in the body of the article

What I typed and filed for Reuters last week goes on in that vein. They asked me if they could use my byline, which I had typed at the beginning of the story I sent, and I said that would be no problem...I'm not sure what reporter or editor actually wrote the story that has my byline attached...I understand that news wire services often edit, add, remove or write new leads for stories. What amazed me was that a story could have my byline on it when I contributed only a few sentences at the end -- and in later versions I didn't contribute anything at all...The stories contained apparently fresh material attributed to sources I did not interview. Maybe that's the way that wire service works. I would like to make it abundantly clear that somebody at Reuters wrote the story, not me. I may not be a member of the world's largest multi-media news agency, but I learned at West Virginia University how to report fairly, which is what I thought I was doing for Reuters last week. Apparently, when Reuters asked me last week if they could use my byline, they weren't talking about the story I wrote for them last week. They were talking about a story I never wrote.

b. MediaResearchCenter: how Couric misrepresented Lynch story

The story about Lynch heroically firing back until she was out of ammunition probably stemmed from a simple misinterpretation of some intercepted Iraqi conversations, ABC’s Jim Wooten suggested in a July 22 World News Tonight story on the overlooked Sergeant Donald Walters, the man in Lynch’s group of trucks who really fought back and was killed in the process. Wooten explained that the Pentagon got its information about the capture from intercepted phone calls:  “Now an official report suggests they accurately described a different soldier. No one here at Ft. Bliss is talking, but it's pretty clear this is what happened: American translators misunderstood two very similar Arabic pronouns, confusing 'he' with 'she.' And the 'he,' as it turns out, was this man. Donald Walters, a 33 year-old sergeant and cook from Salem, Oregon, who was part of a supply convoy that drove by mistake into an enemy stronghold. Here, on the north side of An-Nasiriyah, his truck was disabled by heavy fire. The driver, a private, jumped into the next vehicle, but the Pentagon says Walters, all alone, killed several Iraqis before he was shot and stabbed to death. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star.”
As noted above, in a July interview with an Army doctor at Walter Reed Couric worried about Pentagon propaganda in the rescue, as if he’d know anything about it. ..Argyros quite properly declined to comment since he knew nothing about it and certainly never talked to Lynch about it. Couric was giving credence to a bit of propaganda herself, left-wing, anti-U.S. propaganda which one of Couric’s own colleagues at NBC had long ago undermined. An excerpt from the June 3 CyberAlert: NBC News versus ABC News, the Toronto Star and the BBC. Back on May 7 ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings belittled the military effort to rescue POW Jessica Lynch from a Nasiriyah hospital, focusing on how the U.S. forces knew they would face no opposition, unnecessarily frightened the staff and caused a lot of damage, specifically by breaking door knobs. ABC's story was prompted by a Toronto Star story, which suggested that the presence of video cameras with the rescuers suggested it was all a Pentagon propaganda effort. A few weeks later, the BBC checked in with a documentary accusing the U.S. forces of firing off blanks in the hospital, a sure sign it was all staged for the cameras to provide great propaganda video of military heroics. But now, several weeks later, NBC's Jim Avila and crew have gone to Nasiriyah and discovered that the truth seems to lie closer to the story initially conveyed by the U.S. military than to the anti-military tales spun by ABC and the BBC. On Friday's [May 30] NBC Nightly News, Avila reported that hospital staff “says the so-called blanks were actually flash-bang grenades used to stun and frighten hospital workers and potential resistance. No bullets or blanks were fired inside the hospital. And the Americans had every reason to expect trouble. Hospital workers confirm the Iraqi military used the basement as a headquarters.” A doctor told Avila that “what he calls the big heads of the Iraqi army left just six hours before the raid.” Avila added that “the Iraqis told NBC News the American soldiers' behavior was humane.” For instance, when one of the physicians said the handcuffs “hurt and they were too tight,” the “soldiers immediately loosened them.”

c. CNN's Paula Zahn fails in promoting anti-military views on Lynch story

d.ABC and BBC shown to be biased re: Lynch story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...