At 1135 hrs GMT, Saturday, 17th May, this blogger sent BBC a detailed explanation apparently based on expert knowledge of why the American soliders’ guns were not loaded with blanks, contrary to what the witnesses claimed. It sounds convincing. However, his post is not included on the BBC comments site as of 29 hours later.
I have frequently written the BBC, both to post comments on their reader feedback pages, as well as to point out to the editors certain items in their reports. They must get a LOT of correspondence, because not a single one of my comments was ever posted on their Web site.
I have, however, received responses on a few subjects (including one e-mail in which I criticized the Kosovo coverage as being potentially bias-inducing) that I addressed to BBC editors. I think it’s a matter of getting lucky – since it’s the world’s largest news medium, I’m sure the BBC gets several thousands of messages every week.
Now, I don’t know if December’s blogger is any sort of reliable information on this matter, frankly I am no authority on weapons, but I have to point out a few things in the blogger’s blog.
This Wilbur fellow then explains one possible inaccuracy that a witness uttered. According to the witness, Dr. Uday, American troops were using blanks during the rescue of Jessica Lynch. It’s entirely possible Dr Uday may be wrong, no argument there. Perhaps he concluded that the Americans were using blanks because of the staged nature of the rescue, or perhaps he has very little knowledge of firearms, etc. Whatever the answer (and the blogger could well be correct in his analysis of the blank munitions problem) it seems hardly logical to conclude that “things are looking bad for the BBC’s story,” and that “it gets worse. Much worse”.
He blasts, “the BBC’s witnesses cannot be trusted.”
Amusing. Wilbur draws a conclusion about the many witnesses cited by the world’s most reliable and objective international medium, and all this because of one possibily incorrect detail that one witness reported to one correspondent in one field story.
Does this foolishness even need to be addressed, or can we move along? Pointing out errors reported by witnesses is good, but trying to draw conclusions from pitiful data-sets is simply laughable.
One other item from Wilbur:
Well, this really tells us more about Wilbur than it does about the BBC. No magic or “mental telepathy” (is there another kind?) are required to explain the witnesses’ claims, because for all we know they’d had contact with American forces, or were aware that American forces were keeping the area under observation and would therefore have seen the Iraqi retreat for themselves. Since Iraqi doctors attempted to return Lynch to American forces two days before the rescue, the possibility at the very least exists that not only was there some contact between Iraqis and Americans, but that the Americans were watching and waiting for the right moment. And so forth. The only one claiming the involvement of magical knowledge is dear blogger Wilbur himself.
Let the blog reader beware.
As to what coverage the story will receive in the US, perhaps the same level as the original story in the Times April 16 2003.
So the George Whiskey Bush administration lied again. That’s news?
At least all Clinton lied about were blow jobs. Bush lies about September 11th, weapons of mass destruction, the rescue of a POW et. al.
Sheesh. “Dog Bites Man.”
>> I suppose special forces should have just rang the bell and asked for their soldier back?
Of course not. They even made the ambulance carrying her turn around a couple of days earlier. They were going to “rescue” her and no amount if Iraqi cooperation was going to get in the way.
So we are led to believe she was badly injured under enemy fire and then taken prisoner and tortured and gallantly saved. Then it turns out none of it is true and she was involved in a car accident just like thousands of Americans each day.
Just a wild thought, and I have no proof to back this up, but: since the Iraqi doctor said she had no bullet wounds when she was first admitted to hospital, and since US forces say she DID have bullet wounds when they found her, is it unthinkable that Jessica Lynch was hit by American fire when the ambulance that tried to take her to the checkpoint was shot at by the (perhaps understandably nervous) Americans?
A wild thought with no proof in support of the BBC seems appropriate.
Thanks for that valuable contribution, Libertarian. Me, I’m just trying to make sense of the bits and pieces of information that I get from all possible sides here. I guess to you, outright dismissal of anything other than the CentCom press release is the way to go. Our milleages may, as they say, vary.
It’s now agreed that the original story that she had bullet wounds was incorrect. However, IIRC she had no bullet wounds after being rescued, so the above theory doesn’t fit the facts.
First I heard of it - who issued a statement that private Lynch in fact never had bullet wounds? And why were bullet wounds claimed right after her rescue?
My memory was incorrect. Sorry about that.
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20030424-104954.shtml
The BBC had problems with their own staff and reporters actively participating in anti-war protests…so much so they had to formally forbid their employees from doing so which of course pissed off the anti-war left. C’mon on now, you have to at least act like you aren’t bias.
The comments I was referring to were from field reporters/embeds who were upset because their reports were being twisted into a format that would show the war was not going well which was not the case.
The documentary was put together by one reporter who has a reputation for documentaries and one producer. I don’t know if the reporter was one of the enbeds that were doing the complaining or not.
It is funny how the same people who say the BBC isn’t bias say FOX news is. As I said before, there is no such thing as an unbiased news source and more importantly, no such thing as an unbiased reader of news.
I suppose no one caught the Bill Curtis documenatary an the same rescue on A&E (which is owned by ABC)?
I guess the real mystery is while you spell unbiased correctly, you can’t to the same for biased. 
The BBC shows allows oppertunity for BOTH sides of an argument to be displayed.
Boo, any cites that support your allegations, or are we going to find out, again, that you are distorting the facts to take potshots at the BBC?
- Of course not. They even made the ambulance carrying her turn around a couple of days earlier. They were going to “rescue” her and no amount if Iraqi cooperation was going to get in the way.*
Even if this story is true, how would US troops have known she was inside? Or has the Pentagon finally discovered how to make it’s troops psychic.
Shooting at ambulances is standard operating procedure? At any car? For no other reason other than there’s a war going on? Just shoot at anything that moves? That would explain a lot of things.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/19/sprj.irq.bbc.lynch.dod/index.html
Says the pentagon did not ever say she was shot and it was the Washington Post and other media who made up the story. What is clear is that someone is guilty of making up stuff. Whether it is the Pentagon or the Washington Post they should bear responsibility.
They didn’t according to the story and the docu. People seem to have the idea that this prog. was slamming the army. It was not.
It just said that the reports were intentionally exaggerated and the force used in the rescue was not necessary but made good TV with all the heroic stuff being shown. The propaganda guys took advantage of a situation. No conspiracy just war but they have been caught doing it and that makes the story.
Did you see “Baghdad Bob” make his threats of “unconventional attacks”? Did you read or see the stories about suicide attacks using vehicles loaded with explosives?
I would think that any strange vehicle approaching troops at a checkpoint would be turned back by warning fire under those circumstances.
Certainly you recall the van with women and children in it that approached a checkpoint and then EXPLODED?