Posted on 11/08/2003 6:48:09 AM PST by KQQL
US woman soldier who shot to fame after being taken prisoner during the Iraq war has accused the military of using her for propaganda purposes.
A video of US commandos carrying a badly injured Private Jessica Lynch from a Nasiriya hospital was released at the height of the conflict.
But the 20-year-old criticised the release of false information about her capture by Iraqi forces.
She also said there was no reason for her rescue to be filmed.
In her first interview about what happened to her, the former prisoner-of-war told ABC television that medical reports indicated that she had been raped.
They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong.
She said she had no recollection of the attack. "Even just the thinking about that, that's too painful," she told interviewer Diane Sawyer.
Miss Lynch, who was serving as an Army supply clerk, suffered broken bones and other injuries when her convoy was ambushed after taking a wrong turn near the Iraqi town of Nasiriya on 23 March.
The Pentagon initially put out the story that Private Lynch - a slight woman who was just 19 at the time - had been wounded by Iraqi gunfire but had kept fighting until her ammunition ran out.
But she told Sawyer that she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that her gun had jammed during the chaos.
"I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do," she said.
"I did not shoot - not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees - that's the last thing I remember."
Initial reports also suggested that Miss Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She says that again was untrue - there was no mistreatment, and one nurse used to sing to her.
She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: "Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong."
Injuries
Miss Lynch was awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Prisoner of War medals while still in hospital in Washington DC.
Months later, she is receiving treatment for her extensive injuries.
Earlier this week, it emerged that medical evidence suggested that Miss Lynch had been raped during her capture.
The assault was revealed in extracts from Miss Lynch's authorised biography - I am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story - to be released by publisher Alfred A Knopf on Tuesday.
Let the record show that you've not backed this statement up with anything except;
No, since you evidently weren't watching FNC while this was developing, I guess I'll have to go find one.
[Newsweek]:Lynch's dramatic rescue by American commandos on April 1, videotaped by a military camera crew, was criticized by hospital officials as unnecessary grandstanding, since the Iraqi intelligence agents guarding her had all fled two days earlier.
Thanks for the good information sandlady.
Notice the glaring contradiction in this Newsweek report. In one account, they accurately report that Lynch's unit was ambushed. Ambushed meaning to be attacked by those who lay hidden in order so suprise and apply maximum carnage.
Then in the next account they give serious consideration to the complaint that the rescuers were overly prepared for resistance because there were no Iraqi resistance that was visible -- nevermined that there MIGHT be attackers laying hidden in order to suprise and apply maximum carnage to the rescuers.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You hide behind insults because you are cornered. Don't waste my time with such. The record of my posts and your responses stand on this thread.
The Pentagon clearly said in early April several times what the truth was. I've now documented it for you on this thread several times.
Back at ya dumbo!
The fact that misinformation was published by the great WP and AP that was attributed to unnamed sources or unquoted direct sources should set off alarms of caution in your little brain since the pentagon was on the record denying the hype and lies.
Try to think for a momment when the WP or AP or ABC news has ever used unnamed sources and misinformation to benifit the propaganda of the pentagon. The answer that most people would know but clueless you don't, is NEVER.
Now try to think for a memment when the WP and AP and ABC News ever used unnamed sources and misinformation to benifit the propaganda of the statist globalist left. The answer most people would give, but not you would be far too often.
Are you getting this yet?
I don't think there is, but I think I see why you say so. It was exactly to explain the difference that I made my previous two comments. I will try again. You state the inconsistency you see thus -
"She finds it offensive that her rescue was filmed by the military"
Along with all the other use made of her story, please remember. It is not in isolation. Just keep that in mind, I'll get to why it matters, below.
"but has no problem having her face & rape story splashed all over national TV."
So the apparent inconsistency is, if you don't want any publicity about any of it, you wouldn't do the latter. If you don't mind any publicity about it, you wouldn't object to the former. Fair? The only objection you are thus thinking of, is to publicity as such. Not to the content or use made of that publicity.
You notice that the details she insisted on when giving her own account are embarrassing things. I quite agree. You can't understand why anyone willing to publicly say embarrassing things could be upset about the previous publicity. Again, the only objection you are imagining as possible, is to others knowing about any of it.
But that is not the objection. The objection is to error, innaccuracy, lies in the reports. And to the tendency of those errors, innaccuracies, and lies, which all had a definite "spin" and a definite intended "moral". Which was, that she was heroic, and it was all swell. She corrected this to "I wasn't heroic, I can barely remember any of it, and it was completely horrible". You can't see why she would object to the previous and not to the latter.
Because the first isn't true. Start with that. But in addition, the innaccurate version has a purpose. Woman can be heroic in combat. They fight back ferociously, just like men are expected to do (whether they actually do or not). This has a manifest purpose and tendency, to put other women in the same position she was in, in the future.
