The BBC reports that the Jessica Lynch rescue was a deceptive, staged event, that there was dishonesty about the nature of her injuries, and that there was failure to report earlier, less dramatic, and more embarassing attempts to get her out of Iraq.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a story about the story with some more information.
Hmm. If true, I frankly want heads to roll, starting at the top. On the other hand, the BBC is no more immune to sensationalism and questionable reporting than any other outfit, even though they're supposedly "independent" because they're non-commercial.
This is going to be big news. Or should be. It's certainly the kind of thing that should cost Bush votes, if true. It'll probably cost him mine.
I left the following quotes on a friend's WebJournal, and I'm going to leave them here now too:
I quite agree with those who say that truth's a tough nut to crack in reporting. I've seen that in real life too. But, no matter what, this is horrible on multiple levels.First, the BBC reporting itself is sensationalist. They're quoting doctors as saying blanks were fired. Is there proof of this or are they taking the doctor's word on it? Also, whether American forces "knew" the hospital to be free of Fedayeen or not is quite an odd allegation. What did they do, walk up to the place and ask? In any rescue attempt like this, they would be fools not to assume hostiles, even if they had information saying the Fedayeen had left.
Also, didn't the reports about Pvt. Lynch being stabbed and shot get corrected in the days after the rescue? Didn't that turn out to just be reporters getting ahead of themselves and discussing stuff that was just rumors?
The Beeb isn't immune to sensationalism despite their awesome veneer of independence. They most especially aren't immune to journalists trying to make names for themselves, ala a Peter Arnett or a Geraldo Rivera.
Then again, if the allegations are true that it was staged, then, this is horrible and inexcusable behavior. Which will be made worse by those on the far Left/Bush Is Satan mouth-frothers--who are no different at all from the Far Right/Clinton Is Satan mouth-frothers of the 1990s.
Although, certainly, if the White House knew about it, it cannot help but hurt the President. Rightly so. But even if untrue, the armed forces, and the country as a whole, are going to get a black eye from this no matter what--unless the whole thing is shown to be a fraud on the part of the BBC reporter(s).
Because let's say it's mostly nonsense: we've still got another faux-scandal that could drag on for years and years with no end in sight and that never, ever goes away--like the Iran/Contra witch hunts or the unending Whitewater investigation.
This is going to be horribly unpleasant to watch unfold no matter what. Horrible.
"The BBC is not immune to sensationalism."
There's the understatement of the week. Did you see the reports of their Arabic war coverage? It was supposedly worse than Al Jazeera.
It was also BBC journalists who were basically calling CentCom liars regarding the airport occupation, reporting from the Palestine Hotel.
Honestly, I think this is non-news. The same possibility was brought up in the Toronto Star (sorry, couldn't find a link) a few weeks back, it had more credibility then and it was still silly to suggest this as some kind of PR stunt.
Now the one of the doctors has said that our troops were firing blanks. This only helps to discredit the information they are giving.
In the Toronto Star account, the doctors said that the soldiers had burst through the doors and laser dots had appeared on the medical staff's heads. This is a wonderful example of embellishment. The military (especially Special Ops) does not like to use laser aiming devices that are visible to the naked eye. They give off the soldiers position. Instead what is commonly used is a laser that operates in the UV spectrum and is only visible when wearing light amplification devices. If laser sights were being used, then the doctors would be absolutely unaware of it.
Secondly, this doctor says that the US soldiers were firing blanks. Not only was the firing of blanks (or gunshots at *all*) interestingly absent from the Toronto Star account, but even if blanks were being fired, how would this doctor know? Even if the doctor was a firearms buff, the chances of him coming into contact with US weapons often enough to be able to tell the difference between a blank and a live round are pretty much nil. To add onto this, many of the US weapons shown in the videos clearly had silencing mechanisms attached to them. This could lead an unusually ignorant person (especially for an Iraqi) to believe that live rounds were not being fired. However this would not justify this person's comment to the effect that we used blanks to put on a show.
