Remember these rape allegations are from the same people who put out the story that she was a hero.
Take that for whatever you want to.
No, they are not.
I have long asserted that Bush & Co. has deliberately lied about their reasons for invading Iraq, distorting, manipulating, and fabricating “evidence” to rationalize their actions.
However, this book is the work of a single (not particularly credible) writer. I have seen no evidence that the Army or the Pentagon have made any claims regarding rape and the White House has certainly made no comments on the subject–not even pre-publicity leaks to tie in with the publication of the book.
Despising a group for dishonesty (even if the group richly earns the contempt they receive) should not blind one to the possibility that other people are quite capable of inventing “facts” for their own ends (such as hyping book sales).
A couple of hours ago, I considered saying something about the backwoods medicos of Iraq getting sloshed on rum to celebrate the fall of the Baathist regime, you know, the hick Iraqi daquiri docs thing, but I thought that would be over the top. So, never mind. Good luck, Jessica! You go, girl!
minty green
Dat’s da one.
AskNott
How long have you been waiting to use that line? Fess up. I’ll admit to it making me chortle.
Are the medical records not from the military?
Sure, the military has medical records.
On the other hand, this being GQ and all, I would like to see third party confirmation that the medical records actually claim what Bragg has reported. It would also be interesting to see evidence that Bragg actually ever saw such medical records (given that the Army pretty much hid Lynch’s actual injuries for months). It would also be useful, (if such a notation shows up in her medical records), to see demonstrated a connection between the Army doctor who included the information (if it is even there) and the administration if we are going to presume that the doctor(s) inserted false information into the medical record.
Certainly the pattern of making wild claims about another’s experience only to have the actual participant deny the claim has been a standard feature of the whole let’s-go-to-war propaganda machine for the last 15 months. However, in the interests of maintaining the factual nature of GQ, I think we ought to have evidence before we lay out innuendo.
Something that’s never been clear to me: who exactly were her “captors”? If they were as ghastly and brutal as has been made out, why did allow her to get to hospital after “beating” and “raping” her? Why did they not hold her captive as a useful hostage (which, despite the telegenic and gung-ho nature of the raid on the hospital, she wasn’t), or just kill her there and then? A very strange inconsistency.
But, according to the UK news media (Sky), the biography was “authorized” - is this actually the case?
An authorized biography means only that the subject did not object to its writing and may have contributed to its creation. While a major celebrity would have the political/financial/legal power to actually control such a biography, it is unlikely that the typical citizen thrust into the limelight would think to have a controlling contract written. (It possibly implies that the subject may be paid from the proceeds, although that is not a necessary condition to be authorized.) Given that Pvt. (Pfc.?) Lynch is voluntarily distancing herself from some of the claims made in the book, I doubt that she or her family exercised the foresight to demand editorial control of its writing.
Ever since this story broke, something hasn’t been right. Private Lynch deserves all the respect in the world for serving her country. But, something just doesn’t smell right with this whole story.
I’m sooo tired of the media.
This week’s Time magazine also says that the anal rape probably happened.
This is a teensy weensy point, but whoever said her pants were zipped up when she arrived at the hospital is wrong. Army pants don’t zip up; they button. Don’t know how important that is, but there it is.
I was working from reports that both women captured during the Gulf War were sexually assaulted.
I had also forgotten about Spc. Johnson.
Mea culpa.
Last I checked, Army combat pants had both a button and a zipper. Maybe the latest BDUs are different, I’ve been out of the loop a few years.
In any case, perhaps the reports of female POWs being raped is a reference to the PREVIOUS Gulf War?
I haven’t been issued desert uniforms yet, but the woodland BDU’s only have buttons. The MOPP suits have zippers, though.
Gee, I watch way too many crime shows on TV.
We’ve been over that already, RickJay. Of the two female POWs in Gulf War I, one was kissed and groped but not raped, and the other was not sexually abused at all.
As for the Time article referenced by samclem, it only refers to the medical report from the Army doctors in Landstuhl. That kind of begs the question posed by the OP, which is how they could reach the rape conclusion so long after her injuries occurred, and whether that conclusion is valid in light of her Iraqi doctors’ statements.
Re “zipped up”: Presumably the Iraqi doctors were native Arabic speakers, with English as a second language or speaking through interpreters. If they didn’t personally undress her (e.g., nurses did that) they likely didn’t see exactly how her pants were fastened, only that they weren’t unfastened. Most people are so accustomed to speaking of “zipping up,” especially in the case of trousers, that they’re likely to use the phrase regardless of the particular fasteners involved.
The point of all this – I think it’s a stretch to relegate “zipped” to only its most narrow, literal definition when dealing with an English language report quoting an Iraqi.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jjimm *
**Something that’s never been clear to me: who exactly were her “captors”? If they were as ghastly and brutal as has been made out, why did allow her to get to hospital after “beating” and “raping” her? …
Exactly. Why did all the others with her die, but she survived? Did they not kill her since she was a woman (damn those backwards people), but instead delivered her to a hospital??
If they did not kill her, just so they could rape her, then afterwards would they not destroy the evidence??
I do not know why, but just a question.
Given the way that Jessica Lynch has been exploited by the military, and given that Lynch herself doesn’t think that she was mistreated, I’d say that the burden of proof is on the army doctors to prove that they aren’t making this up. 'Till then, I’ll beleive the attending physician in Iraq.
All the otehrs with her did not die. Lynch was captured along with five other members of the 507th. Her five colleagues were rescued, along with two downed helicopter crewmen, two weeks later in the city of Tikrit.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/13/sprj.irq.pows.freed/index.html
The burden isn’t even on the Army doctors, as they aren’t claiming anything. The burden is on the person making the claim, which so far as I can tell is just Rick Bragg.