Conspiracy Theory Suggestion: Doesn't this seem like just the sort of story someone wishing to sow discord between the US and Britain would publish?

Baghdad Bob lives, and he's writing for the BBC...

Part of the this-war-was-never-necessary spin.

The message here is that the Iraqi people had quality healthcare, there were lots of good guys in official positions, hence the coalition didn't really liberate the Iraqi people from anything. The war was an over-reaction, as we see writ small in the hospital episode. Everything was under control until the Americans stomped in there, nearly killing Ms. Lynch in the process.

Tough sell to the people out scratching their family members' bones out of the mass execution pits.

I don't know much about firearms, so maybe someone can tell me--how did Dr Uday know that our soldiers were firing blanks?

I mean, if you don't actually hear the bullet go by you (or see it hit something) how do you know if someone is shooting blanks or not? Why is Dr Uday so sure they were blanks?

And it surprises me that the BBC thinks that if our soldiers heard there was no resistance at the hospital they should have gone in not expecting any? From the same news organization that was playing up how much more resistance was encountered than expected?

Wow! What a story! Mass graves are being found everyday and holy shit, the Jessica story was exaggerated!!

This is some scoop...except the Washington Post had it a month ago.

The firing of blanks is the most jarring part of the story for me. That just sounds insane.

First, because those peopel would be fools not to go in armed, even if they had pretty good information that there were no hostiles there. Why take such an extraordinary risk?

Second, because I don't remember any footage of anyone firing any weapons. Does anyone else remember that?

you would probably be able to tell if they were blanks from the spent casings: the case would have been crimped to keep the powder from falling out. or, evidence of cardboard plugs (instead of bullets. or, lack of any bullet holes/damage. something along those lines.

Changeup, Tmid,
Relax, if the US exaggerated the dangers run in rescuing private Lynch this does not imply that the war was a mistake. Of course, in the same way, if the whole story was as heroic as it was made out to be that doesn't justify the war.
You don't have to argue that it was all true. Anyway, as McLeod said people have been saying this for a very long time.

The days are long gone when the BBC had any credibilty whatsoever. I am British, living in Texas and I am ashamed. During the war, sailors on British ships requested a change from BBC news to Sky News because they felt that the BBC's coverage was so biased against the war. This is not reporting, it is pure drivel and I am not sure what is driving their agenda. Why on earth would the United States government go to all the trouble of coercing the soldiers, the doctors and Jessicas family into a giant conspiracy? This is yet another pathetic attempt by the left to undermine the accomplishments of the coalition. It is unfortunate that the BBC is still considered by a large part of the world to be an oracle of truth when it is obvious that it has become a quagmire of sloppy reporting and untruth. How very sad.

Didn't I say quite a while ago that this was going to be a big thing? another Monika Lewinski / Lorainna bobbit story?

This story has been syndicated all over, and it gets changed every time ever so slightly.

next we will hear is that hollywood pro's were there for 2 days, planting sqibs, painting walls, and it took 4 takes to get it right, unlike the 3 takes to get the palistinian martyr boy story that the french tv did.

what really gets me, is that centcom didn't say much at all at the time, This is purely reporters spinning on each other. The only thing I saw about this on footage was her being carried away on a streacher, with undetermined injuries.

This is real bad journalism, look at this:

"According to Iraqis interviewed by the BBC, Lynch's care was good, considering the war that raged outside. She was given blood transfusions, some of it donated by the medical staff. She was assigned, the BBC reports, to one of only two nurses on the floor."
Now this same article............
Dr. Harith al-Houssona said he attended to Lynch the entire time.
"I examined her," he told the BBC. "I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle. There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound -- only RTA, road traffic accident."
-------------------
So, why the hell was she given blood transfusions?
Huh? Huh?

In the video I didn't see any blank adapters on anybody's rifles.

More "news" from people who couldn't stick a mag in my USP properly.

Sean,
The BBC article is best viewed as one sortie in a disinformation campaign. The BBC's target is much larger than what did or didn't happen to Lynch.

You're right that people have been saying some version of this for a long time - and who better to break a "news story" of this ilk than WaPo? Editorials and further coverage from the L.A. Times and the Newspaper Of Record cannot be far behind. The team is about to flood the zone.

"In the video I didn't see any blank adapters on anybody's rifles.

More "news" from people who couldn't stick a mag in my USP properly....."

Bingo! Damn, you beat me to it!

The M16A2, or the M4 carbine, CANNOT fire blank rounds without a cumbersome blank firing attachment on the end. The attachment (BFA to those of us who have been in the Aussie or British Amies) stands out like a sore thumb. On the various M16 variants, it takes 2-3 minutes of cumbersome fiddling, sometimes with tools, to remove the bloody thing.

No soldier deployed in that rescue would have one fitted. It would be far too dangerous. Supposing you had to had to change to live rounds quickly? You'd be dead before you could be ready to defend yourself.

The BBC story is rubbish. Now everyone get this story out into the blogosphere! I'll be too busy too until Monday......

Just a quick thought- I've popped off an edited version of what I just said to the comments section of the BBC's website. I got a message saying they are 'reviewing my comments and will consider them for publication'. Now this could get very, very interesting..... ;-)

It's 11.36 HRS GMT right now, on Saturday. I wonder how long it will take them to post it, if at all? And how might they edit it? Hmmmmm......

Gabriel Hanna : Modern gas-operated weapons need fairly high pressure to cycle the bolt, stripping out the empty and ejecting it, and inserting a new round. The pressure is provided by the expanding gasses in the barrel, trapped behind the projectile.

Without the slug, a weapon such as the M-16 will fire once, and then the action has to be manually worked to insert a new round; not enough pressure is generated to permit the weapon to cycle.

To permit automatic firing of blanks, a blank adapter is used; essentially a choke at the muzzle, squeezing the barrel nearly shut and building pressure enough to permit the weapon to cycle. The adapter is large and unmistakable.

There were no blank adapters in the footage I saw. In fact, I don't remember any shooting at all.

Bubba : She also had other injuries, needing multiple surgeries, such as a fractured vertebra, which are not mentioned by the 'doctor' quoted.

And what about this lawyer? We brought him and his family out and sent them to the US. I wonder if anyone interviewed him, about what he saw.

Just took a stroll over to The Guardian's website and did a site search for 'Jessica Lynch'. What did the stories that came up say / inferred/ aledge?

- Jessica Lynch was captured due to her incompetency

- Jessical Lynch was rescued because she was white and a woman

- Black and Amerindian prisoners were forgotten about because the media was in love with Jessica Lynch

- Jessica Lynch was in no real danger and the US raid to rescue her was at best unnecessary and at worst staged for the cameras

- US soldiers lives were put at unnecessary risk to rescue one individual

I think we can see the pattern - Jessica's story is being scrutinised through the prisms of gender and race. For some news media it is a fit subject to be twisted, distorted and discredited in any way inorder to make a negative point about gender and race in America. And who's doing the twisting? The usual useless idiots - Wapo, the Beeb and Al Guardian.

There's a trend in the media to confuse news with analysis, to say that reporting the facts and drawing inferences from the facts are equal in merit. The difference is one is meant to be objective, the other is allowed to be subjective as hell. And IMHO projecting your subjective neurosis on a POW who's just been through hell is pretty sh*tty and pretty damn low.

why do you idiots even waste your time responding to such garbage?

"why do you idiots even waste your time responding to such garbage"

Because of things like the blank adapters needing to be on the guns.... most people don't know that, and they need to.

In the NYT article more than a month ago Jessica's personal physician at the Iraqi hospital claimed that the nurses sang Jessica lullabies at bedtime and that they gave her special foods when everyone else was short of food.

Jrm She didn't have any surgery in Iraq. It was said that they were about to amputate. she had surgury in Germany

I suppose it is possible that the nice folks at that hospital treated an enemy POW better than their own people...but singing lulabies to her every night sounds a little over the top.

Why can't Arabs tell reasonable lies? Not even Nazis claimed 100% in fake elections...

Then again, very few people in the media are willing to call Arabs on lying... they can just say whatever they want, it's not challenged.

Hey Wilbur, if your checking the BBC to see if they took up your bit about the adapters and they do, let somebody know...

If the media ommited all the things arabs lie about, they would have nothing to print.

When this whole thing started, I didn't even KNOW there were blogs. I do not have cable. No 7x24x365 stuff even. Most of it is spewage, you just get it all the time. I watched this whole thing play out, and my take (having been on one of the soirees) is that it was planned (well, duh), they knew where to go, and they knew what to do. The unknown in the equation was - What are her injuries, REALLY. MainstreamNewsstuff was all over the map. WHY? It sells. On the other hand, once she was rescued, the story about injuries was the only thing that did sell. I did here at one time, and it would have had to have been Mainstream 'cuz I wasn't here yet, was that OUR Drs. had discovered she HAD been shot - with a small caliber weapon where it was not visible to the naked eye, like if modesty was a consideration. Anybody hear or see anything like that?

Wake up guys! The reason Defense won't release the Lynch rescue video is that is contains subliminal messages like "Worship Bush!" and "Do not believe the BBC!" If we got the video we could find the hidden images and be exposed to the truth about Bush's "Weapons of Mass Distraction"!

(That last bit is an actual quote from the story's coment section, so I'm not the only one on to the truth.)