And she isn't willing to have untruths and hero spin about her story used for that moral. She thinks the most important thing people need to know about it is that it was completely horrible, that she was badly mistreated in shameful ways, and that she was completely overwhelmed and unheroic about it all. This also has a manifest tendency. That other women do not belong anywhere near such situations, if we can help it.
The true publicity may be shameful to her personally. But it is protective of others. The false publicity may flatter her personally - though simply as unmerited, she has to disavow that or be guilty of dishonesty herself. But the false publicity also has a tendency to risk others, to expose them to what happened to her.
If you put women in combat, they will fight like tigers and be heros. If they get into any trouble we will all rescue them and celebrate them and it'll be fine. If you put women in combat, they will be overwhelmed, savaged, and abused. You really can't see how someone could object to one of those characterizations of her experience and not to the other?
But, you might say, just showing her rescue does not stump for one of those rather than the other. Even if the latter is the lesson, it was still a good thing and worth trumpeting. In isolation, perhaps. What she actually said was that she didn't know why they filmed her rescue, and that she had been made a symbol for all sorts of things and she thought that was wrong.
And there is really no question about the whole public relations purpose of it. The idea that is was filmed for training and later rescues is laughable. It was filmed to be on the cover of Time magazine, as Saving Private Lynch. The manifest purpose of which was GI Jane, i.e. that women in combat service support units are fine, and probably in combat units would be fine.
And it isn't fine. Not by a long shot. She knows this, in her broken bones. She does not enjoy watching her own experience being spun by others to say the exact opposite.
At any rate, that is how I read her reactions. I may be reading them with too much charity; I don't know her heart. I do know that charity is a better presumption to start from than cynicism, until disproved. There is no necessary inconsistency in her reaction. With the right "minor premise", it makes perfect sense. I supply that premise, charitably, rather than assuming she is being inconsistent.
Exactly. She has no objections to exploiting her experience for $$$, but criticizes the Pentagon.
As I've said previously, I have no problem with her setting the record straight, I just don't think it takes a book to do that. I haven't seen her interview with Diane Sawyer, so I can't speak on everything she said. The only part we've been privy to in the press are the parts where she spoke out against the military filming her rescue. You say that she wants people to know how horrible the experience was. Since the rest of the soldiers in the convoy with her were either killed or imprisoned, I think the public has a fairly good idea as to how "completely horrible" the experience for ALL OF THEM was. No one has to be told of the possibilities of rape for a female soldier in combat. Ever since the girl had been rescued, that very thought has been in the minds of a large number of people...especially the press, who couldn't wait to take that little tidbit and run with it.
I don't believe that women belong in combat areas, and if her book helps convince others of that, so well and good, but in essence, the video footage of her rescue should also be looked upon as helping in that effort too. In fact, we probably should have been shown all of it, the squalor of the hospital, the pain on her face when they moved her from the bed to the stretcher, etc. Unfortunately though, we were only allowed to witness small bits and pieces of her rescue, and even then, the pictures weren't all that clear to even see that it was actually Jessica Lynch on that stretcher. I haven't yet heard if PFC Lynch has said anything about females in combat, but if she is against it, then the video should be looked upon as supporting that premise. In a way, the video wasn't only a morale booster for the military and this country during a time of war, it may also hopefully help the Pentagon in keeping women out of harm's way.
Like you, I don't know her heart either. I understand she has other interviews and appearances planned as part of the book deal. If her true reason for writing this book was to set the record straight, then we will have to see how she handles herself, and the message she sends during those interviews. Somehow though, I don't think she'll be talking about the horrors of war to the likes of David Letterman, on whose program I hear she is scheduled to appear.
First, let's look at Fox News' reporting from 4 April. Notice how quickly the story changed from the commander of the hospital in Germany telling Mr. Lynch that his daughter had not been shot or stabbed, to her cousin saying unnamed doctors told him she had...
Lynch's father says doctors told her there were no bullet or stab wounds
Lynch's cousin cites unnamed docs who say Lynch did have bullet wounds
In case the HTML is wrong, or the links don't work, here are the URLs
1) www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83093,00.html
2) www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83175,00.html
Both of these stories are from 4 April...the story changed back pretty quickly, didn't it? Furthermore, we know the name of the man who said Lynch didn't have any gunshot or stab wounds. However, those who "corrected" Col. Rubenstein are more of those pesky unnamed sources. Who is more believeable?
I found this website which breaks down the Lynch saga pretty well. I have no idea what this organization is all about, but you can't argue that they do a doggone good job of placing things in chronological order, for all to see. Of course, then you have to figure out by yourself what it all means, and an emotional guy like you might have a problem with that.
