Lynch condemns 'US propaganda'

[Cassiel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064617,00.html

The former US private Jessica Lynch today condemned what she said were Pentagon efforts to turn her into a "little girl Rambo", and accused military chiefs of using "elaborate tales" to try to make her into a hero of the Iraq war.

Speaking at a congressional hearing on the use of misleading information, an emotional Ms Lynch described how she suffered horrific injuries when her vehicle was hit by a rocket near the Iraqi town of Nasiriya in March 2003, killing several of her companions.

The US military has come under criticism for allegedly spinning stories from Iraq and Afghanistan. The hearing is also looking at the case of the American football star-turned-solider Pat Tillman, who died in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2004.

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 kept fighting until her ammunition ran out. In fact, her gun had jammed and she did not fire a shot.

A video of US commandos carrying her from a Nasiriya hospital was released at the height of the conflict.

Ms Lynch has criticised Pentagon efforts to use her for propaganda purposes before. But her appearance today, before the House committee on oversight and government reform, chaired by an ardent Bush administration critic, congressman Henry Waxman, inevitably will take on a political dimension at a time when the White House is under strong pressure on Iraq.

Mr Bush today reiterated his pledge to veto a funding bill, approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress, that sets a deadline of next April for US troops to withdraw.

Ms Lynch criticised the Pentagon, saying: "I'm still confused why they lied and tried to make me into a legend." Ms Lynch said the real heroes were those who died in the attack and those who rescued her.

Initial reports also suggested that Ms Lynch had been abused after she came round in the hospital. She said the reports were lies: she had been treated well and the Iraqis had tried to return her to US forces.

"The nurses tried to soothe me and return me," she told the hearing, adding that she objected to the way in which the US military had portrayed her.

"American people don't need to be told elaborate tales" about US forces, she said.

Pat Tillman's relatives were not told of the true circumstances of his death until five weeks after his funeral. The Pentagon initially informed them that he had died while storming an enemy position, a version it quickly realised was wrong.

Private Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had turned his back on a $3.7m (£2m) contract with the NFL team the Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the forces after the September 11 2001 attacks.

In a report in March, the Pentagon's inspector general said Mr Tillman's relatives had not been told the truth even though commanders knew soon after his death that he had probably been killed by fellow soldiers.

He recommended that action be taken against nine officers, including a number of generals, but found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or any deliberate cover-up.

The committee issued its first subpoena since Democrats took power and Mr Waxman became committee chairman. Dr Gene Bolles, the neurosurgeon who treated Ms Lynch in Germany after she had been rescued in Iraq, was the target of the subpoena.

[Lusipher]

I actually agree Lynch was used as propoganda. They were trying to make the US forces look great because they stormed in and got her back. She did suffer at the hands of the enemy, but thats the way it went. I dont blame her for being bitter.

The tilmann thing is just pure Army BS. I do believe there was a cover up. Its typical of what goes on sometimes in the Armed forces. I heard enough stuff from my dad and his days in the Korean war to know how much the military higher ups try and keep things quiet.

Abu Garab, Lynch, Tilmann are all bad things that have happened, but no matter what it still doesnt outweigh the good we have tried to do in taking down Saddam Hussein and toppling that corrupt government. If the people over there dont have a freaking clue how to pick up the pieces then I guess we should have just left them to suffer under Saddam eh?

They need to get off their own asses and protect themselves, stop the violence between religious sects and help themselves out. Then our men and women can come home. Pulling out will make things worse in the long run no matter how you liberal nitwits spin it.

[fluffmonster]

They need to get off their own asses and protect themselves, stop the violence between religious sects and help themselves out. Then our men and women can come home. Pulling out will make things worse in the long run no matter how you liberal nitwits spin it.

Worse like how? Will there be suicide bombings every day? Will there be ethnic cleansing? Will people start being afraid to leave their homes? Will there be a cycle of retaliation? Not sure what the "worse" is you are so worried about...seems like the "worse" is already there. Seems to me our troops aren't really stopping much of anything, not surprising since we've never had enough there to make a real difference and still don't.

Not only that, by keeping the troops in a hopeless situation on long deployments, morale is suffering. Equipment stores are being depleted. The US becomes a convenient scapegoat for problems not of our making. The amount of money thrown at the occupation could be spent so many other places more productively or just returned to taxpayers if that's your sort of bag.

