Posted on 11/07/2003 7:31:52 AM PST by presidio9
I'd like to see an example of anyone's words I twisted. You guys just can't stand difference of opinion.
Well, not really. Since I've worked in state prisons for over 20 years, death or injury has always been a possibility. You keep it in the back of your mind and don't dwell on it, or you won't be able to do your job.
Because you are so enamoured with Jessica Lynch, you will never be able to see things as others see them, nor understand where they are coming from. I, myself don't understand or agree with some of the things she's said and done. It doesn't mean I wish her ill will. I'm just expressing some feelings based on my beliefs and background. And of course, my age probably plays a role in what I think, say and do on certain issues. If others don't like that, well, that's just too bad, and as my mother always said: "If they don't like me as I am, then they don't have to bother with me".
Or how about this one:
My mother's menu consisted of two choices: take it or leave it.
The last group of people that I am fooled by is the liberal media.
She didn't "condemn" the Pentagon.
I think that you need to read a bit more intently, sir. I said, "Looks like Jessica Lynch has done exactly as the liberal, elite media has wanted: Jessica Lynch Condemns Pentagon" (which was and is the headline of the article). Perhaps it wasn't her intention (she is after all a 20 year that isn't likely to be the most media savvy person), but she has provide the fuel that the liberal media has been hoping for regarding this story.
And she said she was hurt by the false story
Ok, that's fine. She should be hurt by the false story. Only problem is that she insinuated (actually, accused) the Pentagon of putting forth that false story.
And that, sir, just is not true. The Army was very conservative in conveying the facts as they came in. Why wouldn't she be hurt, half the country hates her for it now.
She should be hurt, but her anger should be directed at the media whores who are the ones really using her.
Since the only comment that could possibly have any validity is the comment about the video that was released. The Army (Pentagon) did decide to release the video and since she had a beef with it, then let's take a closer look at her issue.
First of all, operational video is not uncommon. In fact, the military has a responsbility to document what happens on the battlefield. A lot of times this is done in report form, but with advances in technology (size/weight considerations especially), video is being used more and more. Given the gravity of the situation, using video to document was a wise decision.
Second, given the normal use of video on the battlefield, the film of the rescue is totally appropriate and her dislike for that they released the video, with all due respect, is totally beside the point. She isn't in charge of the decision to video or not video. She is/was a private. If you aren't that familiar with the military structure, that is the lowest rank; there isn't a whole lot of decision-making designed into the job. Perhaps her angst towards the Pentagon's policy on videtaping is appropriate, but anger about her particular video being released is a matter of course; that is, it is an established policy.
Third, and perhaps a rebuttal to my immediately previous point, the Pentagon didn't show the whole video. They didn't show her in a compromising postition. It isn't like she was nude in the video. Did the Pentagon release the whole video? Of course not. You might guess that the Pentagon doesn't provide a "game film" for all of our enemies so they can see how we operate. So, as far as her anger at the release of her own video, while it is a point, it isn't one that she should be that upset about.
Last point, she should take the money that she is going to make (off the movie, off the book, off the noteriety, etc.) and keep her comments to herself. She suffered a great deal. I wish her as full a recover as possible. I wish her a full life. I wish this never happened to her.
But, I also think that she needs to know that the Pentagon isn't the people that she should be mad at.
Then it would seem you would post to me instead of post about me.
People make assumtions all the time in their everyday lives. For you to deny that shows how far you have to go to support your points.
Because you are so enamoured with Jessica Lynch,...
I'm not enamored with her. The only military threads I initiate posts on are ones where our troops get nitpicked. So it's only been Lynch, the Australian prostitute thread, and the Iraqi wives threads that I've posted to.
Are you angry that other service people have written books?
Then why did you buy this headline?
I think that you need to read a bit more intently, sir. I said, "Looks like Jessica Lynch has done exactly as the liberal, elite media has wanted: Jessica Lynch Condemns Pentagon" (which was and is the headline of the article).
That's propaganda. So you think that when something is is a liberal reporter's headline, that it's the absolute truth?
Perhaps it wasn't her intention (she is after all a 20 year that isn't likely to be the most media savvy person), but she has provide the fuel that the liberal media has been hoping for regarding this story.
She provided no fuel, they propagandized her words and put emotions where none existed and quoted her out of context and she didn't "condemn" anyone. Being hurt and "condemning" is two different things. That's typical of the liberal press, to overstate things.
Ok, that's fine. She should be hurt by the false story. Only problem is that she insinuated (actually, accused) the Pentagon of putting forth that false story.
Maybe she's mistaken, maybe she isn't. I think the Washington Post put the story together through bad information from radio chatter, but maybe they did actually have a source in the military.
And that, sir, just is not true. The Army was very conservative in conveying the facts as they came in.
You don't know that for sure.
She should be hurt, but her anger should be directed at the media whores who are the ones really using her.
She did direct her "hurt" comments at those that got her story wrong. The media has circled the wagons and portrayed that it was the Pentagon. Maybe she doesn't realize who's at fault if it was just the Washington Post. I didn't become politically aware until I was 24, she's only 20.
Since the only comment that could possibly have any validity is the comment about the video that was released. The Army (Pentagon) did decide to release the video and since she had a beef with it, then let's take a closer look at her issue. First of all, operational video is not uncommon. In fact, the military has a responsbility to document what happens on the battlefield. A lot of times this is done in report form, but with advances in technology (size/weight considerations especially), video is being used more and more. Given the gravity of the situation, using video to document was a wise decision.
I think she was trying to placate all the people that are angry that she had media coverage saying in a humble manner that they didn't have to broadcast it.
Second, given the normal use of video on the battlefield, the film of the rescue is totally appropriate and her dislike for that they released the video, with all due respect, is totally beside the point. She isn't in charge of the decision to video or not video. She is/was a private. If you aren't that familiar with the military structure, that is the lowest rank; there isn't a whole lot of decision-making designed into the job. Perhaps her angst towards the Pentagon's policy on videtaping is appropriate, but anger about her particular video being released is a matter of course; that is, it is an established policy.
Again, her statement about the video looked to me to be where she was saying that they didn't have to make a big deal about it and broadcast it to everyone, which is what her bashers have been saying since April. Now she comes out and says the same thing and the bashers do a 180 and bash her for saying what they've said they wanted her to say. That's why I keep saying that her bashers are bashing because Lynch reveals their insecurities and they'll never be happy with anything she says.
Third, and perhaps a rebuttal to my immediately previous point, the Pentagon didn't show the whole video. They didn't show her in a compromising postition. It isn't like she was nude in the video. Did the Pentagon release the whole video? Of course not. You might guess that the Pentagon doesn't provide a "game film" for all of our enemies so they can see how we operate. So, as far as her anger at the release of her own video, while it is a point, it isn't one that she should be that upset about.
Yeah, yeah, I think you're missing her point as explained by me above.
Last point, she should take the money that she is going to make (off the movie, off the book, off the noteriety, etc.) and keep her comments to herself. She suffered a great deal. I wish her as full a recover as possible. I wish her a full life. I wish this never happened to her.
If there's a market and people want to hear what she has to say about the ordeal and she wants to let everyone know what happened, then she should speak.
But, I also think that she needs to know that the Pentagon isn't the people that she should be mad at.
If they had nothing to do with the story. I don't think they did, but maybe they did. She thinks they did. A lot of Freepers here think they did.
Now that is probably true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.