The saving of pte Lynch

May 7, 2003 8:31 AM

Moreon the "bullshit the American public" saga. The real saving of Pte Lynch.
posted by acrobat (67 comments total)

Oups. This should read "bulshiting the American public".
posted by acrobat at 8:33 AM on May 7, 2003

It should?
posted by agregoli at 8:47 AM on May 7, 2003

I'm guessing this won't make it into the TV movie.
posted by Gilbert at 8:50 AM on May 7, 2003

The Toronto Star's a little late with this one.
posted by Summer at 8:52 AM on May 7, 2003

"Until such time as she wants to talk — and that's going to be no time soon, and it may be never at all — the press is simply going to have to wait."

Translation: Jessica is still in the process of being "saved."
posted by soyjoy at 8:52 AM on May 7, 2003

An interesting juxtaposition.

From the Fox article:

Rosenfeld said Lynch is likely suffering from something called total global amnesia, which often occurs after someone endures a traumatic emotional and/or physical stress.

Maybe its not just Lynch, after all it is total global amnesia.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:05 AM on May 7, 2003

"We carefully moved her out of intensive care and into an ambulance and began to drive to the Americans, who were just one kilometre away. But when the ambulance got within 300 metres, they began to shoot. There wasn't even a chance to tell them `We have Jessica. Take her'."

You're kidding right? An ambulance getting shot at by military personel? This'd make GREAT television! =)
posted by ZachsMind at 9:09 AM on May 7, 2003

Jeez, or maybe she just doens't want to remember right now. Regardless of how well she was treated by the doctors, her captivity started after a fight during which she probably saw friends and people she worked with get killed.

She doesn't owe anyone her story if she doesn't want to tell it.
posted by Cyrano at 9:10 AM on May 7, 2003

How do we know they aren't lying?

I mean, if you think the gov't and the media is lying to you, then why don't you believe that the Iraqi doctors are lying for some political motivation, also?

Who do you chooose to believe when everyone is playing the same game?
posted by nyxxxx at 9:13 AM on May 7, 2003

The doctor being our man on the inside (so he claims) makes it feel a lot less like he might be lying.
posted by Ryvar at 9:24 AM on May 7, 2003

According to this fair and balanced account, she won't be allowed the consolations of Lethe:

"The military has had Lynch talking to psychiatrists but they may soon bring in additional people, including others from her military unit who survived the ambush, to help refresh her memory. They say she "has to be brought back to reality," since she may be the last living witness to war crimes in Iraq against those U.S. soldiers.

Those aren't her memories she is repressing - those memories belong to the Army! I hope they place the welfare of the patient before the needs of the War Crimes prosecutors.
posted by crunchburger at 9:25 AM on May 7, 2003

is this finally the REAL posting of the real saving of private lynch? or was the other one summer pointed out the REAL posting. and i may be wrong but i seem to recall there was a third (first) posting of this story which was deleted?
posted by quonsar at 9:27 AM on May 7, 2003

Who do you chooose to believe when everyone is playing the same game?

The last time that a small group of Iraqi doctors tried to use my tax dollars to fund a war based on lies, I, in fact, got really pissed.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:37 AM on May 7, 2003

This article states that she suffered a deep laceration to her head, and that her injuries were consistent with blunt trauma, perhaps from a fall from a vehicle.

Early news reports had her being shot and stabbed, after standing her ground and emptying her weapon in defense of her fellow soldiers.

Current reports are that she can't remember.

She may have fought like a trapped wolverine, been injured in a vehicle crash, suffered a head trauma, and not remember what happened.

But the US military, and hence their public relations staff, damn sure knew she wasn't shot after she was rescued.

I suspect what we have here is an ambush, a firefight, a vehicle rollover, some Iraqi medical staff that did there job honorably, an opportunistic military press office with no great fealty to the truth, and a 19 year old woman with a head injury that's still smart enough to know when to keep her mouth shut to stay the hell out of the way of the twin crushing treads on the machines that are the press and the military.

I'm sure West Virginia has it's own version of "the nail that sticks up is hammered down". And no sensible person would be interested in being in the center of another wierdo American press pedestal erecting and razing ritual, especially after undergoing all sorts of physical trauma, as well as having her friends and fellow service members die around her.

Hopefully the military will get bruised up for attempting to pad a story that needed none, and the press will get a black eye for it's eagerness to be first over it's need for accuracy.