Seriously, though, the story does not dispute that a) Jessica was captured, and b) was successfully rescued. There were also early indications that at least one Iraqi doctor went out of his way to help her. This should be a good story for all sides. Why can't everyone be happy.

One quote does confuse me: "Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital." What witnesses? How does those witnesses know what the special forces know? The whole story hinges on the military knowing that the rescue would be easy, and, yet, going in with their guns blazing, anyway. However, the evidence supporting this key distinction is very weak.

Guys, this was a made-for-TV war anyway, who could be surprised if some of it was staged? I don't think that shatters any of your other arguments, blah blah liberation, blah blah not oil, blah blah evil Saddam blah blah. It just reveals our President and his military to be brilliant information strategists, as well as wonderful people in other ways.

Putting the media in-bed with the military was an act of genius, ya gotta admit...

The American executive administration/military establishment would never distort or manipulate "news" in order to affect national or international public opinion. This must be a campaign of lies to discredit our good work over there. Don't pause for a minute to think about the implications of the story if true. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." You all sound like Baghdad Bob.

btw, before you all react to a critical view of your posts by calling names and casting labels, like usual, I completely supported our intervention, and remain convinced that we did and are doing the right thing (for our own interests, for the people of Iraq, and for the world), so leave out the usual "liberal/wimp/dem/French" diatribe.

PtG, the fact that the BBC didn't bother to get anybody's side but the Iraqi doctors strikes you as fairminded, objective, careful reporting?

Or is it simply that you believe what you want to hear?

oh, yeah, and DON'T call me PtG/Don/Dan . . . .

You all realize, of course, that the reason Ms. Lynch has amnesia is that the US government in conjunction with the Straussians and Jayson Blair drugged her so that she wouldn't remember anything that happened. Jason Blair was actually a CIA plant at the NYT in order to discredit the NYT. You see, it's all a big conspiracy!

Look at the search for WMD. If the gov were in the business of staging stories, we would have "found" them weeks ago.

Someone must have watched "Wag the Dog" too many times.

All the soldiers would've been asked to take part in a fraud--which doesn't sound right--and then would have to keep silent forever. If you're the mission planner, are you going to initiate something that has these two prerequisites? With your own career riding on it?

I personally think we did find WMD. We fould a bunch of trucks converted for producing chemicals of some kind. What purpose would they serve in a country like Iraq that could just BUY anything they wanted with the Oil for Food program administered by Coffi Anan and the Frenchies?

What was interesting about all these suspected WMD sites early on was they found pesticides, stuff that is chemically similar to military grade nerve agents. The pesticides do the same thing so they are technicaly WMDs. Put em in a shell and fire it at some people and it will make them really sick or kill them.

Plus do you think anyone would notice the purchase of pesticides as opposed to nerve agent precursor chemicals?

Note that I am not trying to give anyone a pass on the WMD situation, but I personally believe we have found evidence, but we are trying too hard to discredit that evidence for whatever political reasons.

I also believe we have too few troops on the ground in the major cities to try and get a handle on the rioting and looting and unrest in the post-liberation period. They don't have to love our troops, they need simply respect them as law enforcement until they can get their own shit together (why is no one asking Iraqis when THEY will restore law and order in THEIR OWN COUNTRY?).

Tim,
I might warn you, PLEASE don't bring up WMDs anywhere in close proximity to a thread containing the posters : Don - Dan - Pass the Gas.
It is like introducing a volatile liquid close to an open flame. It attracts the bugs, and does nothing but attract bug-killers like myself. Remain on-thread. DO NOT, I REPEAT do not mention WMD.

SHIT TIM! You went and did it. Bubba! Dr. Bubba! We have another bleeder here!
Good go, Tim. Keep up the good work. It's only a matter of time...

Bubba...Sorry. I went to check on the grass. It's growin'. Sorry again. Can I call you Doc?
Tim - You're doin' okay, so far. A little more to starboard (right to landlubbers) would probably be a better tack, however. Pass likes to pick on those who tend to lean over the starboard rail and puke. Those of us who tend to keep the ship headed on a steady course make it difficult for collisions to occur while Pass travels in circles.

I think the WMD story was manipulated a little less skilfully than some. The fake evidence was outed while it was still fresh, and the Trailers of Mass Destruction were just not quite ready for prime time. But that's a different discussion.

Oh, here we go. PtG is using Don's Double Standard (Don, you should get him for patent infringement): Iraq doesn't have to prove they have no WMD but they US has to prove they aren't planting it!

Please.

Pass, I'm sure you've just given yourself away - AGAIN.
Tim - DO NOT respond to the GasBag.
Pass - Last sentence. Good go. You are WAY over your head in any thread. You are going to have hone your NonArgument skills at some later date.

The story at the top of the page implies that the US is playing the media.

What do you think about this one? (Click on link)Ties Off

These guys understand that all that matters is how this looks on TV.

Gabriel,
He's like a little bug. Squash him.
Pass. Give it rest. You smell bad.

Pass - you ingrate. Jessica Lynch was RESCUED. You are WAY deep on this one, buddy. LONG LIVE Jessica Lynch.

Let me guess, Dave. You know she was rescued cuz you saw it yourself on TV...

Pass, for a 51-year-old with a PhD you sure don't show much sense.

You are now saying, "Prove to me what I see on TV is not fake".

Why don't I prove that the moonlanding is not fake or that fairies don't exist while I'm at it?

So why do you believe in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casulaties that you cannot find a shred of evidence for if you're such a goddamned skeptic?

Ah, the BBC, up to their usual standard of being two weeks behind everyone else with this story. These Iraqi doctors have been saying much the same thing in the UK Times and Daily Telegraph and the Toronto Star. In the Star they claim they had operated on Lynch's leg, putting in a plate. This would be easy to prove or disprove.
The injuries to her arm and left leg are compound fractures- that is the ends of the bones had broken the skin. That and the head wound would explain the need for transfusions.
"Blanks" sounds improbable,but "sounds of explosions" could mean thunderflashes or stun grenades- I could see how these might be used to disorientate any defenders.

(Readers: Dave Dube is talking about a discussion on another thread, discussing how many Iraqis killed in '91 war) I don't know what the numbers are. I think there are numbers. The government doesn't seem to say. In that sense, this is the same story, controlling the release of information so people like you can believe they are on the side of Right and Goodness, without having to worry about the details.

It's not the numbers that concerns me, it's the absence of numbers. People like you can think that, because no caualties were published, there weren't any. I am not comfortable with that logic.

Pass the Gas you stupid ass, I have not and no one has ever said what you say we are saying.

English, motherfucker, do you speak it? Do you comprehend it in its written form?

Are you doing this shit on PURPOSE or are you STUPID?

We've posted dozens of times to you--show us the one were anyone said that the US didn't kill any Iraqis in the Gulf War.

You fucking moron.

Wow Gabe, take a pill or something, ok?

I may be referring to your words: "I remember the war very well, and I knew it wasn't hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis after that."

Same thing. They weren't on TV, so they didn't exist. Are you and Dave Dube the same person?

The Iraqi lawyer that helped get Pfc Lynch out has a book deal and we will all be able to read his side of the story in a few months. Probably about six months.

P. S. Jesse's brother was interviewed by Katie Couric about a week ago. He was back on active duty at Fort Bragg, N. C.-- I would watch the Fayetteville Observer for reactions on this "staged" info. It is online.

P. P. S. He got promoted and was going to tease his sister about his new rank.

Way to go Pass the Gas! Keep on telling all these Jewish Nazi Zionist Republican Christians the truth!

There are no WMD's! Saddam was a NICE GUY! The US killed all those Iraqis in the mass graves! It's OK to drink milk weeks after the date on the carton--it won't spoil, that's just a Republican milk-industry lie!

To Gabriel Hanna: No, do not take a pill. Just keep on doing what you are doing. You have every right to get a little frustrated in trying to help some of these people drop the snotty superiority attitude, and admit that this country has done a very fine thing in Iraq, and deserves a little help, rather than this sophomore smart-ass snot so many people think makes them sound too smart to be duped.

Hey, Tap that ass, you're extremely imaginative, even compared to these other fiction writers. Wow, I feel honored to have elicited your attention.

Buddy, thanks for your comments, we all have a right to an opinion here.

The story we are discussing alleges that the US military put on a show for the press. You don't think so?

Thank you, PtG, for allowing me an opinion. No, no press show, and if so, so what? Ever heard of a meaningless detail?

Buddy, I think that was my point way back when. So they put on a show, who's surprised? What's the difference, we still get to brag.

Oops, you forgot to read my post before you responded. But that's ok. But, do you see any larger historical purpose in our foreign policy, other than "we get to brag"? Are you Norman Mailer, with all things reduced to the needs of the id?

Wow, good one, I read your post, I replied to the part I liked. Of course you disagree with me, and I did detect your sarcasm, if that's what you meant.

Larger historical purpose? Oh yeah, Buddy, no doubt there's a larger historical purpose. We get body-punched for mentioning o-i-l in this blogsite, but if I spell it Bubba'll never figure it out. Some have suggested there's a certain political gain to be had by claiming victory in a war, no matter what it's about. Some think it might be a good idea to divert people's attention from the loss of liberties, the crash of the economy, and other domestic issues that are leading the US to hell via handbasket.

Historical purpose, mm, I think part of the plan was to convince the world that we're a bunch a crazy-ass motherfuckers and they'd better not piss us off. Historical effect is isolation and a coalition of nations aligned against us.