So explain to us Dan, how exactly is it gonna get worse if we pull out? How are we going to stop the violence that we've failed to stop for the past 4 years, that has perhaps gotten steadily worse and certainly no better? Please note, flapping yer hole about the liberal menace is not an explanation.

[optforme2]

I don't want to get my head pounded for this but, I do want to throw my two pennies on it.

Before we start ripping to hard into the Militaries use of the American Propaganda Machine....we might want to focus on the rest of the information you recieve while watching the news. I have spent two deployments in Iraq and everytime I had/have come home it amazed me to see our great news networks at work. Every single fact the American populace recieves about what is going on over there is carefully filtered and altered to fit the needs/desires of what ever organization is brodcasting it. My advice is to stay away from CNN....tis the Devil I say!!

OPT

[Rick7475]

Worse like how? Will there be suicide bombings every day? Will there be ethnic cleansing? Will people start being afraid to leave their homes? Will there be a cycle of retaliation? Not sure what the "worse" is you are so worried about...seems like the "worse" is already there. Seems to me our troops aren't really stopping much of anything, not surprising since we've never had enough there to make a real difference and still don't.

While I agree that there is some mis-management in Iraq, I still see a big blot on the map called Iran.

But the worse he is referring to is really worse. Chemical, nuclear, that sort of worse.

[Stormseeker]

The worse would be the groups doing the killing now would have free rains and no one to stop them.

[mxlm]

Before we start ripping to hard into the Militaries use of the American Propaganda Machine....we might want to focus on the rest of the information you recieve while watching the news. I have spent two deployments in Iraq and everytime I had/have come home it amazed me to see our great news networks at work. Every single fact the American populace recieves about what is going on over there is carefully filtered and altered to fit the needs/desires of what ever organization is brodcasting it. My advice is to stay away from CNN....tis the Devil I say!!

Certainly. Which brings us to The Economist, Financial Times, BBC, NYT, LAT, and WaPo. Plus the wire services (AP, Reuters). Plus some milblogs.

Network TV can be decent entertainment, but it's a poor source of information.

My version of worse: bankrupting ourselves fighting an enemy that cannot be beaten through military means. Many argue that the USSR was spent into collapse via an arms race. Why can't the same happen to us?

[sgould72]

The worse would be the groups doing the killing now would have free rains and no one to stop them.

Uh. Reality check. No one is stopping them now.

[MorbidKate]

... it still doesnt outweigh the good we have tried to do in taking down Saddam Hussein and toppling that corrupt government.

Umm, the original story... er, excuse for the invasion was because Iraq was just months away from being able to deliver a Nuclear/chemical/biological attack against against anyone in the region and possibly even mainland USA. That was the line fed to the world to get the war Bush and Cheney wanted, backed up by fabricated and cherry-picked intel by Rumsfeld's gang at the Pentagon.

Those who claim "we all had the same intel" are out to lunch because only the Bush regime KNEW that almost all of it was utter BS. The whole thing had nadda to do about corrupt governments or Saddam's human rights record. It also had nothing to do with fighting terrorism because there were no terrorists in Iraq until AFTER the US invaded.

In time, the Wag The Dog truth about how a select group of powerful individuals created a needless war with Iraq at the expense of proper force levels in Afghanistan will come out an history will be extremely unkind to the entire Bush Admin.

Kate

[RangerDeWood]

I just wish the whole of America would stop trying to feed propoganda into both ends of the political spectrum. On one side we have the pro-war group who spins tales of heroism that aren't needed while on the other side there's the anti-war group that treats 5 marines dying in a firefight like we're using our soldiers for cannon fodder. What we need is the truth and noone seems to want to give it to us and it kinda pisses me off.

It's a war. People are going to die in it. I agree with going over there, but the longer we stay the more I disagree with how it is being handled. I know the first thing the next pres is going to do is pull all of the troops, so we have until Jan 2009 at the latest. Yes, I agree we should work on pulling them out sooner than that, but I don't agree with an all-out mass retreat.