And Pvt. Lynch will get to go to the college she couldn't afford, and become the school teacher she always wanted to be in the first place.
posted by dglynn at 9:42 AM on May 7, 2003

Some of the soldiers from her group were found with holes in their forehead no? Crimes did occur. They need her eyewitness account. What happened in the hospital between her and her doctor is probably not what the Army is after.
posted by stbalbach at 9:42 AM on May 7, 2003

to help refresh her memory

Research tells us that memory is a constructive process. It is not at all like a little video tape in your head that you just have to find and play. "Help" in "refreshing a memory" is called, in a court of law, "leading the witness."
posted by moonbiter at 9:46 AM on May 7, 2003

The US military war-machine is methodically engaging in unconscionable propaganda...and here we have a truly arrogant example. The US is refusing to thank those that helped one of our soldiers in her time of need. The military refuses to extend deserved gratitude to real Iraqi heroes and deny acts of heroism and compassion that saw individual Iraqi citizens putting themselves at risk, all to offer comfort and care to one of our fighting soldiers.

Considering the dearth of medical supplies that the decade-long embargo has imposed on health-care facilities in Iraq, and the flood of Iraqi casualties (2400+) it is particularly poignant that the health care professionals at this hospital treat a US soldier with such extra-special care and kindness. The official US policy seems to now be to repay our debts to our friends with a backhand, a smear, and save all the kudos for self-glorification. This leaves me abjectly heart-sick.

The Iraqi hospital staff is being repaid for their good deeds by being carefully written out of history so that a contrived "Rambo-rescue-screenplay-treatment" can be the centerpiece this particular propaganda campaign. It is wrong.

Why cannot the US give credit to heroes unless they are Americans? Why do they not thank wartime sacrifice by the civilians in a US invaded country when they obviously do so only to selflessly help our troops? Why does this administration's American military machine absolutely require elaborate lies and propaganda rather than the plain truth?

We are seeing a purposeful campaign of dehumanization of "the enemy" and concurrent aggrandizement of "anything USA" to the extent that almost any non-American kindness must not be acknowledged.

The simple truth about Pvt. Lynch's journey does tell an incredible story of heroism. Is the problem for the US flacks that the heroism is at minimum equally that of Iraqis...local medical staff willing to brave actions that would bring down Saddam's wrath upon them as much as they were brave enough to drive into US bullets to try and return our soldier to us?

Is it that important to someone state-side to mask how basically unnecessary it was to "go Rambo" on the hospital to rescue Jessica? Is the manipulation of the inevitable movie script that important to consider? Unfortunately it takes a Canadian newspaper to report the real story. As an American it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that I cannot rely on our government or our media to tell me the truth.

Plainly, this behavior displays an enormous and immoral stinginess of gratitude. It leaves me heartsick. America is not what it used to be...and this administration has been wicked fast about the business of weakening and dismantling the very fiber of American honor.
posted by Dunvegan at 9:47 AM on May 7, 2003

More on the "bullshit the American public" saga. The real saving of Pte Lynch.

Because we implictly believe anyone else, right?

ALL governments and ALL militaries conduct propaganda. It's how you win. It's rather ridiculous to finger point, don't you think?

stbalbach and others have a very valid point -- it's not so much what Lynch went through herself, but what she saw done to others.
posted by linux at 9:55 AM on May 7, 2003

ALL governments and ALL militaries conduct propaganda. It's how you win. It's rather ridiculous to finger point, don't you think?

Should I point out that there is no Iraqi governemnt or military?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:07 AM on May 7, 2003

Well, linux if that's true then every child, heck every civilian in Iraq is a hero. And in Bosnia. And Afghanistan. Etc.

It's the arrogance of "we're better, we tell the truth" that's so galling here.

Of course every gov't lies, every winner of every war lies.

But most of us think that the US should be better than that. And that's why we complain about it instead of sitting back.
posted by Red58 at 10:09 AM on May 7, 2003

ALL governments and ALL militaries conduct propaganda. It's how you win.

Cool. You coulda got yaself a good job with the USSR's Tass, or with them good ol' boys who framed that one particular group for that there lil conflagration in the goldarned Reichstag.

It's how they thought they could "win". And you'd fit right in.

Sorry, but the rest of us will continue to insist that our own government and our own people rise above that kind of reprehensible distortion.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:10 AM on May 7, 2003

I don't care what the Bush and America-haters say, the soldiers that stormed that hospital to rescue Private Lynch risked their own lives to rescue her. They are heros in my book. I don't care whether a few Iraqi doctors are angry that they weren't treated with the optimal courtesy during the raid.
posted by Durwood at 10:14 AM on May 7, 2003

Durwood: Why not?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:25 AM on May 7, 2003

I don't care what the Bush and America-haters say, the soldiers that stormed that hospital to rescue Private Lynch risked their own lives to rescue her. They are heros in my book. I don't care whether a few Iraqi doctors are angry that they weren't treated with the optimal courtesy during the raid.