Of course there was a purpose... It's just not clear what it was. I think coroporate greed is a little obvious, if ya know what I mean. Probably something else.

Pass you worthless GasBag - up to your tricks again, aren't you. I'll tell you what you do, you NonArgumentationProgramSpecialist, take a pill. Called Gas-X. It eliminates the bloated and sinking feeling you get when you realize how duped you've been. You must be confusing me with someone that gave you some stats? Do NOT besmirch my name. EVER. I accuse you here, and every where you raise your whiney little voice of failing to bring up even one salient point regarding whatever the thread may have involved. You are a GasBag. You indulge yourself by attempting to prove absolutely NOTHING of any socially redeeming value. If you have an argument to make, to actually prove a point, make it, or leave the thread. It can dangle and die of it's own volition, without any intervention from a NonArgumentationSpecialist like yourselfs.

Pass the gas, you are absolutely right. You are spot on. You are telling it like it is.

America went to war because 'war is murder, and murder is fun' (thats a quote from Marine training.) Yes there was an agenda to the war - it was not about freeing the Iraqi people. Oil was an issue of course, and we all needed a little payback after Saddam survived the first war.

Also, as I understand (according to the BBC documentary) 150,000 Iraqis died on the 'highway of death' alone in the first Gulf war. That was a huge amount, and was only a small part of the war itself. Presumably the total numbers would be far higher.

But you know something? I don't give a shit.

We didn't liberate the Iraqis because we wanted to. They're just a bunch of Arabs who would just as soon slit our throat as shake our hand. We don't send our fighting men to die for those bastards. We wanted access to their oil - and rightly so. The western world thrives off of oil, we need it for our industry, and we simply cannot have black gold controlled by a rogue state. Its just not in our national interests.

And hey, I want a little payback as much as anyone. I wanted to see Saddam lose his regime, and I damned well enjoyed watching it happen on TV. It was three weeks of excellent television, and we got our national interests sorted out in the region in one fell swoop with a minimum loss of coalition life. A few Iraqis may have died, but who gives a shit - they would certainly not have been grateful had they lived, so who cares? You sure don't, so pretend to care about people you have never met.

And finally, those 150,000 Iraqis who died on the highway of death had just come back from looting, raping and pillaging in Saudi Arabia. They deserved to die. Hell, we should have killed them twice over, if we could.

So Pass the Gas, realise this: I have found you out. You are posting on this site purely to seek attention and stoke your ego, because you know what you have to say is false and contentious and for a moment or two you will get a little attention from it. But have you noticed that the attention you get is so fleeting? That people do not warm to you, or make you feel wanted? And so you keep trying, hoping that if you press hard enough you will be accepted.

Sadly, you won't be. You mean nothing to us, and though we may reply to your ridiculous posts, you will never belong.

Perhaps you should consider suicide?

DanDonPasstheGass, the whole reason this war was filmed is because of all the anti-American, Bush hating, liberal socialist, pigs, such as yourself, that ALWAYS try to put a negative spin or accusations of scadal on anything the good people of America try to do for good causes.

Every objection you have had, has been overcome. You haven't changed one iota since you've been loitering on this web site. You have become something short of intertainment. You keep us constantly aware that people such as yourself, actually do exist. Very scary thought. To bad all this hatred you've shared can't be associated to you personally, so that generations to come can see who the fools were that we had to deal with in our lifetime. Even with people like you in the way, we were still able to accomplish something noble. Your lack on common sense must be a terrible embarrassment to your family. I feel VERY sorry for them. Of course since I suspect that DonDanPasstheGas was cloned from one damaged cell, your 'family' may just be a laboratory rat.

Jeff B. I won't linger long. He usually hangs around only long enough to piss everyone off.
BUT(T(source for GAS)), we have already challenged Pass to lift the lid on the AnonymousToilet, and allow Gabriel (since Journalists can put a better SPIN on Facts), to email him an article he can critique for us. So far, he has ignored our (well, REALLY Gabriel's) offer to lift that sorry lid. Dr. Bubba and I have consulted (via ESPN), and we've agreed on a pedigree - we think that DDPtG is a permutation of a Turnip. We generally cap turnips when they're ready, but this one is special, so he gets to be an induhvidual. Maybe Alan (MASTER), would allow us to begin constructing a family tree here, but it would probably suck up huge amounts of bandwidth (maybe he thinks that would be a GOOD thing), but it sounds like a pretty lame excuse for erecting the NonArgumentationHallofShame.

PtG, you've said some things in your reply to me that are not quite as ringinly true as your post would have them seem. Corporate greed? Everyone can get some, buy a few shares of the greediest, this sort of greed is shared by whoever wants to buy in. Some greed. USA corps average a few percent profit, and they employ most of your family, if not you. The large USA corporation is a financial/administrative entity which operates the most efficient system yet for turning your work time into wealth. You bite the hand that feeds you. Your other assertions are weak, too, the USA economy is in near the bottom of a normal secular business cycle, if you chararcterize this as "hell in a handbasket", then what rhetoric will you have left to describe the rest of the planet's economies? I'll stop there, so as not to hog space, but your last three words "probably something else", do they stand for J-E-W, or, did I just read your context wrongly?

Wow, I go do some stuff and when I check the computer everybody's talking about me. This is so cool.

Most of this drivel of course I ignore, but this last thing of Buddy's, wow, I had not expected that one. In fact, in mentioning theories I totally forgot about the Israeli theory. I guess I don't think much about that one. And no, it is definitely not what I was thinking.

What I was thinking, as far as "something else," was just that corporate greed only goes so far. I mean, how much money do these guys need, anyway? But greed goes with power, and some people desire power more than money. Like, it's not the o-i-l, but control of the o-i-l.

If this was a humanitarian mission, it was a very strange place to start. Tribal warfare in some African countries kills a lot more people than Saddam ever did. AIDS kills more people than Saddam... but somehow Bush doesn't seem to have any incentive to go into Africa and help solve either of those two problems.

Lesson in "thinking" like Dave Dube/Buddy/Gabe/Buddy et al.: First, stereotype anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "lefty" or "anti-American" or a wimp or loser of some sort. Then call them hateful names and make ridiculous assumptions about them. Never question yourself or the motives of anyone who is doing something that you agree with; believe everything the government tells you, and its voicepiece, the corporate media. Be sure to hate people who are different from you, either because of their nationality or religion, or some customs they have that you don't understand -- assume that they would be better off if they were just more like you.

If Americans really feel this way, then, yeah you're right, I should give up.

(But fortunately for America, I won't.)

Ok, PtG, I can see II'm not getting through to you. If it bothers you to think you're being mischaracterized as an anti-American, then your last post, where you characterize those who disagree with you as dumb sheep following the government line, has made us all even-steven. Well, enjoyed it. It takes all kinds. Best of luck. I do hope you forget to vote, though.

Hey, just found this pretty-informative stary at the NY Time: Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights

Sounds just like what I was saying - now Dave Dube and Bubba can wonder if Pass the Gas and Elisabeth Bumiller (the author of this article) are the same person...

I see Don/PtG fell into the trap.
you see PtG, I gave you that link for a reason, it fulfilled your totally illogical logic.
All those people on that road were civilians, just out for a nice summer day, diving to the beach in their iraqi tanks.
The Americans blasted the hell out of them, because there just wasn't anything else to do that day, and they needed target practice.
All those iraqi's in the first gulf war that snuck into that town in saudi Arabia were only there to hide, and kill some nasty Arabs, women and children. They didn't deserve to be killed by the Americans.

Saddam had a right to gas 180,000 kurds, he needed to test out his gas mixtures, and rats were in short supply because the oil for palace program caused a shortage of rats, people were eating them for protein. The other 500,000 people saddam starved to death during that period weren't worthy to be gas subjects because they were to weak and sick.

Ptg, don, or what ever you want to call yourself, I'm sick and tired of your bullshit on this blog.
You belong in a mental institute, but I am glad of one thing, and that is you show the mentality of the democrats.
All these years while saddam was killing, Dem's sat idle, their supporters sat idle, knowing full well what was going on, but saying nothing, just like that cnn reporter who for years, knew of horrible crimes being committed by the regime, but said nothing because he didn't want to loose his 'inside scoop".
His excuse now is that if he said anything, others would die.
In this country, he's an accessory to murder, and Ptg, by your own admission, support, etc. of the saddam regime, you are as well. your no better than that reporter.

Now, I will not even bother with you, you are now invisible.
Like someone else said, 'don't feed the trolls"

I hope everyone else ignores your stupidity as well.
Just fuck off, drop dead, hope you get hit by a bus, a car, trip and break your neck, get robbed and shot, what ever.
you are pure scum.

Bubba, you gave me a link? I fell into a trap?

I got this link from Blogdex, man, I don't know what you're talking about.

As far as your other insightful comments, well, it seems clear what you are.

Methinks Jayson Blair found a new job.

You guys sound so pathetic to anyone with a fair mind. If someone or some institution doesn't agree with you, you just blast them with invective. They're all traitors! Anti-American! Saddam sympathisers!

Is it any wonder America (and more and more, Americans) are hated so?

Tee Dee, now I just stay on my feet so the Bubbas don't totally take over. They would like to create the impression that everybody agrees with them, when in fact everybody else just goes away when they see how bad it is.

PasstheGas - Please. Spare us. Did you miss me? I hope not. Got time for a quick repost? Good.