People are going to complain regardless of what happens. If we stay there then we'll have more of the same of what we're being fed now. If we pull out, then people will criticize for allowing the terroists to "win". Who knows, maybe they'll all just kill each other over there and the problem will solve itself. I'm to the point of saying "do it" just to shut people up. We have the technology to do surgical strikes, but we're fighting a guerilla war with traditional tactics and just making fools of ourselves.

Give them their country and just be done with it. If the whole thing goes to hell then some President down the line is just going to go over there and attempt to mop it up again. There will always be conflict in the middle east and we will always go over there and try to police it.

Team America.
Fuck yeah.

[paazin]

Certainly. Which brings us to The Economist, Financial Times, BBC, NYT, LAT, and WaPo. Plus the wire services (AP, Reuters). Plus some milblogs.

You forgot to list the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Washington Times

[Lusipher]

My advice is to stay away from CNN....tis the Devil I say!!

For sure. Dont read the NY Times or Washington Post either. Pure bullshit.

As for you Fluffer...things could get a lot worse. Dude, we dont have enough troops over there to do much of anything. The guy running Iraq now Malikki is a freaking puppet of Al-Sadir so you wont get this fool to change anything. He balks everytime the US try and do something. Just like this last time when they tired to put up walls to barricade some of the areas so suicide bombers just could walk in and unload on crowds of people. What do you want us to do? (besides the obvious liberal pull out thing). We have our hands tied. If it were up to myself that place would have security beefed up to the max and the borders shut down till some sembalance of security and peace could be reached.

Our troops do need to come home, but if we all out pull out then the terrorists win and the US look like even bigger dunces for leaving. All the good we actually did getting rid of a dictator will be for naught because the terrorist groups and countries like Iran will make Iraq breeding grounds for hate. It will be Afghanistan all over again with the Taliban. I guess having the Iraqi people trade off from one Dictator to another is worth it to you?

Kate, who knows what history will bring. You could be 100% right in the end. No one knows, but the higher ups in government. I personally dont believe what you think, but I dont rule it out that it couldnt have happened. You know what? The US introduction into WW2 had the same controversy. The conspiracy theorists all said our President back then let Hawaii get attacked to draw the American public into the war. They said he used the attack to draw support. Could it have happened? Yup. Maybe, but who knows. Its not unlike rulers throughout time to have done such things. It might not be now either, but until we have solid proof I wont believe it.

Danubus wrote:

They need to get off their own asses and protect themselves, stop the violence between religious sects and help themselves out. Then our men and women can come home. Pulling out will make things worse in the long run no matter how you liberal nitwits spin it.


Worse like how? Will there be suicide bombings every day? Will there be ethnic cleansing? Will people start being afraid to leave their homes? Will there be a cycle of retaliation? Not sure what the "worse" is you are so worried about...seems like the "worse" is already there. Seems to me our troops aren't really stopping much of anything, not surprising since we've never had enough there to make a real difference and still don't

Yeah but it can get worse. Suicide bombers and such are nothing compared to what can really happen. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg now even with terrorists driving in those chlorine trucks and blowing them up.

I can just imagine the bullshit you tell you kids in your eco class

[paazin]

My advice is to stay away from CNN....tis the Devil I say!!

For sure. Dont read the NY Times or Washington Post either. Pure bullshit.

Would would you suggest, Dan? Fox news, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today?

[Lusipher]

Foxnews.com for sure

Also Hotair.com and Michellemalkin.com are good sources of info.

I use to read CNN.com all the time, but I notice their slant on almost everything. I also see it at MSNBC.com a lot and on their tv shows. (Scarborough and Country excluded).

As for the NY post etc I wont read them especially after they time and time again post false information as facts. From there it gets filtered into other newspapers who pick up their feeds and editorials.

[paazin]

Foxnews.com for sure

Also Hotair.com and Michellemalkin.com are good sources of info.

I use to read CNN.com all the time, but I notice their slant on almost everything. I also see it at MSNBC.com a lot and on their tv shows. (Scarborough and Country excluded).

As for the NY post etc I wont read them especially after they time and time again post false information as facts. From there it gets filtered into other newspapers who pick up their feeds and editorials.

Y'know, this makes me want to put up a poll with about 20 options, selecting where you get your news from. Curious as to what sort of responses there will be