You are officially less rational than my grandma. People like you frighten me, Durwood, and not because I think that you are a "bad" person or some such drivel, but because you consciously decide to suspend critical thought in order to hold on to platitude. It is that practive that causes us to even have to have conversations about why people would care that their government lies to them. If lying about a hummer is bad, lying about something that involves life and death ought to be at least as bad as that, right?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:26 AM on May 7, 2003

Is it also true, Durwood, that you don't care to thank any Iraqi citizen or doctor or nurse that put themselves on the line to help an American soldier in their care?

You probably have some considerable disdain for French resistance fighters in WWII also...not being American and being evil-doer French, and all.

When you cannot even thank your friends because you only think of self-glorification, there's a problem. Would it hurt to say, "Thank you" to those who helped Jessica? Is the American military now dismissive of those who put themselves at risk for their lives to help our soldiers captured and held behind the lines? And if so, since when?

Why will the US military not allow Jessica herself to tell her story? Because it will conflict with the upcoming movie that is more propaganda than truth? Isn't there something wrong with the military gagging Pvt. Lynch if we're so perfectly and sparkly heroic?

Why aren't you on Jessica's side, Durwood?
posted by Dunvegan at 10:27 AM on May 7, 2003

I mean, if you think the gov't and the media is lying to you, then why don't you believe that the Iraqi doctors are lying for some political motivation, also?

My goodness, this is MeFi. If there are ever multiple possible truths, and several differing versions of any story, by definition, the US governmnet is lying. This isn't even to be argued about anymore, it is just accepted as a fact that requires no discussion. Didn't you get that memo?
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:30 AM on May 7, 2003

BTW...for the record...I am a patriot, and firmly American. It's a personal affront to say to me that if I don't shut up and tow the line of a few propagandists that I hate my country. You will win no arguments saying that anyone that disagrees with the worst of human nature is against the USA.

I'm a participating citizen. I volunteer. I vote. That's why I am concerned. I'm not bashing "the USA," I just do not want liars speaking for my government. We're, as someone above said, supposed to be better than that.

The America I love also loves the truth above all.
posted by Dunvegan at 10:33 AM on May 7, 2003

I'm not taking the stand that it is right to conduct propaganda -- simply that everyone conducts it in one form or another.

I will always question what is told to me. I never wrote what governments and armies do is right. Read what I wrote again, it's quite clear and simply states the obvious.

How about this little nugget: to implicitly believe the story told by the hospital staff is the same as believing the story told by the military.

Go ahead -- read that and believe I'd make a great Nazi.
posted by linux at 10:38 AM on May 7, 2003

My goodness, this is MidasMulligan. If there are ever multiple possible truths, and several differing versions of any story, by definition, the US governmnet is logically and morally in the right. This isn't even to be argued about anymore, it is just accepted as a fact that requires no discussion. Didn't you get that memo?
posted by quonsar at 10:40 AM on May 7, 2003

My goodness, I am MidasMulligan. If there are ever multiple possible truths, and several different versions of any story, by definition, I will defend the one that is most poorly doucmented and best matches my interests. Didn't you get the memo about how our government constantly shits out Truth so shiny and virtuous that it needn't be corroborated or explained?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:42 AM on May 7, 2003

Well, then let's ask Pvt. Lynch what really happened and put this to rest.

Oh. That's right...

"Army spokesman Lt.-Col. Ryan Yantis said the door to Lynch remains closed as she continues her recovery at Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Centre.

"Until such time as she wants to talk — and that's going to be no time soon, and it may be never at all — the press is simply going to have to wait."

Looks like the movie will be named "Saving Col. Ryan."
posted by Dunvegan at 10:43 AM on May 7, 2003

If there are ever multiple possible truths, and several differing versions of any story, by definition, the US governmnet is lying.

That's the straw man that broke the camel's back. I had to pop back in here and say to Midas et al that it's utterly ridiculous to draw an equivalency between official military pronouncements and the personal statements of civilians - and for god's sake, medical workers - who were there, as if they both have equal reasons to spread propaganda. That's just desperate. Oh, or I'm sorry, is there some kind of documented history of doctors and nurses lying in order to further their country's war goals?
posted by soyjoy at 10:44 AM on May 7, 2003

Looks like the movie will be named "Saving Col. Ryan."

Or they could do it up Rashomon style.

Everybody stop fighting!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:46 AM on May 7, 2003

ALL governments and ALL militaries conduct propaganda. It's how you win. It's rather ridiculous to finger point, don't you think?

Not if we claim some moral authority in the matter.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:47 AM on May 7, 2003

Dr. Raazk is quite generous in his opinion of the Army's motivations:

...I realized this rescue probably didn't happen for propaganda reasons. I think this American army is just such a huge machine, the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

This seems like quite an astute assessment.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:49 AM on May 7, 2003

Well spoken, dglynn.

