I think Kid’s got a point here. One which I had not considered until now…
Yes, they hyped a story that they were spoon fed by the Pentagon, complete with video. It’s the kind of true media bias that Franken talks about in his book. It’s the bias of laziness. The media, he says, are quick to jump on already-developed stories because they don’t have to go through the work of interviewing, investigating, and source-checking. Someone has done their job for them, in this case, the Pentagon.
Make no mistake. The media did exactly what the Pentagon wanted them to do. Of course, nobody put a gun to their heads, but they got played all the same.
The whole thing is right out of Wag the Dog.
I thought she couldn’t remember the Iraqi that helped her, even though she could remember most of the people around her at the time.
She probably thinks there is a very good chance that the Iraqi informer’s story is about as accurate as the story the government came up with for her - in other words, not at all.
Channelling right-wing idiocy…
It wasn’t the Pentagon! It was the media who blew this out of proportion! You know, the liberal media! Trying to rally support for the war… uh…
It was all Clinton!
Not to stomp on her story; I believe that anyone who goes over there and survives has a lot more cajones than I do, but… I heard a news story yesterday that said she was upset over some of the other details of her book, including, apparently, some notion that she went down fighting. She claims when she was surrounded she dropped her weapon and prayed. Now, I recall when she was rescued, certain stories made a big deal about how her gun was empty and she must have fought like a tiger or somesuch.
Dunno where I’m going with this. The lies sadden me, though.
The military (not the media) “leaked” that she had fought to the last bullet and gone down with multiple wounds.
The military (not the media) hyped the rescue operation, filming (taping?) the actual “assault” on the hospital. (And how would they have explained the presence of the cameraman if he had been injured during that sort of assault–unless they knew that there would be no resistance?)
The military (and not the media) reported that she had been abused by the hospital personnel.
The military (not the media) awarded her the Bronze Star. (Her Purple Heart is legitimate.)
The most recent bit of sensationalism (her purported rape) may have originated with the military or may have originated with her (none too reliable) biographer and I will suspend criticism of that point until I have evidence regarding the source.
I think that a charge of laziness and credulous acceptance should be lodged against the media. However, a claim that the media created the hoopla is simply wishful thinking on the part of those who prefer to believe bad things about the media and good things about the military.
Un petit coup de main, peut-être Luci?
“Je vous salue!”
a slight hijack…
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2798.html
as for the OP: Good on ya, ms. Lynch!
Eutychus:
“I’m not sure I follow the reasoning here. The GI Bill is one of the benefits that the miliatary uses to sell itself! Their TV ads are continually mentioning how you can use military training in the “real world.” I hardly see how joining the armed forces for an education makes her enlistment oath any less heartfelt or valid.”
The point is that the ONLY reason she joined the Army was for a free education (reportedly). The ‘ONLY’ imples absence of any other motivation, including being a soldier, which further suggests that the military oath was taken insincerely:
http://www.jaboney.com/US%20Army%20Oath.htm
Swearing obedience to another opens one to being “used” (of course in this case within the guides of regualtions and CMJ), and History records a whole buffet of ways in which soldiers have been “used”.
There’s an old saying, J darling, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”
Avalonian:
"Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe you weren’t paying attention at the time, but support for the war in Iraq wasn’t nearly where the decision-makers wanted it, even after it started. Protests were many and vocal. They wanted something for people to rally around, and they picked Private Lynch to be it.
They wanted to sell the public on the idea that the Iraq war is a good thing, even after it began. Many of us never bought it, and fewer and fewer people are buying it now."
The military feeds, the media reports … both with descretion. If the military doesn’t feed, it’s criticized by spectators (media and the Party out of power). Whatever is fed is picked over for ratings value. From what I’ve seen, the military has released quite a bit from this affair, both good and bad. They field the questions they’re asked (by the media), no matter how leading or adversarial.
As for intent, that the military’s idea was to “sell the public” is no less speculative than that the military simply crowing about the courage and bravery of its own and the success of a mission. And if that’s so, what’s the problem with that? Should they only release reports of our soldiers getting cut down? Should they only report failed missions?
It’s a stretch to attribute such clairvoyance to military rank that they can so deftly affect public opinion. Or have any reason to - they’re not the “decision-makers” you refer to, they simply follow orders as they’re sworn to do.
