BBC report on story behind Jessica Lynch story

Great Debates
1

The BBC is showing a documentary on the rescue of Jessica Lynch. However, their story differs from the official version in several ways.

Here’s a quick summary of a Guardian article summarizing their documentary, the full text of which is at

Though they knew Saddam’s forces had fled the scene, the US Army still sent in several heavily armed soldiers, and cameramen, to pull Jessica out of the hospital. The whole operation seemed to have been, shall we say, stage-managed.

Facing the rescuers were a bunch of doctors and nurses who had given Jessica well-above-average treatment and personal care.

One doctor had even tried to return her to her side a few days previously – but the ambulance she was taken in was shot at by US troops unaware of its contents, and turned back.

Finally, the Pentagon claims that “Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated” appear to have been concocted.

[Note: I previously started a thread on this, but made the unforgivable error of referring to Jessica Lynch as Jessica Lange (!) So that people will not get distracted by that error from the other issues in the post, I’ve started a new one.]

2

Wow I’ll be looking at that prog. with great interest. Any of this stuff confirmed/slanted in the US media?

3

Cue december with allegations of BBC bias… now.

4

Thanks for reminding me why I have issues with the BBC, Rex. Look at the spin in the aspects of the BBC report mentioned above.

How did the know all of Saddam’s forces had fled the scene? How could anyone know where each of the Feyadeen was? These people didn’t wear uniforms, nor did the Coalition have 100% perfect intelligence. Even if there was a report that Saddam’s people had moved out, how could the Americans be certain that the reports were 100% accurate?

Note the spin in the phrase “heavily armed soldier.” All the coalition soldiers were heavily armed. They’re* soldiers*. They were fighting a war.

The only real evidence of “stage management” is that someone took some pictures.

“Well-above-average” care in that hospital at that time was totally inadeqate care, given the serious nature of her injuries. (OTOH maybe someone on National Health would have lower standards. ;))

I guess this doctor didn’t try very hard to get to the hospital and care for his patients.:rolleyes: The BBC faults the US military for not being psychic. Should the US have known that one of their firefights discouraged a doctor? Should they have known that he wanted to provide some medical care to an American POW? The BBC’s comment is spin. It’s just a way to throw in an accusation that the US shot at an ambulance. Even if true, it has nothing to do with the Lynch rescue.

Yes, the reports of stab and bullet wounds were incorrect. OTOH she had a good many broken bones and other very serious medical problems. If this whole affair was a “stage-managed,” conspiracy you’d think the conspirators would have gotten the details correct. But, to the paranoid, everything points at a conspiracy.

Note that while the BBC focuses on Lynch’s supposed safety, they don’t focus on the fact that 8 of her comrades were dead in the same hospital. So the hospital’s medical care wasn’t sufficient for these eight people.

Also, if a group of soldiers really conspired to stage manage this event, then a lot of people would know it. How in the world could it be kept secret? It couldn’t. There would be witnesses, not just some cockamamie “interpretation”.

The BBC has taken a button and sewed a vest onto it, al la Oliver Stone. They should be ashamed of themselves.

On preview, I see **TwistofFate **predicted this post. Good job, Twisty!

5

Which appear to be consistent with what could have happened in the event of a crash, which is very possible, considering they were ambushed while moving.

The only alleged stage-management was the soldiers busting in to the hospital to “rescue” Jessica Lynch, and the media spin afterwards.

[/quote]

Note that while the BBC focuses on Lynch’s supposed safety, they don’t focus on the fact that 8 of her comrades were dead in the same hospital. So the hospital’s medical care wasn’t sufficient for these eight people.
[/quote]

I would hazzard a guess that the 8 comrades, or at least most of them, were already dead when they were brought to the hospital by Iraqi forces after the ambush. the hospital was under alot of strain anyway, coping with the casualties of war, so it wouldn’t surprise me that thy would have a hard time dealing with more.

6

The impression I got was that the writer thought that it was the media concentration on “Saving Private Jessica” that had actually served as a distraction from the finding of the bodies. And my reading was that they were DOA rather than expiring in a crappy hospital.

I can understand that the military cannot know 100% the safety of any objective, and the doctor himself reported telling Pte. Lynch that he was afraid of losing his life over the escape bid. However, the reports of “blanks” and “explosions” by medical staff seem to suggest a stagey overreaction to circumstances at the hospital as they were found.

Finally, the thrust of the article seemed to be that a kind of unholy military/media alliance dictated the content of US news reports from the war, distorting the news coverage arriving into the homes of US viewers. THe Pte Jessica story was an example of that.

Throughout the war, I was dismayed at the amount of “embedded” coverage. Personally, I don’t think that experience of belly-crawling and gas-attack warnings by a journalist necessarily results in my getting a “truer” picture of a war.

Embra

7

I actually agree with most of december’s points above. :eek:

However, I disagree that the “only” part that was stage-managed was the picture-taking. In particular:

Her allegedly being slapped about in the hospital bed.
Her alleged bullet and knife wounds.

Neither of which appear to be true.

Furthermore, let us not forget that the UK forces themselves - active participants and allies, let’s not forget - were disquietened by the US spin.

8

Okay, I tried to warn y’all about embracing whatever oozes out of the telescreen just because it fits with what you want to believe, but did ya listen?

Nooooo! Ol’ George was just being mean-spirited for suggesting that the whole Jessica Lynch saga was propaganda for the feminist agenda. All the signs were there right from the beginning, starting with the idea that Pvt. Lynch’s company was “ambushed”. Sorry, they weren’t ambushed, they took a wrong turn and drove into it. But “ambushed” sounds so much better for the “Alice in Wonderland” world that so many willingly allow to be constructed. A nice comfortable cocoon, much better than the truth.

*“Hollywood writers could not have imagined a more gripping and rousing story as that of the Iraqi capture of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch and the dramatic Special Ops rescue caught on videotape and instigated by an Iraqi lawyer who reportedly put his life on the line for hers. But some question whether elements of the saga are more hype than fact, created to spin the POW’s experience to serve political purposes.” *
(read more) http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32410

George C. Collinsworth

9

Standard media cycle of newly discovered heroes - six weeks of building up, where Pvt. Lynch is presented as a saint in combat boots, and six weeks of tearing down, where everyone involved is either stupid, or venal, or both. We saw it with Nancy Kerrigan, and with every new face running for President.

The first six weeks were from people eager to put together a deal for a made-for-TV movie, full of interest, suspense, drama, and a happy ending. The next six weeks comes from those who want to pour cold water on the whole affair, and/or who were anti-war and want to discredit it.

I think it is a mistake to take what either side says at face value.

Regards,
Shodan

10

I find it interesting that the US media has no comment on this story. It appeared in the Toronto Star on May 5.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...d=1051643375850

The Star has a circulation of approx 700,000, so is not an obscure paper. This story has been available for 2 weeks.

I agree that all reports should be taken with a large grain of salt, but that should not mean that one should ignore them.

On the whole, I find the mainstream US media (CNN, ABC, CBS etc) to be very reluctant to explore any stories that could cast any shadows on the government line. I find this very disturbing.