I recall watching the first news reports of the "rescue" in a rural bar in central Nevada with an eclectic bunch of mostly inebriated locals, ranchers, miners, environmentalists (me and mine), and tourists and I sparked a heated series of discussions when I vocally expressed my opinion; that while I was gratified that one of our missing soldiers was recovered, I was more interested in how soon it would be before her story made it to Lifetime.

Chaos ensued and I was pleasantly surprised that despite the wide and varied opinions being expressed, almost no-one misunderstood my sarcasm. So the question then becomes who is it that the military/media spin doctors are catering to? One would assume that the demographic most represented in that bar is the same that seems to blindly support Shrub's War, but that turned out out to be less factual than media polls would like us to believe.

There's no such thing as objective news, and given the dreadful performance of most media organizations during this event, it's not too surprising that propaganda makes it to the mainstream. I am personally gratified that the irony of the old addage that "the storyteller never lies" is not lost among the population that does not post at MeFi.

Now if they would just vote the way I want them to : - )
posted by elendil71 at 10:56 AM on May 7, 2003

i'd drink in that bar.
if i was in nevada.
and if i drank.
posted by quonsar at 11:08 AM on May 7, 2003

Who do you chooose to believe when everyone is playing the same game

That's obvious. The US government is ALWAYS lying to you - and everyone who tells you they are lying is ALWAYS telling the truth.

Surely this is obvious by now ;)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:15 AM on May 7, 2003

Rural bars express
rare and surprising wisdoms
with gentle prompting
posted by elendil71 at 11:22 AM on May 7, 2003

The story is about perspectives, not truth or non-truth. The docs see it differently than the soldiers, who see it differently from Lynch and on and on.

Approach this from a practical point of view. All people are routinely secured during hostage rescues, they docs were, but they certaintly weren't mistreated. The soldiers could have cut open the bed sore bed to be sure it wasn't wired to explode, booby trapping bodies is a well documented tactic. They have to search the entire area, even if it means soiling a sterile room. People this highly trained don't trash rooms for fun, there is a purpose and procedure to it, disagree with it as you may.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 11:38 AM on May 7, 2003

But the US military, and hence their public relations staff, damn sure knew she wasn't shot after she was rescued.

Thought she was wounded by a bullet after all. First they said she was shot, then the doctors said no bullet wounds. Then finally they said yes, she did have a bullet wound.

No patience with this story; time tells all. This story is hard to keep straight, was a lie at the start, the main problem. Saw several national & local news agencies breaking on this story making her out to be a one-woman-army/AnnieOakly who fought the whole Iraqi nation until she ran out of ammo. Yet, I've heard no correction on those tales. But they did end every report; sources not confirmed nor confirmed by the Pentagon. Time is telling the truth now, but patience may have ben the key.

Next I'll be hearing, the media split their profits from the false tales they sold.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:48 AM on May 7, 2003

I think the line has been blurred between Armed Forces PR and propaganda. The former is a cynical outgrowth of our media-savvy culture, and the latter is a direct misrepresentation of the truth to achieve political or military ends. Which is the distortion of the Lynch case, assuming such a distortion took place? I'm always willing to accept self-glorification as a motive rather than pure malevolence, so that's the one I'll pick. Cui bono? A couple of Iraqi doctors in a regimeless country have no incentive to make up stories. The military, on the other hand, likes to see itself painted in the most rosy light possible.

A point to consider is that the U.S. Armed Forces have little tactical advantage to gain by distorting such a small story. There was never any danger that the U.S. would lose the war, or that the American public would find anything whatsoever wrong with it. Why propagandize when the truth is overwhelmingly in your favor? This is marketing, not malfeasance. Unless you consider marketing to be malfeasance, which is another thread altogether.
posted by vraxoin at 11:49 AM on May 7, 2003

... the media split their profits from the false tales they sold with the Pentagon .
posted by thomcatspike at 11:51 AM on May 7, 2003

No surprise here. What's the old adage...The first casualty in war is the truth.
posted by mygoditsbob at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2003

Yes-the display of hyper-critical facilities was most impressive when the first museum looting story was posted. R.I.P. Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa.
posted by quercus at 1:39 PM on May 7, 2003

quercus, she will never be forgotten.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:57 PM on May 7, 2003

I may be thinking a little bit too subtly, but it seems that the War effort needs a better PR firm. Since this war wasn't about WMDs as they say now, but liberating Iraq, wouldn't this be better spun as a story about the kind Iraqi people that George Bush was "liberating"? Or would they rather us think of them as a nation of backwards heathens?
posted by Eekacat at 3:26 PM on May 7, 2003

So who's going to rescue Pvt. Lynch from being an unwilling symbol of $YOUR_TRUTH_? Until she tells her story, no one will really know - and if I were her, I'd seriously consider keeping my mouth shut just to keep various fools confounded.