Journalism.org recounts the unfolding Lynch story, and The Lie
The URL for this websire is...
www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/war/postwar/lynch.asp
Now let's talk about you:
"You hide behind insults because you are cornered. Don't waste my time with such. The record of my posts and your responses stand on this thread."
"The Pentagon clearly said in early April several times what the truth was. I've now documented it for you on this thread several times."
And I've just documented to you how the story has changed several times, haven't I? Furthermore, I've linked you to an "after action report" which makes both the media and the Pentagon look like they're both a bunch of agenda-pushing liars. Kinda what I've been saying all along, isn't it? Cornered? Hardly. It just took me a while to pull up my archives, and get them posted, what with everything else I have to do today. Sorry if you've been furiously and impatiently hitting F5, waiting for my response. Maybe I should have told you I also had to mow the lawn, then watch the Bucs game, so you wouldn't be waiting for me to get back to you. So sorry. Insults? Oh, please...give me a break. If you are so sensitive that you can't handle a little verbal slapping around without getting offended, then maybe you shouldn't be here on FReep. Try the Oprah discussion board, or the American Idol chatroom.
"The fact that misinformation was published by the great WP and AP that was attributed to unnamed sources or unquoted direct sources should set off alarms of caution in your little brain since the pentagon Pentagon (gotta capitalize the P, you know) was on the record denying the hype and lies."
By "denying" The Lie, is this line, which you posted to me this morning, what you're referring to?
"....Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics but had no confirmation."
Gee, not confirming something really doesn't mean they denied it, you know. Or maybe you don't. As far as unnamed sources are concerned, it seems to me that both the media and the Pentagon were using unnamed sources out the wazoo. Kinda like the unnamed sources that told Lynch's cousin and mother that she had been shot and stabbed, after the commander of the hospital, Col. Rubenstein, a named source, went on record as saying she hadn't? Little brain? Kinda calling the kettle black, aren't we, Mr. Pot?
"Try to think for a momment when the WP or AP or ABC news has ever used unnamed sources and misinformation to benifit the propaganda of the pentagon. The answer that most people would know but clueless you don't, is NEVER."
Uh, Francis, both the media and the Pentagon used unnamed sources. After all, what are the names of the alleged doctors that told Lynch's mother and cousin that she had been shot and/or stabbed? What you might start to recognize, if you could calm your emotions down a bit, maybe drink some chamomile tea and do a few Stuart Smalley self-affirmations, is that this whole story has evolved from the reports of "unnamed sources" on all sides. Everyone has used this story to try to further their own agendas.
"Now try to think for a memment moment (is that what you meant to say?) when the WP and AP and ABC News ever used unnamed sources and misinformation to benifit the propaganda of the statist globalist left. The answer most people would give, but not you would be far too often."
While we have our thinking caps on, let's think about a time, or times, that the Pentagon might use unnamed sources and misinformation to advance an agenda. You do realize, don't you, that the Pentagon is full of people who's careers are riding on this war? You're not so gullible, or so partisan as to think that military personnel at the Pentagon are immune to putting their careers over the truth, are you? You're not so uninformed that you don't realize there's this cutesy little panel called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women In The Service, are you? You're not so clueless that you don't realize that there are liberals and feminazis in the service, who's agenda of putting women in combat units would have benefited if The Lie had gone unchecked, are you? I'm sure you're not. You're just emotional, that's all.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
"So on 4/6/03, the Herald reported that the military Air Force Major Renuart said that he had no information on how Lynch was injured AND they also reported that Lynch's mom said that Lynch's doctor HAD determined that she'd been shot."
"Do you have any information that contradicts this?"
Yes, I believe this is addressed in the links I provided. A couple of corrections, by the way...
1) Renuart is an Air Force Major General (big difference between a Major and a Major General, you know?), who was a spokesman for Central Command, stationed at Camp Doha, Qatar. He wasn't exactly there for the rescue, and likely hadn't actually talked with any of Lynch's doctors. The fact that he's a general officer and a Centcom spokesman makes it much more likely that he was one of the spin doctors of the story, and not a very objective source to quote.
2) Also as per the second story I linked you to, the docs who told Lynch's mother that she had been shot were unnamed, therefore we have no way of knowing if it was "Lynch's doctor" that talked to her. No, in fact, that was yet another unnamed source. Besides, I think it's been pretty well established since then that Lynch wasn't shot, would you agree? Therefore, someone at the Pentagon and/or Centcom was lying to us, weren't they? Or are you still in denial as to the nature of Lynch's injuries?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
It certainly is. And the eunuchs in the Pentagon are also using (American hero) Col. West to show how "sensitive" and "politically correct" they are. The DOD is fast becoming State Department-esqe.