As an aside (only because you mention it and to put my remarks in context) you’ll find no support for this hawk’s corner. However, at risk of hijacking onto a well-worn path, I’ll leave out particulars. Besides, I already took one severe pummeling in SDMB for airing it out.
P.S. Sorry fellas, I can’t figure out how to do the fancy qoute extractions. Hope this works.
Oops, the last paragraph should read:
“…you’ll find no support for this mess from this hawk’s corner.”
Far be it for a black woman to be the hero. That would have been just too palliative for our public.
It’s all about albedo, folks. Poor, poor, pure little West Virginia girl… Look at how she’s suffered at the hands of those brown people…
[
I’m not trying to win any converts over to my opinion but based on what she has said she is either being manipulated by her publisher or being a hypocritical bitch. My guess is the former. She says she has read the book but skipped through the parts “that were too hard to relive.” Not exactly a sign of extensive involvement in the process.
yet…
So Miss Lynch can’t remember anything about being raped but contradicts a claim by a man with a competing book deal that she was slapped? Rumors are that the snubbing of al-Rehaief when he showed up at her home town was due to an “unsavoury dispute over competing media projects.” If that isn’t the reason then she’s quite the little bitch.
Lastly, somehow I don’t think someone who “didn’t kill nobody” and is saying that the government used her to symbolize “all this stuff” is not coming up with Wag The Dog-ian Pentagon conspiracy theories all by herself.
What this all comes down to is that her publishers know that it makes sense for Jessica to align herself with the current zeitgeist regarding the Pentagon if they want to sell books.
If she wasn’t being manipulated by her publisher then she would probably see the hypocrisy in denouncing the Pentagon for spinning her story while at the same time authorizing a biography that claims she was raped even though you she can’t remember it and the Iraqi examing doctors deny it. She might also think it hypocritical to condemn the Pentagon for overplaying her rescue when the biography she’s authorized explains the loss of her memory like this:
My point, however, is not to denounce Jessica; she is as much a victim of her publisher as she is the Pentagon (if you want to call canonization and a million bucks victimhood). I merely wanted to show that she is not deserving of praise for fiercely independent thought and action in standing up for the truth.
Is there an antonym for patsy?
She was grown when she signed the enlistment papers and became property of the U.S. Army. They used her as they saw fit. For a moment then and again now America will not ask, “Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?” and will say, “Look what they did for they poor, little girl.”
Now she is the property of her publisher at the hands of her ghost writer. She’ll get a bigger cut from them than Uncle Sam, either way, she’s pretty much set.
The best part of “Chicago” was when the lawyer sang about “RAZZLE DAZZLE”.
The facts (as we know them):
- She was taken as a POW in Iraq.
- She suffered some injuries.
- She was rescued.
Is she being used in the political spin game to convince us we should support the Iraq war? Probably.
Is she a hero? Absolutely, all those who fight for their country are (not to mention firefighters/police).
Do we really have to hear more about her story? Yes, I suppose so. Our alternative is watching the Elizabeth Smart story - it’s sweeps time on TV, y’all!
Actually there is a third alternative. I was just looking at the TV Guide and on The History Channel at 8 is “We Have Ways of Making You Talk: Techniques of Interrogation.” I thought that name was just hilarious.
You’re on a roll, Kid. 
I think I know understand what it means to have something quoted out of context!
JHC on a sidecar. Give her a break, already.
Eh… now, not know - quote me on that typo and I’ll hunt you down!
I wasn’t kidding! I just finished watching it.
Medieval Thumbscrews - $100
White Noise PsyOps Device - $700
Watching Whiny Liberal College Students Give Up Critical Top Secret Info in a Mock Interrogation Experiment After Just a Few Hours with No Sleep and Limited Water - Priceless.
Blonde:
“Do we really have to hear more about her story? Yes, I suppose so. Our alternative is watching the Elizabeth Smart story - it’s sweeps time on TV, y’all!”
Possible hijack. Not meant to be, but can’t resist: …
the NHL is on practically every night!!
And Dallas has the most entertaining broadcast crew in the country (Ralph and Razor).
Go Stars!