My feeling? She wasn't very well treated at first but was well treated at the hospital, and the Army, not being able to tell the difference due to the fog of war, went in on the natural assumption that she was in dire straits. After which, the Army felt a need to make an anti-Iraq point out of it, to the extent that certain facts are left out of the story.

I wonder what other stories the other POWs have to tell - and I wonder why no one's asked about that in this thread.
posted by pyramid termite at 3:33 PM on May 7, 2003

Lori Piestewa's Legacy Blog - a tribute from Native Web. Also, the Hopi Butterfly Song (3.3mb mp3 file).

What about Private Lori? For the last week America has been gripped by the 'Saving Private Jessica' mission. But nobody wanted to hear the sadder story of her friend and tentmate Private Lori Piestewa, who died in combat. Gary Younge reports from her home town of Tuba City, Arizona.
...All around Tuba City signs were hung out telling people: "Put your porch light on, show Lori the way home." They used white stone to spell her name on a 200ft mesa just outside the town.

Piestewa fought 'with all her might,' Renzi says Pfc. Lori Piestewa, driving the truck carrying Pfc. Jessica Lynch and others when their unit was ambushed by Iraqis, fought "tooth and nail" alongside a sergeant to give other soldiers time to climb out, a congressman said Wednesday.
...In all, nine soldiers, including Piestewa, were dead at the end of the battle. Others who eventually surrendered or were wounded or captured would become some of the war's best-known soldiers and prisoners of war.

Lori Piestewa, Valiant Hero of the 507th There's new information about the final moments of the first Native American woman killed in combat.
...Representative Renzi says early reports that Piestewa was captured and executed are not true. He says he watched the video of her captured and killed comrades, and has talked to Pentagon officials who say Piestewa was never taken into Iraqi custody.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:00 PM on May 7, 2003

That's the straw man that broke the camel's back. I had to pop back in here and say to Midas et al that it's utterly ridiculous to draw an equivalency between official military pronouncements and the personal statements of civilians - and for god's sake, medical workers - who were there, as if they both have equal reasons to spread propaganda. That's just desperate.

Ok, let's have a look at who's "desperate". Anyone remember where the intelligence came from about Private Lynch? You know, the info that first alerted the US to where she was, and how she was being treated? Oh yeah, it came from an Iraqi lawyer, who was visiting his wife - a nurse at that hospital - and saw Lynch being slapped around by security forces at the hospital. (This particular nurse, I notice, was most definitely not one of the "medical workers" interviewed for this article). This would appear to directly conflict with the claims, in the article, that not only wasn't she mistreated at the hospital, but that she received nothing but special treatment and warm loving care.

Further, look at the picture being painted: The hospital staff says the military and Iraqi commanders left just two days before the rescue. They state bluntly that the Fedayeen used Iraqis themselves as human shields, and sometime shot simply them for not fighting. But they also then detail supposedly extraordinary care they gave Jessica. Thing is, for all but the last two days she was there, Iraqi soldiers occupied the hospital. So then ... we are to believe that the medical workers gave Lynch their best nurse, "scavenged" extra juice and cookies despite the hospital being full of Iraqis and experiencing a food shortage, and put her in the single best bed in the hospital, while Iraqi commanders and the Fedayeen were roaming around the hospital. This is just flat out not credible (if they even thought about giving an American POW better care than the average Iraqi patient while Saddam loyalists were there, they would not be alive to be doing interviews).

So then, despite the way the article is trying to spin things, we don't have a dispute between the US Military and virtuous Iraqi medical workers, we have a dispute between two sets of Iraqis - a lawyer and his wife, who were also at the hospital, who say Iraqi soldiers were seen slapping Lynch. The lawyer informed the Americans, and while the Fedayeen were still occupying the city, he went back in, and got maps of the hospital. He had sent his wife and children out of the city - which is good, because he says after he returned information to the US, his house was raided by the Fedayeen, his possessions taken, and a neighbor was shot (just by way of example).

The other side is told by hospital workers. They say Lynch was never mistreated in the hospital - even though most of her time there was spent with Iraqi soldiers occupying it. They say she not only received good care, but care that was better than other Iraqis in the hospital.

The first story was told before the US entered the city - when the lawyers and his wife took an enormous risk to say what they did. Hard to see much motive there for lying (in fact, the overwhelming motive would have been to simply keep his mouth shut, rather than risking his life).

The second story was told after it has become quite clear who won the war. Anyone see any reason why a group of current Iraqi residents just might welcome the chance to talk to the western press? Why they just might want to spin the story a bit to paint themselves as people that were really strong American supporters all along?

With all of the actual evidence of how the Iraqi military, and especially the Fedayeen ruled Iraq, and the way they treated other prisoners, the first story simply makes way more sense.