The subject of this thread - Jessica Lynch. Remember? Did you also remember the challenge? Offer up your REAL email address. Gabriel sends you a reasonable facsimile of an honest newstory using FACTS, and you can rip it to shreds - if you can. Of course it won't happen, because you lack more than integrity - you lack common sense as well.
Do you happen to have your copy of the National Enquirer handy? There's a page one (below the fold) story there about a guy that took a trip in a UFO, and he now has two asses. Related? The Editor says they have film clips. Middle name of this dude is ---I won't spoil it for you. It's out back in the two-holer, isn't it? Go find it. Stay there.
I hope the family of Jessica Lynch doesn't live downwind.

I am glad now more than ever that I don't use my real email address. This way at least I can just click to another site when I want to escape you bright guys.

This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military; the link I just posted described how important it is to the Bush administration to stage these things perfectly, with perfect lighting, backgrounds, etc.

I don't read the Enquirer, and am not bothering to figure out if you have made a joke or just another rude sound.

Pass - This is NO joke. You are a sick and twisted man. Maybe you'd like to spend some time at her bedside? Scratch that. I'm sure a good Marine could point you in the direction of a grieving family, you bastard. How many images of the dead and dismembered do you need to see? How many of the ones that are lucky enough to have survived with horribly disfigured bodies and faces do you need to look at? Yeah, tho I walk through the valley of DEATH.
Forget it. Find another thread you dirty old man. I've read your stuff for the last time. I feel sorry for YOUR family. I will not feel sorry for you.

Dave, leave my family out of this. I admit in my years I have never seen such low-spirited, rude people as I have met here. You don't have to feel sorry for me, I'm doing fine. I have a familly that loves me; a book that lots of people read; a career that brings me in contact with many intelligent and interesting people; a mind that is able to come up with new, good ideas; I have lots of friends all over the world; I am known as a funny and likeable guy, smart, down-to-earth, stubborn but open-minded; I can do science, I can play music, I can write, I can draw, I'm a poet, I've been scout leader, little-league coach, all those nice things. My life is not depending on your approval, in fact at this point I feel better thinking that low-lifes like you do not approve of me -- I must be doing something right.

Your smallness is only a disappointment to me. Even after dealing with you and Bubba and the rest of the dogpack, I will continue to believe that people in general care about one another and are able to behave with civility and courtesy. I will rationalize that your failure is a function of this blogging medium we are playing in, where everybody on the planet has equal say and nothing is edited and nobody ever sees anybody else, so it doesn't matter what you say to them. I will consider this like a Lord of the Flies situation, where without norms a primitive culture evolves. I will not believe that people are really like this. And in the end, I am confident that I am right.

GasPasser,

This is a small circle of people on this blog. How many read but don't post? From this sports fan's perspective, you are out in the ether. Was it you that made the comment about the government controlled media, or big bidness controlled media?

There are so few media outlets that aren't run by liberal wags, how could that be anything close to control? Most of the major news sources spin constant anti-American rot, and they hate Dubya with an blatant purple passion. But maybe you were referring to the "good ol' days" when a president could commit perjury, and other sundry crimes, and get a pass from his lapdog lefty media. That's it , you got caught in a time warp, or wormhole. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Jeezun petes!

Elvis... Bush is playing the media like a violin.

Um, what does "jeezun petes" mean?

Jeezun petes? I dunno, it's kinda like a southern version of "Jesus H. Christ!", only less vulgar. By the by, what was Jesus' middle name? My money's on Horatio.

Bush may be doing his best to play the journalistas, but from all the anti-Bush spin out there, he wouldn't make 2nd fiddle in my band.

Just took a stroll over to The Guardian's website and did a site search for 'Jessica Lynch'. What did the stories that came up say / inferred/ aledge?

- Jessica Lynch was captured due to her incompetency

- Jessical Lynch was rescued because she was white and a woman

- Black and Amerindian prisoners were forgotten about because the media was in love with Jessica Lynch

- Jessica Lynch was in no real danger and the US raid to rescue her was at best unnecessary and at worst staged for the cameras

- US soldiers lives were put at unnecessary risk to rescue one individual

Hm. Implying that Lynch was rescued only because she's a hottie? How... sexist.

But then, groups like the Guardian sometimes reveal their own prejudices while screaming about supposed prejudices of the people they're smearing.

I also note that as soon as US forces found out where the rest of the unit was being held, they responded rather quickly to free them as well.

Oh, and the team that rescued Lynch also recovered the bodies of several of her comrades, so the Guardian missed a perfect opportunity to blast the awful US MIlitary for risking soldiers to recover corpse as well.

I mean, if they're going to lower their reputation and leave no doubt of their ignorance of the traditions of the United States armed forces, they might was well dig themselves deeper...

I only know the middle name starts with "H", as my mother used to abbreviate it that way.

Elvis, seems to me they invest a lot of effort into playing each scene for TV. Doesn't mean the media people actually buy it, but they know it looks good on TV.

Re Jessica Lynch event, as I said (much) earlier, "It just reveals our President and his military to be brilliant information strategists." 'Course the fact that this story made the paper probably underscores your point, that the journalists don't approve of it all.

"....Hey Wilbur, if your checking the BBC to see if they took up your bit about the adapters and they do, let somebody know..."

Roger.

It's 4am GMT Sunday, and no sign of it yet.......!

Hey, Tap that ass, you're extremely imaginative, even compared to these other fiction writers. Wow, I feel honored to have elicited your attention.

You should be honored. I'm the best thing that's happened to you all year.

Buddy, thanks for your comments, we all have a right to an opinion here.

I mock you because I think you're a twit. And a pompous one at that. And because those Laker girls need to be taken down a peg or two.

The story we are discussing alleges that the US military put on a show for the press. You don't think so?

Well, they filmed it, so obviously that was a consideration. I have no problem with that. I also understand that in a war zone, in a situation like that, REGARDLESS of the intel you may or may not have recieved, you go in hard. If not, you put people's lives unnecessarily in danger. Do I think they went in firing blanks? Hell no. That's too fu*$ing stupid to even begin to entertain.

Bubba, Gabriel, Dave, et al. I am on your side in all this (and have been for quite some time), but feel you are only giving PtG, Don, et al just what they want. They are probably having multiple orgasmic experiences every time you cut loose on them. They love to rile people and get off on it. They are so phoney it is pathetic. The intellectual elite do not need to advertise the way PtG did on this thread. I could come up with a better "resume" than he did but it would only be a figment of my imagination as it is with him. Ignoring him and his ilk is the best(or worst) thing that can happen to them. I really do like reading and analyzing the thoughts on here but I tend to smell "Libertarian" when it comes to PtG, et al and the odor is offensive. Do like one person suggested. Read the sender first and then ignore them if you so desire. To Ptg :"O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown."

What happened, happened. The spin (and lies) started with vested interests on the U.S. side who favor women in the military. The lesson: tell the absolute truth which, from the Guardian's/BBC's point of view, is like garlic or a cross to Dracula.

Someone mentioned Pvt. Lynch's book. It's said she has amnesia. Somehow I have a feeling her memory will come back with her discharge papers.

PtG. Nice. I salute you, for you are a master in that oh-so difficult field: the spreading of doubt.

I must admit, reading through your post, you seem to have a kind of sliminess about you, a roving cancer.

It's the sort of thing that makes reasonable people squirm, even when they have examined and re-examined their positions, because you constantly tug at the doubt any reasonable person feels in a situation as difficult as that which engulfs the world. You have so far avoided facts, except where they provide you with what you need to make your point, and damn the context!

I'll grant you, the Pfc. Lynch thing was a bit overblown—by the media. Though it shows that Bush has some rather able spin-doctors on his team, since it took a few days before people started coming forward, trying to dispute the idea that the soldier even needed rescuing. And besides that, his people made a damn war look good! (Oh, well maybe the soldiers’ training and ability had something to do with it).

But that doesn't mean that you are in the right on this, or anything else. Because you have so far done nothing else except try to undermine people's belief in the need of some very momentous decisions undertaken by the current government; seemingly only for the reason that the government will always lie and the people who agree with the government and not you are incapable of making their own decisions (the last is why you get so many pissed off people around here). I will not try to discern whether you are a Lefty or not, although I must admit that this is my impression from your whole ‘the media is biased against the left’ thing.

My biggest problem with you is that you don’t seem to care about countervailing arguments. Worse, like so many before you, you speak of lies and point to your enemy. Yet you seem incapable of pointing to the “victims” in this affair, who are obviously the much-maligned hospital workers. Instead, you jump from one point to another. From how the rescue was spun to how the Bush team spins, nay, fabricates everything. No doubt, you would have us say, it is but a simple follow-through of logic that Bush has been lying since before he took office.

And you uphold this story despite the fact that multiple readers have posted very good proof that some, if not all of the interviewees must be lying. Yet you ignore the need for blank adapters on M16's (something that even I remembered from my brother’s service in the RCAF Reserves), let alone the idiocy of going into an unknown situation with blanks. You also ignore the very different stories that are coming out of this situation—differences which to me sound like desperate people saying those things that they think and hope others will want to hear. After all, a LAWYER managed to get asylum in the States for his help in the soldier's rescue. But perhaps I should explain my own take on all of this.