I think the medical staff's motives are suspect at best, and that is the only thing in the articles (other than spin) that would leave one believe that this event was not entirely genuine. Why are the motives for portraying oneself as the indignant victim of some great big American PR campaign? Jessica Lynch can't seem to remember much from what happened, and we have an account from the Iraqi who informed us of her location to the effect that she was being mistreated. They know Americans are just waiting for some poor fool to expose himself to any charge of a War Crime, and the best way to nullify that is to be the apparent Victim/Whistle Blower.
Sorry, but I'm not buying the spin on this. Not one little bit of it.
Dean:
I disagree that this "might" or "will" hurt Bush. It "may" lose him your vote, but the public will not connect this to Bush. If anything, they'll blame this on the news media.
Other likely outcome: Jessica loses her book and movie contracts.
==================================================
Webby Awards voting ends 5/23/03. Write in Dean's World for Best Personal Site. Register here & vote.
==================================================
Dean, read the comments section at Command Post on this subject or at Winds of Change. I think you'll find some coherent arguments that will change your mind on the subject, or at least give you some excellent room for consideration.
Always consider the source. When there are too many holes in the story, as in this BBC piece, expect politics to have inserted its ugly head in what should have been a news piece.
Assume you are an anti-american reporter roving Baghdad streets, do you think you could find a "witness" willing to claim US forces had done just about any fantastic thing you can imagine? Of course.
There are a few facts that could be true in these reports.
The fact that she was not shot is deceitful.
U.S. doctors have checked up on Lynch and confirmed that Iraqi doctors did treat her wounds.
AND why bring Jessica to a hospital at all if you are not going to treat her??????
The BBC could be exagerating which is no better than any other network exagerating but you cant ignore the few TRUE facts that have been verified.
Lyinch may have gone through a bit. But many more men in the vetnam war and WWII should have had a metal, if she gets one. She did nothing heroic!
I’m just wondering how it can be that the Internet domain jessicalynch.net and .org was set up on March 17 even before the war started.
This makes it look like a total fake. And at my judgment about the trustiness of US provided information I more and more believe in a total set up story.
I’m just sorry for this guy’s who really go through hell and get discredited by such fakes.
I have many questions about this story. How can they say she was rescued? Who did they rescue her from?? A hospital! There were no armed Iraqis holding her there. The media lied and said she had been shot and stabbed. We are told later that her wounds were not from being shot or stabbed but from the hummer accident. She comes home to heros welcome parade. Why? How is she a hero? What did she do? CNN reported that the U.S. is giving her 2.75 million dollars from funds that were being held from Sadam. Are the families of the soldiers who are never coming home going to get the same payment? They're the real heros. Did they get a televised homecoming parade? I don't get it. What makes her so special? What the hell did she do that was so great?
Dear Jessica Lynch
I am appauld that you think the Army did your rescue all wrong, would you have preferred to have stayed in Iraq, you should thank the stars and stripes that you are alive, and all the publicity and movie deal which have made you into a star or hero which you are no "Hero" in my eyes,
speaking as woman veteran, so hush and enjoyed your fortune. Ruth in Texas
Dear Jessica Lynch
I am appauld that you think the Army did your rescue all wrong, would you have preferred to have stayed in Iraq, you should thank the stars and stripes that you are alive, and all the publicity and movie deal which have made you into a star or hero which you are no "Hero" in my eyes,
speaking as woman veteran, so hush and enjoyed your fortune. Ruth in Texas
Dear Jessica Lynch
I am appauld that you think the Army did your rescue all wrong, would you have preferred to have stayed in Iraq, you should thank the stars and stripes that you are alive, and all the publicity and movie deal which have made you into a star or hero which you are no "Hero" in my eyes,
speaking as woman veteran, so hush and enjoyed your fortune. Ruth in Texas
As far as I can tell the only thing JL did was get lost, Get in a wreck, and get captured. I didn't know they gave out medals for that. We can't forget her gun was jammed. Being in enemey terratory I guess they never thought to check out their weapons. joe