Lynch's Iraqi rescuer wraps visit to her hometown (Lynch too busy to meet this guy!?)

CNN / AP ^ | Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[FreedomPoster]

PALESTINE, West Virginia (AP) -- An Iraqi lawyer who helped U.S. forces in the rescue of Jessica Lynch wrapped up a tour of the soldier's hometown Monday with a trip to a garden planted in his honor.

"I will not forget. It will stay with me, in my mind, in my heart," Mohammed al-Rehaief said as a ceremonial yellow mum was planted.

[wtc911]

I am not trying to make the acknowledged facts fit any theory. The doctor you cite plainly states "I don't know". If that is good enough for you because it helps you out then run with it, however an opinion followed by an I don't know is not exactly what one takes to the bank.

You seem to have an awful lot of personal emotion invested in having the Jessica Lynch story seen your way. I'd think about that if I were you.

[sandlady]

At least your posts make me smile. Don't you be concerned about my emotional investment. Thanks anyway. It's just so funny that you have no hesitation believing something from a vague article from CNN that casts Lynch in a negative light. Is that how you are? All I'm asking of all you grumps is to reserve judgement for a while. You don't know what you think you know. And what you know isn't complete.

[#3Fan]

Having admired #3Fan's bravery on the Kobe threads--I can't post to them anymore, they get me to upset--I'll concede the point that maybe CNN has spun this Jessica story to make her look bad. It's really hard to imagine that the doctor was in her home town and she purposely would not make time to see him. Thanks for the input, #3Fan! :)

Thanks, and I hope there's more to the story. I'll bet this is shoddy reporting on the part of CNN again. The liberal media is doing everything they can to put down our troops and their efforts and sacrifices. This Iraqi did a great thing.

[#3Fan]

Good lesson, that. ;0) Although, after being nagged enough by my better half, I'm finally getting the hang of this thing people like to call "tact". Havn't perfected it yet, but I'm getting there ;0)

I've obviously have a long way to go. Maybe I'll live and learn.

[#3Fan]

Good post!

[Chad Fairbanks]

You don't know what you think you know. And what you know isn't complete.

But how do we REALLY know that? I don't know.

[#3Fan]

Un-named sources speculating with phrases like "may have been" in a news report that pre-dates the Army's official report are neither oersuasive nor credible. If you want to use unsubstantiated news reports you could just as easily use the BBC's reports that state that everything we heard about her capture and rescue was false and/or staged.

You cite a foreign news source that has less credibility than the New York Times to say that our military lied. Uh oh, you just showed your hand and it isn't pretty.

[#3Fan]

An Army clerk got captured, and treated by the Iraqi doctors, which we wanted to paint as savages...

Saddam's thugs were there and they were savages. Some of our POWs were executed.

[#3Fan]

You seem to have an awful lot of personal emotion invested in having the Jessica Lynch story seen your way.

Look who's talking. At least we aren't so quick to jump the gun that we side with CNN at the outset.

[sandlady]

Exactly, you know?

[wtc911]

Have a little reading comprehension problem do you? Read the whole thread bozo. I wrote that the other poster could easily find "reports" that support any position, including the opposing one from BBC. The only report I gave any credence to was the 15 page one from the Army itself. (Do you know more about this than they do?) Citing speculative opinions, wherein the one giving the opinion actually states "I don't know", as proof of anything is just plain stupid.

Lifting phrases out of context and representing them as proof of a position while ignoring the full context as you did is dishonest. But, hey, go ahead and swallow whatever makes you feel good...even if the facts contradict it.

[wtc911]

Once again reading issues. Where in any of my posts did I side with CNN as you say I did? Show me....still looking? Can't find it? Know why? Because it's not there.

[johnb838]

Maybe their schedules didn't work out. Maybe he just showed up unannounced. Maybe he's been stalking her. Maybe there was a media circus following the guy around and she didn't want to be on every newspaper and television screen in America (again).

[johnb838]

If so, what a slap in the face.

Is that supposed to be funny?

[johnb838]

She's been slapped, mother. Thats what started the whole thing.

[wtc911]

A bit patronizing, aren't you? My posts don't make you smile. You write that in an effort to diminish. What a tired sophomoric and unfortunately predictable tactic.

As for the rest of your post wherein you say that I have no hesitation believing some vague CNN article, I have to wonder where you got that. I'd like you to show me where in my posts I even referenced the CNN article or commented on its content.

If you bother to look and be honest about things you will see that there is no basis at all in my writing for what you attribute to me. My only concern on this entire thread has been with accuracy and reliability of sources. I repeat that quoting a source who profers an opinion and then says "I don't know" as proof of anything is intellectually lazy and plain dumb.

And here you are proving my point by dishonestly and inaccurately stating a position in my name.

[johnb838]

blah, blah, blah-blah-blah


Slow news day.

[#3Fan]

Have a little reading comprehension problem do you? Read the whole thread bozo. I wrote that the other poster could easily find "reports" that support any position, including the opposing one from BBC. The only report I gave any credence to was the 15 page one from the Army itself. (Do you know more about this than they do?) Citing speculative opinions, wherein the one giving the opinion actually states "I don't know", as proof of anything is just plain stupid. Lifting phrases out of context and representing them as proof of a position while ignoring the full context as you did is dishonest. But, hey, go ahead and swallow whatever makes you feel good...even if the facts contradict it.

You've spent the whole thread shooting down the argument that she was mistreated. Some POWs were executed so I think I'd wait awhile before I'd heap too muvh praise on Saddam's thugs if I were you.

[#3Fan]

Once again reading issues. Where in any of my posts did I side with CNN as you say I did? Show me....still looking? Can't find it? Know why? Because it's not there.

You assume she was not tortured even though others were executed. You are taking the liberal media's side because they are biased in favor of the Iraqis over our military.

[#3Fan]

If you bother to look and be honest about things you will see that there is no basis at all in my writing for what you attribute to me. My only concern on this entire thread has been with accuracy and reliability of sources. I repeat that quoting a source who profers an opinion and then says "I don't know" as proof of anything is intellectually lazy and plain dumb.

Oh brother. If you really wanted to be accurate you'd have mentioned that Saddam's thugs were there at the hospital making it highly likely she was mistreated. Instead you keep bleating about "no evidence she was mistreated". Your points fly in the face of common sense.