Fortunately, I can say that I am not familiar with the kind of desperation that a person may feel with the prospect of living in a country that has existed for the last twenty or thirty years in a state of war—not from personal experience. However, I have met those that have been in similar situations, from survivors of the Second World War looking for a new life, to holocaust survivors, to one survivor of the Russian purges in Poland after WW2, who was shipped off to Siberia like a great many Pols and yet, somehow, managed to escape and trek all the way back to Poland, and then out of it, to the West (rather famous ‘cause of it, though his name escapes me) (and I say met as in at a function; introduce, shake hands, move on—but his story is important). I have talked to most of these people extensively, and can readily understand a nurse who might pray nightly that she AND HER FAMILY get OUT. Or a doctor. Or a janitor. I have talked to a man who escaped from Poland in the late 1940’s on a steam-ship, hiding in the coal. It is not an exercise for the faint of heart, since more often than not stowaways would suffocate on the coal-dust. Luckily, he made it to Sweden, worked there until he made enough to buy passage to Canada, and lived (and I believe still lives) to a very old age here in Canada. This is but one example of the lengths people will go so as to get out of a bad situation, to get to the West—to America, the land of dreams.

I have talked to my grandfather, who was a resistance fighter against the Nazis, and later investigated/interrogated repeatedly, over the span of years, by the Soviets because of it.

I have talked to my grandmother who as a girl was almost shot in the street by a Nazi thug for being Jewish (she is part Jew, though they managed to hide the fact most of the time). She was barely saved by an officer, who led her away out of site, shot into the air, and told her to run (she still doesn’t know who the guy was, though I would like to thank him).

I have talked about such things with my parents, especially my father, who saw firsthand the massacres of dockworkers from the early and fledgling Solidarity Movement get gunned down in ’71. I have talked to them about leaving with my brother and me less than a month before the ’81 Declaration of Marshal Law. Luckily I was too young when we left Poland to actually understand what was going on.

I can even now feel the desperation of these people when they remember those events.

But it’s easy over there in the States if you have any human empathy. Just ask a Cuban or Mexican refugee. Ask if he or she would lie to some reporter who comes by to interview the “natives” if that could have gotten him or her a ticket OUT and maybe even something extra as a way of thanks. Ask!

Personally, I suspect that these people have been trying to make both Americans and themselves look good but were misquoted. And here comes a Beeb, WaPo or whatever reporter who takes advantage of their desperation. He comes by and asks them about Pfc. Lynch.

At a guess the real conversation would have gone something like this: “The brave soldiers used blanks in their guns because they are so considerate of Iraqi civilians. Not that they needed those guns since those nasty Fedayeen left the day before like the cowards they are. And I sang lullabies; we all sang lullabies, for our meal ticket out of this hellhole. I mean for the patient. And we took care of her to the best of our ability. She received the best of food, better than my starving mother who may soon grow fat on American food in the land of plenty. She received the best of care, better than my cousin’s sister who was in labor, and whose child may soon grow up in the land of opportunity if I play this story just right. But it’s a wonderful thing how Americans came to rescue her, showing how they care even for a lowly private, and especially because although we cared very much for her, we have but very meager resources.” And while it’s probably not exactly the way it would go, the general idea of flattery for Americans, flattery for everyone involved in the operation, and an illustration of the selfless nature of the care one provided, should not be too far from the mark. But the reporter, like you, only listens to what he wants to listen to. Only quotes the parts he thinks will fit his story; but leaves all the rest out.

If it could get you and your family out of a place that has seen as much pain as Iraq, then you’d say anything. Either you would, you aren’t in touch with reality or don’t care about them and yourself.

I’d go for the second option. Because if you lived in reality and were behind everything that you say you are, you would look at the story behind the story. Of the people who are talking to the Beeb. You would ask for complete quotes. You would demand that the story of the hospital workers be told; the whole mess in full.

In all it’s desperation.

But then, PtG, were you ever a refugee?

I would like to apologize, because I ran a bit at the mouth:) I also ended with a strawman argument (arguing that PtG shouldn't comment about the veracity of the story if he was never a refugee), though it was mostly because I find myself angry at the attitude that these people must either be complete saints and always tell the truth (PtG assumption) or just a bunch of lying Arabs (sorry, dudes, but that goes to quite a few of you anti-PtG too).

As for fault, that lies with the reporters.

But you already know that.

PtG is a scout leader?
you sick bastard, queers should be kept away from children. It is well known that child molesters like jobs like that so they can be near their victims.

and ptg, you did admit you were gay in another string.

Pawel, Paul, others,
I read some advice here, and have begun with my last post, ignoring Pass the Gas. If he is true to form he will assume another manifestation of the sick one, and post anonymously, but hey... Pass has passed his last gas in my face.
The arguments you have put forth are probably lost on him. Scratch the 'probably'.
Compassion is missing from this man. I've never been dishonest about that in myself. I've been angry, and I have a very short leash when it comes to the blind. I consider MY skepticism to be healthy.
This is the very story that led me to this medium. I started this soiree on mainstream spewage (minus cable), and by the time we got the Jessica Lynch Rescue, I was HERE, on this blog, and I have been here ever since. To the EXCLUSION of the TV, including the news. I can find every (some of them stinkin') viewpoint here, from the way liberal to the ultra-conservative. Some on both sides seem to me to be measuring their centrism (if it can be called that) by the arguments they observe here. By that I mean the compass that keeps us pointed Magnetic North. Notice that I didn't say True North.

That observation is based not only on what I'm reading, but also by what I'm NOT reading. That means that some choose to NOT comment on posts, and that can be a measure as well. I suppose to Alan and Michelle that's a measure. I have a feeling that your observation about people being honest about what they say here is reality. After all, take a look at what you have, here!
Pass, who DISclaims almost everything, pulls his nam d' plume out of his... Okay, I think you understand where I'm going. Is he for real? Some of his arguments lend credence to an analogous mechanism known as 'bear-baiting'. On the other hand... Nope. I'd hate to think that he lacks compassion. I really would.
'Nough said on that sore subject.

PAWEL. You've got it tied up very neatly. It was a good read.

Pawel it sounds like the part about the blanks was wrong. Your analysis of the motives of the people involved is good, but you left out the motives of the US authorities. The Iraqi medical staff has a motive to tell a story that puts them in a positive light with the Americans, you say, but their story is critical of the US military. The reporters who first came out with this, we don't know their motive, but "the story behind the story" is good enough, everybody likes to read that. The US needed some heroes right at that time, and lo n behold there they were, right there on television. We aren't just killin' people, we're rescuin' people! Ain't that wonderful.

Everybody's been real unhappy with me thru this discussion, but generally my point has only been that the US side knows this is a TV show, and Bush and his subordinates have been expert in handling the media. I'm glad they rescued the girl, and it seems to have been successful in getting everybody's hormones cranked up yay team.

Paul I just re-read your incisive comments. I see it was early when you wrote that, I know Sunday morning is not always my clearest time, maybe you just hadn't shook it off yet. I already regret having said anything at all about myself, from my age to my education, which you guys take as even more evidence that I am the desperate loser you hope I am.

I'm not. Implying that I am a child molester... that supports my theory that the problem here is the medium itself, where people can say whatever they want without accountability.

What an incredible website this is - populated by right wing fools who don't mind being lied to by their president.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=407142

Hey I just did something. I created an email account: PasstheGas03@yahoo.com

I'll check it occasionally, if it doesn't catch on fire.

(All variations on "Pass the Gas" @ Yahoo were lready taken.)

Cheesebeast - That's a very insightful comment there, from another anonymous(e) poster. Cheese? We don't need no stinkin' cheese, and we have you figured out already. Most cheese eaters can smell a trap. You, on the other hand are lacking even basic instincts for survival. I hope there are some level heads keeping an eye on this thread that can set your mind at ease. Geesh. Oh yah, that post? Wonderfully brilliant journalistic skills exhibited there. Did the entire piece have a single sentence devoted to the subject of this thread? No. I rest my case.

PtG
I have a issue with you about a perceived (my perception) misconception (your misconception).

"The US needed some heroes right at that time, and lo n behold there they were, right there on television."

This quote (and more) leads me to believe that you believe that either we were at critical juncture in which our battlefield progress was so poor that the public had to be distracted. Or perhaps that the military thought the public opinion was changing, in a permanent and unmanagable form, to the effect that we were not making progress.

While my issue with you on this is *relatively* minor, I think it shows a general sway in your reasoning on this event. That this is the root of your considerations about the supposed 'staged rescue'.

While the possibility about something to this effect is existent, the plausibility is near zero even under circumstances that would warrant it. The criteria that would make even the most PR conscious politician consider staging such a contrived event are absent.

The facts are so bountiful and obvious that the negative has nearly been proved.

Also, I think the reason so many people are taking issue with you on this, and even getting very upset with you, is your arrogance. Stop throwing bones. These people are not beasts of the field, and you are not thier master, don't think to placate thier (mostly) well founded opinions with childish +/+ reasoning. In other words, if you wish to have respectful discussions with people here then, "Hey, I get to know the truth and you all get your Pro Bush/Military/War event! We all win!" is not going to get you very far. Stop with the patronizing, or stop complaining about the verbal body slams. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

”…but generally my point has only been that the US side knows this is a TV show, and Bush and his subordinates have been expert in handling the media.”

Ptg: that has NOT been your point with how you present yourself. But, let’s assume it was. How else are they supposed to see this? Or, more precisely, are they supposed to ignore the aspects of any war that automatically turn into a TV show? They aren't the first administration to see an advantage in using the media, even if they are the first to be so good at it. That still doesn't mean they are lying.