You start the insults and then you blame me and make up ;ittle fantacies when I respond in-kind. That's your judgement for all to see. You are a waste of time.
First, let's look at Fox News' reporting from 4 April. Notice how quickly the story changed from the commander of the hospital in Germany telling Mr. Lynch that his daughter had not been shot or stabbed, to her cousin saying unnamed doctors told him she had...
Gee, no kidding? I've already supplied similar links that showed the story changing. Why do you waste my time by giving me links to the same information? That isn't the information I requested.
Now about the "story changing" -- the story changed because different people were telling it. Named people representing the pentagon wre saying one thing and what they were saying was true. Unnamed people representing god-knows-who were making false statements. At no time did the pentagon's official statements change. Do you understand that? It seems that you don't. Especially when you blame the pentagon as if their official position was changing.
By "denying" The Lie, is this line, which you posted to me this morning, what you're referring to? "....Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics but had no confirmation." Gee, not confirming something really doesn't mean they denied it, you know.
You can't be serious. It was only April third. The investigation into the entire incident was not complete. Jessica Lynch most likely was not even fully interviewed yet. Do you have information that says that she was?
The two NAMED military spokesman that I've seen quotes for, gave all the information that they had, honestly and to the point. "Not confirming" something, is a standard answer given by any agency that is in the process of conducting an investigation. You can hang your hat on this "not confirming" point all you want but you are going to look foolish.
And I've just documented to you how the story has changed several times, haven't I? Furthermore, I've linked you to an "after action report" which makes both the media and the Pentagon look like they're both a bunch of agenda-pushing liars.
The media didn't lie, the pentagon didn't lie. It was an individual or individuals, a political operative or operatives, either in the media, belonging to some political party or at the pentagon who lied. You don't understand the difference between say, the pentagon lying and an individual at the pentagon lying? It fact -- and quite to the contrary of one of your accusations -- it was the pentagon's offical position NOT to hype or lie about this story.
While we have our thinking caps on, let's think about a time, or times, that the Pentagon might use unnamed sources and misinformation to advance an agenda. You do realize, don't you, that the Pentagon is full of people who'swhose (is that what you meant to say?) careers are riding on this war? You're not so gullible, or so partisan as to think that military personnel at the Pentagon are immune to putting their careers over the truth, are you? You're not so uninformed that you don't realize there's this cutesy little panel called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women In The Service, are you? You're not so clueless that you don't realize that there are liberals and feminazis in the service, who's agenda of putting women in combat units would have benefited if The Lie had gone unchecked, are you? I'm sure you're not. You're just emotional, that's all.
You've NOW switched the subject from your two statements that I took issue with. You've gone from blaming the official pentagon position to blaming some individuals in the pentagon. Do you understand the difference??
Let me illustrate for you what you've done. The following three comments are comments that you have made earlier in this thread. One of the comments, you blame "someone" for the lies. In the other two comments, you blame the brass and you blame the pentagon. Do you understand the difference?
The following are your three statements;
1. someone, somewhere, either in the media or at the Pentagon, sure ruined what could have just been a good news story.
2. the Pentagon was very quick to "correct" the doctor in Germany who came out and said Lynch had not suffered the type of wounds she was reported to have.
3. Why were the brass willing to go along with The Lie at that point?
I've never disagreed with your first statement, you've yet to back up your second and third statements with evidence AND you interchange the the logic of these statements throughout your posts. Don't waste my time further with your petty comments.
Heave-ho!
Hmmm, a polite response. I'll look it over and respond in-kind.
Talley-ho!
Most likely, the Centcom spokesman was briefed on the Lynch situation, gave a statement and took questions. Whether he is an objective source or not, he gave the accurate answer.
You are still in denial about this -- we disagree -- ain't no biggy -- bye bye!
Most likely, the Centcom spokesman was briefed on the Lynch situation, gave a statement and took questions. Whether he is an objective source or not, he gave the accurate answer.
You are still in denial about this -- we disagree -- ain't no biggy -- bye bye!
Not only are the docs unnamed, the entire docs-telling-Lynch's-mother story is unquoted and it is left completely vague by the media organizations that report it.
We don't know which doctor told the mom or even if any doctor told the mom and we don't know what exactly the doctors said if they indeed did tell the mom.
This is what I'm talking about. It is important information that is left Freeping vague and it is left vague by the news organizations who report it.
They are the ones who know the unnamed sources and know the full quotes. Yet they leave it out -- such important detail.
If the WP, ABC news and and AP wanted to -- or at least the AP -- they could bust those unnamed sources wide-open right now. But they don't do it.
Why? Do you think they are really covering for the pentagon -- you can't be serious!
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.