Even further, let's talk about "spin". The article sets the groundwork with "All Hollywood could ever hope to have in a movie was there in this extraordinary feat of rescue — except, perhaps, the truth."

Yet much of what it says is quite complimentary with the US version of events. They simply spin the story - very selectively leaving out context - to imply the US lied. Look at the way, for instance, the ambulance scenario is spun.

"The most important thing to know is that the Iraqi soldiers and commanders had left the hospital almost two days earlier," Houssona said. "The night they left, a few of the senior medical staff tried to give Jessica back. We carefully moved her out of intensive care and into an ambulance and began to drive to the Americans, who were just one kilometer away. But when the ambulance got within 300 metres, they began to shoot. There wasn't even a chance to tell them `We have Jessica. Take her.'"

Giving, of course, the righteous left the opportunity to ooh and ahh and shake their heads and toss out a few snide little remarks about Americans firing on ambulances. So then, what's the actual picture? The "truth" the article so badly wants to tell? The troops are a kilometer from the city. The city had just - within hours - been vacated by the Iraqi forces. The Iraqis in the article, of course, are saying this, but it obviously could not yet have been confirmed by the US (who had not yet even entered the city) ... and in fact in other cities vacated by the Iraqis, small groups of soldiers did stay around to launch sniper and grenade attacks.

Further, individuals both on foot and in vehicles, had already attempted suicide attacks on US troops (in a couple of cases, successfully wounding and killing US soldiers). And the Iraqi army had no qualms about using civilian vehicles - including medical ones - to move soldiers around (hell, they used gradeschools in residential neighborhoods as ammo dumps). So the US understands the city is in turmoil, Iraqi troops are fleeing, and an ambulance comes driving down the road at them, from a hospital that had just been occupied by the fanatics in the Fedayeen. What did the US do (if you listen to the the facts reported in the article, and not the spin put on those facts)? They responded in a very measured way. They shot at it while it was a good distance away. They did not, mind you, blow it up, nor did they pursue it. They simply kept what was perceived as a threat (based upon past actions) from approaching them.

The essential point of the article, however, is summed up here: " ... And then I told him: `You do realize you could have just knocked on the door and we would have wheeled Jessica down to you, don't you?' He was shocked when I told him the real story. "

Ahh, yes, the "real" story. That what? There did not need to be a raid? That (it is implied) the US Military somehow knew there was no danger, but went ahead and purposefully staged a dramatic TV event solely for PR purposes?

Fact is, that was more than a hospital, it was a command center. Ammunition, mortars, maps, a terrain model were found in the basement. According to the military, there was not a firefight in the hospital, but there was an exchange of gunfire prior to entering it, and upon leaving. The hospital may have been free of Iraqi soldiers, but the area was hardly secure, and the US had no certainty the hospital was secure. Five days prior to that, at another Nasiriya hospital - clearly marked with a Red crescent - US troops had come under fire. They took the hospital, capturing 170 or so Iraqi troops. And a couple hundred weapons. Stockpiles of ammunition. Chemical warfare suits. So ... any idea why US troops might be wary about hospitals and ambulances?

Of course NONE of this context is mentioned in the article - by the journalists or interviewees. Instead, an extremely selective presentation of facts is reported, all of which are deliberately spun. Yet this pile of garbage is jumped upon, accepted without question as the "truth", and posted on just about every leftist rag on the internet. And then, in a charmingly ironic twist, it is used to assert that it proves the US Government spins the "truth".

The "truth is that the story is way more complex than this article even hints at. It has multiple partial viewpoints. And you've got be be pretty "desperate" to take one exceedingly partial one, and not only claim it is the "real" truth, but claim that it proves everyone else is deliberately lying.
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:38 PM on May 7, 2003

MM, I think you have too much time on your hands. Shouldn't you be out creating jobs or something?
posted by bshort at 4:43 PM on May 7, 2003

Hey Midas, my apartment is a Command Center too for christ's sake. You just spent, I don't know how long, composing a message refuting what many of us already know:

Humans are just sometimes humane to one another. Sometimes Humanity makes the news in ways acutely tuned propaganda doesn't want. Jesus, that's complexity for ya these days!
posted by crasspastor at 5:10 PM on May 7, 2003

Hey Midas, my apartment is a Command Center too for christ's sake. You just spent, I don't know how long, composing a message refuting what many of us already know:

Humans are just sometimes humane to one another. Sometimes Humanity makes the news in ways acutely tuned propaganda doesn't want. Jesus, that's complexity for ya these days!

This viewpoint certainly is true if you simply swallow the article hook, line, and sinker. Nor did I attempt to "refute" the notion that humans are sometime humane to each other - in fact, that Iraqi lawyer and his wife showed tremendous courage and humanity (though apparently their role didn't quite fit the acutely tuned propaganda of the article ... since they weren't even mentioned). What I did refute is the simplistic, highly selective presentation of facts the article presented, the extremely partial view of the situation it painted, and the huge spin put on it.