”The Iraqi medical staff has a motive to tell a story that puts them in a positive light with the Americans, you say, but their story is critical of the US military.”

I don’t see this as an issue, really. So what? After all, your point is “that the US side knows this is a TV show.” So, let’s get back to that.

First, who says that the US know everything, and could have been able to handle the situation any different then they did?

Wouldn’t it have been a much better scoop to see hospital workers helping in the rescue? Wouldn’t it have shown that these people “love” Americans, whether or not that is the case? Wouldn’t it have been made to order, if, as they say in the interview, the US could have had the workers bring Pfc. Lynch to them?

The alternatives to going in hard and fast, while still retrieving Pfc. Lynch, would make for far better public relations. Lookee here, Iraqi civilians love the US so much and are thankful that we are here that they come to give one of our POW’s back. Aren’t we just the greatest? That would have fit the whole, here we are to liberate, thing.

As CM says:
While my issue with you on this is *relatively* minor, I think it shows a general sway in your reasoning on this event.

Hi guys, I appreciate you bringing down the tone of discussion, thank you.

First of all, arrogance. Mmm, I've been accused of it before, but please appreciate that I am one little guy here, fighting for the forces of good, against a whole army of obnoxious people who hate my guts. You may have noticed that some things that are said to me have not been... nice. Not only here, but on the "surge in homicide" thread... wow, I've never quite set people off like that before. I don't know of a different way to dig in and put up with this, I guess it comes off as arrogance. Most people woulda just gone away.

PS A couple of people have quoted back (sarcastically) my comment about all opinions being welcome, as if I thought I was the one giving permission or something -- in fact, I mostly meant my own opinion should be allowed!

AFA rescuing Pvt Lynch, cool, I'm glad they got her, wish they could have saved the others.
I don't think they were shooting blanks, which really was only a very small comment in this story, and these doctors and nurses wouldn't know that for sure anyway. But there will always be a question about whether the US knew there were no Iraqi troops, about why they busted up the place, about why they didn't let the Iraqi medics bring her back to them in the first place. This point of view, that it was staged, is probably exaggerated, but with a kernel of truth; the US knew she was there, knew that she was not guarded, and knew that the cameras were running, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a little conscious stagecraft at some level, at least. Before you jump down my throat, note that we are discussing a news story that implies it was entirely theatrical.

In my opinion, the bad part was the hyperbole after the fact, which as you might recall was just a little strident, about the heroic rescue etc. That, in contrast with these Iraqis' comments, ends up sounding like hypocrisy.

We can only see this thru the news media, and have to be careful about accepting what we see.

How convenient, PtG--you believe the media when it tells you what you want to hear, in spite of all the holes in the story but not when it doesn't.

The BBC has not run any of the comments about the blank adapters--I know I've written in and several other people have two.

I wrote in again just now, saying "why aren't you printing anything about the blank adapters when people are telling you about them"?

Maybe they'll be ashamed enough to print something.

Gabe, I don't believe the media in either case, but I expect there is usually a kernel of truth to what is published.

The US did bust in and take Jessica Lynch out of an Iraqi hospital, all on film so we know it really happened. Then there was a big spin about heroics etc, and a spine-tingling wave of patriotic pride afterwards. So it had its effect, whether that was intentional or not.

This article says the whole thing was histrionic, just done for show, and that the US knew there would be no resistance. Coincidentally, several other stories, some of which I've posted links to above, also comment on the Bush administration's attention to the TV appearance of situations.

Now, you can believe that everybody in this story, includng the author, is lying, but that's going to an extreme I don't think is justified; the only reason to think that is simply that what they say disagrees with your belief. The alternative, accepting that there might be something to this story, requires some reconsideration of your opinions, it might even require some doubt on your part. I see holes in this story, for instance the blanks thing, but I doubt that a reputable news source is going to publish a pure lie.

There's nothing "convenient" about any of it, it requires constant careful judgment, weighing the pros and cons of each story. It is possible to be opposed to the brutality of Saddam and at the same time skeptical about the pure motives of the Americans. Again, it is not "convenient," black-and-white truths are much easier to deal with, if you can live with yourself.

How convenient, PtG, that you accuse me of espousing black-and-white truths when you have no evidence that I espouse any such thing.

Typical sophistical tactic, to criticize arguments your opponent does not make.

Find another straw man. I ain't it.

You talk an awful lot about motives, PtG. Let's address that.

Whose motives? Is America a multicellular organism with one will? Are we all robots programmed by Bush? (All save you and Don?)

You don't know what the motives of George W. Bush are. But it is not his will alone that made this war.

What of the motives of his advisers? What of the motives of the generals? What of Colin Powell's motives? What of the motives of the 70% of your fellow Americans who approve of the war? Alll the same? All equally pure, impure, what?

Are we all actuated by desire for oil? I myself have never even seen crude oil (me and Galloway both), and I have no connections to the petroleum industry, other than the hefty grant they gave my PhD advisor to pay my salary with. (And what am I studying? Hydrogen--that which will make oil obsolete one day--and they knew when they gave us the grant, and they have no authority over the results of our research, before you ask, because it belongs to the University.) What about Norman Mailer's theory? But my skin color may surprise you... or it may not. You don't know what it is. What of the soldiers fighting the war? Mindless automatons following orders? The fact theat they overwhelmingly vote Republican is just proof as far as you're concerned, I'm sure.

What of the motives of the French and Russians and Chinese? Are they all monolithic blocks of their leaders' will?

You have no evidence, and can possibly have no evidence, of what motives are behind this war.

The only possible evidence you could have access to is people's ACTIONS.

Those actions are, that we have removed a foul dictator, stopped rape and torture and murder and genocide, destroyed a source of funding for terrorists, and are currently rebuilding a country that we did not destroy.

Hundreds of thousands of people worked together to make this war. You don't know any significant fraction of them well enough to have the slightest fucking clue what their motives were. Your talk of impure motives is just a cheap way of not giving your government credit for doing good.

Meditate well on World War II. Why did Britain stay in the war when France surrendered, and Hitler offered Britain peace, no strings attached--not out of fear, because he'd WON and didn't want to destroy the British Empire, which he thought a force for good and civilization. Why didn't Britain take peace then? When America was attacked by Japan, why did we say "Germany first" when Germany couldn't attack us directly? All of the Americans dead in Europe were PUT in harm's way.

Think about that, and think about motives, and how many people were involved in those decisions.

And YOUR pure motives would have left the vampire in Baghdad, all your nonsense about coups (replacing Saddam with Saddam Lite) and propaganda and assasination notwithstanding. As would the French, Russians and Chinese, whatever their motives.

Wow Gabe, weird. I missed the part where I accused you of anything. I didn't mention anything about any argument you made, any belief you had. I was responding to your comment about how "convenient" it was... but I didn't mean for you to take it all so personally.

Also, your decision to talk about motives, where'd that come from? I have said all along I don't know what anybody's motives are. I don't know why the US went into war in Iraq. I'm pretty sure it wasn't for the reasons that were said at the start. And I'm pretty sure that the US, cool as it is, doesn't commit hundreds of thousands of troops just to be nice to some foreign people who have an evil leader, against the pleading of everybody from the pope on down. OK, not everybody, just most of the countries on the planet.

But like you, I can only speculate about motives. And I have, and everything I listed has been taken as something I believe to be true, and I am just a big asshole for it all.

So anyway, when you said, "You have no evidence, and can possibly have no evidence, of what motives are behind this war." I have to agree with you. I really wonder what the motives are, but I don't know.

SO why, PtG, if you don't know anything about motives, why do you endlessly speculate about them and always bring them up?

Let me quote you:

"Your analysis of the motives of the people involved is good, but you left out the motives of the US authorities. The Iraqi medical staff has a motive to tell a story that puts them in a positive light with the Americans, you say, but their story is critical of the US military. The reporters who first came out with this, we don't know their motive, but "the story behind the story" is good enough, everybody likes to read that. The US needed some heroes right at that time, and lo n behold there they were, right there on television. We aren't just killin' people, we're rescuin' people! Ain't that wonderful."

That was just this thread. You say something about it in EVERY thread. Saying stuff like "I really wonder what the motives are" and "I don't think the US has pure motives" and "Like we really went over there just to liberate Iraq, anyone who believes that is stupid".

Answer this question: Are motives important to this discussion, or not?

If not, quit bringing them up. If so, give some evidence that they are relevant.

Of course motives are important if you want to understand what's going on. You don't just send several hundred thousand troops halfway around the world for the exercise, there's probably a reason. And when GWB et al said what the reasons were, before the war, well, half of that was made up and lot of it never panned out. So I am not comfortable assuming that the stated motives were the motives. So then, yeah, I wonder what the motives were.

The one quote, by the way, was of course me quoting or paraphrasing another guy.

This whole story is about motives. Did US really not know the room was unguarded? Are Iraqi medical staff lying? Or British journalists? Really, there's nothing else interesting here, it seems to me, in case you don't see why motives are relevant. They're the only thing.

All right then. Then as far as the war is concerned, cite some evidence for what you think these motives are--or shut up. Because you waste our time, whenever someone says something about motives, when all you say is "no, that's not it" without any evidence.

I'd like to see, also, exactly which of the reasons given before the war were "made up" and what evidence you have.

You can make shit up all day, if you want, but it is utterly worthless without evidence.

