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!
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!