This article was not some simple, sweet story about man's humanity to man, it (and the FPP) started with direct accusations, and had a fairly clear political agenda, which was further amplified by some of the posts in this thread. I provided an alternative (and, in fact, much more complete)view of the same situation, and called the article into question in the same way it called the US Government into question.

The next two posts then mentioned the amount of time I spent on it (really, about 20 minutes to a half hour). I did this because a day or two ago I was very dismissive of another piece of extreme leftist garbage, and that was "translated" by a poster into the implication that I was only dismissing it because it could not be refuted. So today I thought I'd refute the US=Evil post du jour point by point. Can't win for losing. Apparently these daily left-wing screeds are simply supposed to be bowed to, agreed with, and accepted unconditionally.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:56 PM on May 7, 2003

another piece of extreme leftist garbage

So the simple story of compassion between one human and another is extreme leftist garbage? I thought that, according to other threads you post to as well, things were more complex than some idiot leftist conspiritorian could condescend the American People with.

If I were a shareholder at the company you CEO I sure would worry about your hold on rationalism about now.

Can't win for losing.

C'mere guy. I want to give you a hug much in the same spirit those dastardly Iraqis cared for Private Lynch.

Oh wait, that's not in my job description. I'm sure as hell not a doctor. Foldy?
posted by crasspastor at 6:07 PM on May 7, 2003

quonsar, you aren't imagining seeing it before. It was on MeTa, where I waded in with this very same post and was told to quit wading and either take it to the pool or on your bike...nicely of course, then it got deleted after a few posted some nasty shit.

I got into the pool but not as a front page post but contributed ie: summer's link above.

Addendum...

From an Op-Ed Contributor, Melani McAlister of the NYTimes [free membership sign up required] has seen these scripts before,

"Since the Indian wars of the mid-1600's, tales about the capture and rescue of hostages have been told and told again — in novels, autobiographies and, later, in movies and TV. In these stories, the captive (an ordinary, innocent individual, often a woman) embodied a people threatened from outside. The captive confronted dangers and upheld her faith; in so doing, she became a symbol, representing the nation's virtuous identity to itself."

dglynn, Beautifully said. My sentiments exactly! This includes you, Dunvegan. Too true.
posted by alicesshoe at 6:17 PM on May 7, 2003

The fact that the American story of the 'rescue' has morphed so much renders it susceptible to question. I certainly do not believe the US military to be above suspicion of engaging in propaganda.
posted by skinsuit at 6:49 PM on May 7, 2003

MidasMulligan-that was a great job of analysis. The typical lefty mefi fpp, i.e. mindless slogan and link to a report which we are apparently to accept as the final word, isn't worthy of such thoughtful rebuttal because it will never be answered in kind-nevertheless, thanks for placing the facts into the record.
posted by quercus at 7:36 PM on May 7, 2003

Well, yeah, thanks, Midas, for spending so much time placing those facts - as well as your cogent analysis and extrapolation of them - into the record. But none of that addressed why I called your tactics desperate: Ordinary Iraqis may have their reasons to bend the truth, and the most powerful nation on earth may also have its reason to bend the truth. But those are not two equivalent reasons, so they don't deserve to be equally weighted, and as it happens only one of the two parties is on record lying (repeatedly) to the American public about this whole situation. Therefore, it's completely rational, when faced with this version, to ask questions about the veracity of the official US version. Characterizing that as "by definition, the US governmnet is lying" is not just an obvious straw man, it's lame. It's desperate.

Your follow-up was neither; it was just a little long-winded and a little off-base. But thanks for going to the trouble. Really.
posted by soyjoy at 9:18 PM on May 7, 2003

Midas, I sure appreciated it. Once again, a coherent post with clarity and consideration.
posted by insulglass at 9:28 PM on May 7, 2003

soyjoy: I think that MM did an excellent job addressing your issues. He doesn't make the argument that there is no reason to question the US position. He intelligently addressed the issue of the veracity of this story, and makes a case that I can agree with.

I don't know what more you can expect...
posted by betaray at 9:58 PM on May 7, 2003

Very nice analysis and insight Midas. Well thought out, well done.
posted by Plunge at 10:02 PM on May 7, 2003

Evidently I missed the memo where all leftists are prohibited from considering various aspects and facets of complicated situations, acknowledging ambiguity, or having mixed feelings.

However, it's clear why so many people can chime in on this particular thread. The reason that righteous indignation about the circus sideshow atmosphere surrounding Pvt. Lynch provokes a long slew of responses is that anyone can participate by simply emoting.