You know why people get pissed at you, PtG? It's not because of your opinions. It's because you continually say shit thinking that it justifies itself and you don't need any facts whatever.

Like yesterday, with how many people were killed in Iraq. Those of us who said that Saddam had killed something like 200,000 people did provide numbers that when you added them up, came very near to 200,000.

You, on the other hand, said "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis had been killed by the US in 1991. And you never came up with any sort of number that came anywhere near close. And you pestered other people to provide it instead of looking yourself, and when nothing came of it, you never backed off your claim at all! You went right on thinking it; you seemed to think that if we couldn't prove that it DIDN'T happen, then it was okay for you to believe that it did.

And here with motives. You say, "well I don't believe this" and "i don't understand that"--and you never give a single fact to justify any of it.

Same with your plans for getting rid of Saddam. No acknowledgement that they'd already been tried and no concrete idea about how it's supposed to work--just "the CIA can do it if it wants to". Magical thinking is not thiniing at all.

Gabriel - I've been bus most of the day - Church this morning, 4-H stuff this afternoon with the youngest teenager, and I came home and cooked. Sunday is my day to spend in the kitchen, and I do it 'cuz I like to cook. I've enjoyed the read. Maybe the opportunity to go one-on-one was the best way to handle the flames. I haven't had much of an opportunity to collect my thoughts on this thread, and I certainly will attempt to collect a few while you're gone for the week. It's been a pleasure.

......it’s 0238 hrs GMT, Monday, 19th May, and the BBC still haven't said anything about those blank firing attachments at their website.... ;-)

To be fair, it was the weekend. I'll see if they update better today.

All - I was not on a bus. I was BUSY.
Pass - I apologize for losing my temper with you. I should know better. You've convinced me that I have some shortcomings.
I'll try not to go over the edge anymore. After dealing with death and dismemberment, I just felt that what you said (words) and the way you said it (tone), minimized the suffering of a soldier, Jessica Lynch. I felt your words, up to the point where you admitted that 'it was kinda cool' that they rescued her, indicated that she was all part of a big conspiracy to dupe me and everyone else.
I'm sorry I blew a fuse, and if I've offended you, I apologize for that as well. It's Sunday.

From earlier in the thread, regarding Jesus' middle
name.

It's "Harold". Say's so in The Lords Prayer. "Our
Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name..."

Hallow Ed

"It's "Harold". Say's so in The Lords Prayer. "Our
Father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name..."

True. Did you know that Moses also drove a British Triumph TR sportscar?

There's a line in the old testament stating that he entered his homeland 'in Triumph' :-)

Hey, I'm glad you guys were able to keep yourselves amused while I dug through the internet for statistics.

Let me show you what I've got.

Let's look at Saddam's top-end numbers, as we have agreed on them in the other thread.
We said:

• 3,000 prisoners



• 50,000 - 100,000 Kurds



• 16,000 documented disappearances



• 1,600 in Kuwait City



• 30,000 - 60,000 Uprising Shi'a

Saddam came into power in 1979. So we can figure an average here. In 24 years (1979-2002), his regime killed a mean of 7,525 people per year, or about 20.6 people per day. This is way under the "millions" and "300 a day" that have been cited in these threads. Still a real big number though, please don't keep accusing me of supporting this maniac.

We can get a better estimate of actual murder rate by noting that the 100,000 Kurds were killed in particular genocidal actions in 1987-88, and we'll say 60,000 in the 1991 Shi'a uprising. In order to see how many people were being killed in an ongoing fashion, we can subtract that particular slaughter, and the two years it went on. So then we have 20,000 people killed over 22 years, which is about 909 a year, or about 3 a day.

Daniel Polwarth told us that a BBC documentary reported 150,000 people killed at the Highway of Death alone (remember, he didn't give a shit because "they're just a bunch of Arabs who would just as soon slit our throat as shake our hand"). Clearly there were other massacres, as well, for instance, this from the San Francisco Chronicle War without death
The Pentagon promotes a vision of combat as bloodless and antiseptic. There are very many stories like this out there. Note that the Highway of Death happened after the war, as Iraqi troops were retreating.

Now, I've finally tracked down a researcher, Beth Osborne Daponte, a Census demographer, who did her best to tally up the actual numbers. Here's an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer on the subject: War's toll: 158,000 Iraqis and a researcher's position

A couple of quotes from the article.

"Her conclusion: 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children died in one year as a direct and indirect result of the U.S.-led attack and the ensuing Shiite and Kurdish rebellions... About a quarter, 40,000, were Iraqi soldiers killed in combat... The rest were civilians, including 13,000 who got caught in the cross fire. About 70,000 civilians died after the war due mainly to the destruction of water and power plants."

There's more, about how the Census threatened to fire her, etc. Pretty interesting story. Her total comes to 158,001 dead.

Wow, this is interesting. Here's Business Week's take on it: Toting the Casualties of War

The Orange County Weekly discusses further: "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor whose work is also highly regarded, recently estimated that 345,000 to 530,000 excess deaths of children under five occurred between 1990, when the UN sanctions began, and 2002. That comes down to about 100 kids per day dying due to the Gulf War and the sanctions. His figures do not include the recent war. Garfield will soon head to Iraq, where he will work on retooling the country’s educational system." Here is a link to that article: Facts and Shivers

I'm not taking up the rest of my workday to read his full report, but you can find it here: Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 through 1998

So, unless somebody wants to argue about these numbers, let's summarize like this:

• Saddam killed about 180,000 in 24 years


• That's 20.6 per day, averaged over the whole time
  
• Up to 160,000 of those were in the 1987-88 war on Kuwait and the 1991 Kurdish/Shi'a uprisings


• That means in more peaceful times, a rate of about 3 a day murdered by Saddam's regime


• BBC report of 150,000 killed on the Highway of Death by US forces, after Iraq's surrender


• The Census demographer estimates US killed 158,001 in 1991.
  
• Maybe a half million dead Iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions

It is a little ghoulish to list the numbers like that, but maybe this gives us some grounding for this discussion.

Woops, that third bullet should be something about Kurds, not Kuwait... sorry

"Maybe a half million dead Iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions...."

Ahem. Fancy a long read?

http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/Sanctions.htm

"Saddam has not wasted any time on such interpretative nuance: Every death, "excess" or otherwise, is the embargo's fault....."

as for this other bit: "BBC report of 150,000 killed on the Highway of Death by US forces, after Iraq's surrender"

It was BEFORE the Iraqi surrender, and it's been debunked by more people than I care to link to, all of whom have noted that the so called highway of death consisted of a parking lot of empty, abandoned vehicles.

Right, it was a parking lot after the Americans were finished with it. Click through these pictures >The Unseen War< and tell me if these guys look like they were waiting for a parking spot.

The Iraqis were retreating, and the US blew up the highway so nobody could get through. Then they attacked the 20-mile-long traffic jam of trapped soldiers and civilians from land and air

I don't think you'll really find serious doubters on this one. As far as the effects of the embargo, true, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of embargo from Saddam's greed.

Pass, I'm going to keep a civil tongue in my head from now on.

I subscribe to a print medium called Linn's, a philatelically oriented weekly (stamps). They carried a story, and displayed a photograph of an envelope signed, dated and enscribed by the flight crew of the helicopter used in the rescue operation. Using the vast network of 'family', I could maybe ask them, personally, whether or not this was staged. My impression from reading the article (done by a Linn's staffer) was that the crew handled that operation no differently than any other rescue operation they were involved in. I do not personally know the journalist who wrote the story, but I do know (personally) some of the contributing writers, and I'm sure that I can get in touch with the flight crew for some 'in-depth' questions. What kind of 'evidence' would it take to convince you this was not a made-for-tv-op?

This is a serious question, Pass. I don't want to be duped, either.

<Warning: Long post coming>

Hmmm, Dave, good one, now that the dust has settled a little. As I said (I think I said, anyway), there is probably a kernel of truth to a story like this, and I am agreeable to your idea that some of it is false. Was it "staged for TV?" No, I don't think so, there was in fact a GI in the hospital who had to be taken out. Were there blanks? From what has been said here, it seems not possible, though I didn't see where anybody carefully looked at the video to see if there were devices on the guns. But I'll accept that there probably weren't, or these guys woulda noticed.

Did the US know there were no guards? Hmm, now it gets harder, and it will really depend on who you ask. I do not think the whole team was trained actors, so it is probable that, even if the "rescue" was designed by authorities to look good on TV, the guys who actually went in wouldn't know it. (I put "rescue" in quotes, because if there was no Iraqi protection it wasn't technically a rescue, but more like an evacuation.) So if you know somebody who knows somebody, it would be interesting to find out what the soldiers who did the job thought. In fact, it would be interesting to hear their reports about whether they were fired on, outside or inside the building. Don't you agree?

Nuther question, is it in fact true that there were no Iraqi guards there? Related question, if there weren't, did US officials know that there weren't any? These medical guys say they told them before this happened, is there corroboration of that?

And another: did the Iraqi medical staff make up this story for the reporter? Was there any evidence to support what they said? Do we know for sure that these guys even attended to Jessica Lynch? I thought I read a report that suggested they don't even work at the right hospital. Do they?

Her wounds. We were definitely told about stabbings, shootings, and other stuff, which seems not to be the case. I mean, you can't really conceal a bullet wound or a stabbing. Where'd all that come from, and why?