By contrast, adding a bunch of links about the more complicated military significance of the hospital would probably shut our discussion down pretty quick ... There's a difference between starting a water-cooler chat where everyone can chime in, vs. starting a conversation with members of a well-informed panel. My experience posting more challenging material on MeFi is that even though it may take folks a half an hour to compose their post, you really can't expect them to study up for a half hour in order to participate in the discussion.

Twenty years from now, if Ms. Lynch goes back to talk to the people involved in getting her out of Iraq, a bunch of them may well start telling a different, and more revealing story. But will she still be able to access our threads and articles to hyperlink them into her book?
posted by sheauga at 6:12 AM on May 8, 2003

There exists a fog of war, but it seems a lot of initial information gets a fragrant and beautiful bloom, then later produces a different fruit.

Taking note of this makes a person informed about past behavior of information sources. If past facts inform a person's opinion of information sources in the future, that hardly makes them ready to be fitted for a Reynolds Brand top hat.

And if we're talking hook, line and sinker let's discuss Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post, who on April 3, the day after Lynch's rescue, wrote that Lynch "fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday".

They then wrote she "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said.".

She wasn't shot, wasn't stabbed, and has no memory of what happened. So how do Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb, writing from Washington D.C., get that story, that sites "U.S. officials" as the primary source?

The only place I think that the US official might have gotten their information from is Staff Sergeant Tarik Jackson and the other three soldiers that were wounded but evaded capture during the ambush at An Nasiriyah. There's even an "overturned vehicle" in that story.

BTW, that story is one of the few you'll read that actually has any information about the 9 Marines that were killed in the first attempt to rescue the 507th, while they were still pinned down along the road leading up to the bridge crossing the Euphrates in An Nasiriyah. Just go to this article and search for the phrase "1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade" and you can see that the bridge at An Nasiriyah was also a very bad place to be a Marine on March 23.

But the Post's story tells of Pvt. Lynch, emptying her clips even after being shot(though she wasn't shot), finally stabbed at close quarters combat(though she wasn't stabbed) and stating that she watched other soldiers die around her(implied first person account, although she can't remember the attack).

Jessica Lynch is undoubtedly a brave soldier, but it appears that the US official quoted couldn't have the information given to those two Washington Post reporters.

And it sort of looks like the story of 9 Marines that died attempting to come to the aid of the 507th on the night of March 23 may have been not "emphasized".

There were undoubtedly heroes on that night. Attempting to spin the story to make it more appealing to the press might even be a good strategy for an administration at that point.

Just make sure you remember to go back later and find out what you weren't told, if nothing else to at least honor the soldiers whose deeds and deaths had the misfortune of not fitting a story template.

Or, just call me a leftist(true) and this a screed(I'll defer to other's judgement).
posted by dglynn at 9:27 AM on May 8, 2003

Today's story:

"Doctor: Lynch may never remember what happened to her in Iraq."
posted by Dunvegan at 10:23 AM on May 8, 2003

The Lynch saga is turning into a farce. This is a university thesis waiting to happen.
posted by skinsuit at 6:20 PM on May 8, 2003

If past facts inform a person's opinion of information sources in the future, that hardly makes them ready to be fitted for a Reynolds Brand top hat.

I'm confused here guys. Who is saying that we should believe blindly the government story? We seem to all agree that we need to evaluate logically every piece of information given to us by any source. As much as this story might fit your world view, realize that there are people out there who are going to use your prejudices to manipulate you. People who are going to try to develop or reinforce your opinions with propaganda. This comes from all sides.

I get frustrated when I see posts like dglynn's above. dglynn, what does any of that have to do with the article, other than it's also obvious propaganda from the other side of this issue? You seem to be using those facts as some kind of defense. Does the fact that this story has been manipulated to fit other world views make this story some how more credible?

It's a crime that the current US political climate is so "Us vs. Them". It's especially evident here on Metafilter. It doesn't seem to matter what the facts are, people will align themselves with any journalist that appears on a web site that identifies with their political leanings. I just urge people to be extra suspicious of articles that agree with your point of view.
posted by betaray at 7:12 PM on May 8, 2003

So, one vote for screed, betaray? ;)

This article has people on this thread howling about discrepancies. I think that howling about discrepancies can be productive. Selective howling about certain discrepancies is a different thing.

My beef was the same as the beef people were airing about this article; bad reporting, using incomplete facts, and people making their judgements off of the article that agreed with their existing opinions.

It's just nobody howling about discrepancies seems as interested in straightening the facts out when it's their stories being corrected.

And betaray, that line you quoted of mine never mentions the government, and was, I thought, carefully written(as I am trying on this one) to be non-partisan. See, I too am not a fan of "us v. them".

And I also wanted to get those 9 Marines killed on the search and rescue mission into the light. So sue me.
posted by dglynn at 9:32 PM on May 8, 2003