Amnesia: I hate to go here, but it is way too convenient. There are two general kinds of amnesia, one being organic, e.g., caused by physical injury, and one being, what we might call, psychological, e.g. repression. I did read a quote that hers was of the second kind - well, there is a whole world of literature on "false memory syndrome" and sociocognitive effects on memory, and this is... well, very unusual.

Mmm, and another thing. The reporter. This wasn't Jayson Blair by any chance, was it? What is the writer's track record? Political leaning? How thorough is he? Really, either there is some truth to this, or 1.the medical guys are lying to the reporter, who has to be pretty fuckin gullible, which is not usually a journalistic feature (plus, his editors have to go along with it), or 2.the reporter is making this up, or encouraging people to fabricate information, which is pretty much the end of your job if it gets out, which it will when you're bad-mouthinig the most powerful country on the planet.

Further, I know I saw this story quite a while ago, or some version of it, someplace else. Is this the original reporter, or is he regurgitating something he saw somewhere else?

The medics' motives (sorry, Gabe): What happens to them if they rat out the US? What happens to them if they rat out the Ba'athists? I mean, what are the actual consequences? Why would they lie? Or, why would they come forward with a story like this?

I saw somebody on TV last night, some Washington hair-job, saying that this rescue was actually done in constant communication with Washington via satellite. Now, why, of all the battles, and all the soldiers killing and being killed, was this one job, which has without a doubt great propaganda power, being broadcast back to DC? Was it being directed by the Bush administration? I know, you guys, I'll never hear the end of that one. Oh well... somebody has to ask the question.

So, to believe that this was "for real," I'd need to know that the medics were lying, or that the reporter made it up. Liars do not commonly confess, so strong evidence for either of those two facts would convince me.

Now... I'm getting good at this, I hear the howls about believing the negative until it's proven otherwise. This story is consistent with a certain amount of other information, some of which I've linked here, regarding Bush administration's willingness to stage things for TV. And, really, the story exists, I'm not believing the negative, I'm entertaining a positive: the possibility that the story that stands before us has some truth to it.

Hey, you will be interested to see what CNN has so report on this. > BBC correspondent defends Lynch documentary< sez the headline.

Obviously, the story is still breaking...

Actually, he looks like he's been busted.

Actually, upon closer reading, I'd say this reporter holds his own pretty well. ...to be continued...

Is there a particular reason that you are posting such nonsense Pass the Gas? Your statistics above have all been well debunked long ago and yet you repeat them here.

Thank you, Robin, don't you think I should commit suicide or something? I don't know how to respond to your relative kindness.

I posted these numbers for discussion. Thought it would be good to find some stats we could agree on. Needed to start with something, spent a couple hours on the web, found something I didn't expect (stats on 1991 war). Don't know if there's debunking or not, if there is, then go ahead and if you get a hankerin', post some better information.

This is kind of an old thread, and I don't know if anybody's still reading it, but the idea was that we could stop speculating and figure out some details about what we're talking about. If you've got details, please share them.

Pass - I won't get into much of your post now - contrary to what you might think, I DO have a job, and I do stuff beyond giving you grief. I will pursue 'the story' as I suggested earlier. I'm sure Alan and Michele will be updating and providing us a forum on this ongoing controversy, if you want to call it that. As for your stats - that's probably food for another thread as well. You do have some 'entertainment' value, and I can't think of any good reason why they'd ignore us...

'Entertainment value,' hell -- I'm right, you're wrong, it's easy as that.

Pass the Gas,

As I said I would do, I'm going to handle this at a measured pace.

You said in your last post:

"As I said (I think I said, anyway), there is probably a kernel of truth to a story like this, and I am agreeable to your idea that some of it is false".

Indeed, you did - "Gabe, I don't believe the media in either case, but I expect there is usually a kernel of truth to what is published".

You made a leap in your previous thread however, and that was this : I believe that some of this story is false.

I did not say I thought it was false, I said I did not want to be duped. My exact words.

What WAS implied by the original story (I have that in hand), and backed off of by the 'journalist's' own words in the article you referred to in your last post (also in hand), was that this was 'staged'.

I have carefully gone back over every piece of material that has been cited in this thread, and I find that you've left a lot to be desired in the form of 'spin', from your perspective.

Mind you, I have not even scratched the surface yet, as far as any other arguments that could possibly be spun off of your posts. I just took the first one that came up.

I'll keep you posted.

I pity you, going back through all this...

PtG - Why? Are you backing off of this statement? > "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military..."

I don't want to be duped. I don't want you to be duped, either. Don't pity me! I apologized for losing my temper with you. I admitted not remaining calm and measured in my assessment of what you were saying. You made the statement. In light of what this thread was all about, I took offense at not only the story, but your assessment of it as being a staged event.

According to the front page of C-P, there are 129 messages in this thread. That's a lot of stuff to read.

If I was worried about "being duped" as much as some people claim to be, I would be VERY suspicious of anything read in The Guardian, or on The BBC... you get the idea. Fox News seemed to get the war pretty accurately, on the whole.

Spawn - I ain't worried about MY being duped - PtG seems to feel differently, however.

I might not have ever used the word "duped" in my life.

PtG - Semantics? You just did. That's really beside the point, Pass. Are you going to answer my question, or play bloggames?

Tell ya the truth, I almost said, "Maybe the first time I ever used the word 'dupe' was in this sentence."

But... I don't know what question you mean.

Do you mean: Are you backing off of this statement? > "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military..."? If so, well, of course not, isn't that what the story is about? (One of the less contentious statements in this thread, I thought.)

PtG - You are in error. Once again, you have constructed a compound sentence containing more than one phrase. The first phrase referred to the story, the second phrase was a conclusion on your part. It is at the very center of a lot of the contention.

If I were to repeat the statement, I would be adding fuel to the fire. I repeat my argument however, that it was not staged, and that you are in error.

Dave, this is great. Look, "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military." The headline says, "Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed'." The front page of CommandPost describes the story by saying, "The BBC reports that the Jessica Lynch rescue was a deceptive, staged event..." I mean, are they in error? That's what the story's about.

What else could it be? Should I have said, "This story tells how the rescue of Jessica Lynch was a heroic act by the US military" ???

What you say: "The first phrase referred to the story." The first phrase is, "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military." OK, it's two phrases, but there are more than two here anyway.

You said: "the second phrase was a conclusion on your part." The second phrase is "so, well, of course not, isn't that what the story is about?"

I guess it's a conclusion on my part, but it seems obvious from the headlines and from the text of the story that that's what it is about... Did you think it was about something else?

PtG - Do you know what I think the problem is? You can't remember some of the stuff you write! The statement that I parroted back to you, that YOU made ended with a semicolon.

You find it, it's in this thread. I found it. I cut it and pasted it, so I know what you said.

You said 'it was staged'. It was not a 'staged' event. You are in error. The journalist who did the story now says - "No". That response was to a question put to him. The question was - "Is it your belief RIGHT NOW based upon your investigation that this rescue of Lynch was in any way a staged event and NOT REAL?" The caps are mine so that you grasp not only the question, but what is in contention here.

I searched thru this whole thing, and here are the statements I made with the word "staged" in them:

1. "Guys, this was a made-for-TV war anyway, who could be surprised if some of it was staged?"

2. "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military; the link I just posted described how important it is to the Bush administration to stage these things perfectly, with perfect lighting, backgrounds, etc."

3. "This point of view, that it was staged, is probably exaggerated, but with a kernel of truth."

4. "Was it "staged for TV?" No, I don't think so, there was in fact a GI in the hospital who had to be taken out."

All I can figure, unless you're just pulling my leg, is that you thought the sentence "This story is about the Jessica Lynch TV show, staged by the military" meant that I was saying it was staged by the military. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's what the story is about.

The story says the rescue was "staged by the military." OK, I didn't have to call it the "Jessica Lynch TV show," though it was on TV, that was a little partisan, but rather innocuous, compared to some of the stuff in this discussion.

Anyway, maybe everybody's right, and I'm the dumbest fuck on the planet earth, but I think we just got a wire crossed or something here.

In response to your capitalized question, I think the act of going in and getting Pvt Lynch was real, she was really in the hospital, and she really needed to get out of there.

Do I think that somebody considered camera angles, lighting, even scripts as far as who would say what, and when? -- Yes, I do think that "kernel of truth" likely exists here.

Do I think the military made it look more scary and exciting and "heroic" than it needed to be? -- In my opinion, that is a real possibility.

Do I think they used blanks? --No.

Do I think they shot at the ambulance when they took her back to the US guys? -- I think strong possibility (it wouldn't be the first civilians in a car shot at approaching a checkpoint).

These are just my opinions, based on details of two narratives about the same event, told from two points of view, with different motives to emphasize certain parts of the story. I don't think anybody's whole story is a lie, but both sides shaded it.

That's my guess - but this is an unfolding story. More evidence might convince me one way or the other.

I didn't get my wires crossed.
The reporter NOW says it was NOT staged.
I said it was a RESCUE. I offered this morning to get in touch with Marine family to get evidence of same, and asked what kind of evidence you would accept. You proffered no suggestions.

I stand by my original statement of fact: It was a rescue. There was nothing about the rescue that was staged.

Yes, it was planned. Yes, it was executed. Yes, it succeeded.It involved multiple services and multiple disciplines.

Was it the 'Jessica Lynch TV Show"? No.
The very word 'stage' implies ACTING. I said earlier in this thread that no matter how this played out in the media, that it minimized the suffering of Jes