Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Post retreats on story of Lynch
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | June 18, 2003 | Jennifer Harper

Posted on 06/18/2003 7:48:42 AM PDT by robowombat

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:03:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Washington Post has backed off its initial portrayal of U.S. Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch as a young warrior, an account that made her an instant national hero and sparked a brawl between news organizations and Hollywood for her exclusive story be it myth, or truth.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 507th; correction; jessicalynch; retraction; usarmy; wp
The Wash Times delvers a polite testical kick to the Washington (Com) Post. The Post article on the depressing fate of the 507th Maintenance Company is worth reading.
1 posted on 06/18/2003 7:48:43 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robowombat
that whole Jessica "Rambo" Lynch story smelled of old fish from day one. This one smells too. My guess is that she was incapacitated inteh accident and unable to even try to defned herself. "Someone" with an agenda was/is trying to make her into something she ain't.

Problem is that SHE is getting smeared by these phony assertations.
2 posted on 06/18/2003 7:53:55 AM PDT by camle (no fool like a damned fool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
It was hard to read.I grieve for the losses.The fog of war.
3 posted on 06/18/2003 7:55:45 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
You're right. This whole story is so .......well, old news. I don't give a fig what she did. She was THERE, she was DEFENDING the US, and thank God she came home alive. Case closed. Let the poor child go.
4 posted on 06/18/2003 8:02:42 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( "Aspire to Mediocracy"..........new motto for publik skools....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
"Let the poor child go."

Sending children in harms way?

5 posted on 06/18/2003 8:07:16 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
The paper acknowledges its initial coverage "attracted widespread criticism" because of the use of unnamed sources and the lack of corroboration from military officials.

There goes the myth that the original story was put out by the military in order to boost moral.

6 posted on 06/18/2003 8:11:29 AM PDT by alnick ("Never have so many been so wrong about so much." - Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Huh??!
7 posted on 06/18/2003 8:11:44 AM PDT by EggsAckley ( "Aspire to Mediocracy"..........new motto for publik skools....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
agreed.

prob is that they made her into such a fantasized characiture (however ya spell it) that when it turned out that she was human, it was a let down.

so she is a victim of the Iraquis AND those who made up the story.
8 posted on 06/18/2003 8:17:17 AM PDT by camle (no fool like a damned fool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
You referred to Lynch as a child. We condemn the Iraqis for putting women and children in the line of fire. Yet the US sends women and "children" in as combatants. Something doesn't seem to fit here, I'm just pointing it out. Personally I'm appalled that the US uses women and "children" as combatants.
9 posted on 06/18/2003 8:20:16 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Those "children" choose to go. Comparing our volunteer armed forces with putrid excuses for men called Saddam Fadayeen is disgusting.
10 posted on 06/18/2003 8:23:58 AM PDT by smith288 (I wear myseatbelt because I want to, not because the gestapo state makes me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smith288
It is truly disgusting. I would never call any of our troops children. That's why I use the quotes. It really bugs me that on one hand our troops are "brave soldiers" and on the next they're referred to as "children". Where's the respect for our fighting men and women?
11 posted on 06/18/2003 8:30:36 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
I am just annoyed at your wording. They arent being pushed into combat, they arent be coerced. They do it because they want to do it. How another freeper call Jessica a "poor child" is their problem as she is military and can handle themselves(or should).

My beef is this nonsense that women are being forced to fight or they are not fit to fix broken tanks or other vehicles and equipment which is what her duties were.

Oh yea, and she is trained to fire a gun if she is forced to.
12 posted on 06/18/2003 8:37:00 AM PDT by smith288 (I wear myseatbelt because I want to, not because the gestapo state makes me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: camle
I'm telling you... By the time the 'truth' hits the fan, we'll find out Jessica was driving the lead vehicle and was distracted by a private "who was, like, soooooo cute", causing her to miss a turn putting everyone in danger.
13 posted on 06/18/2003 8:43:19 AM PDT by Hatteras (The Thundering Herd Of Turtles ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smith288
They aren't children. Children can't enter into contracts or volunteer for military service. They are sons and daughters. Words do have specific meanings and are used for specific purposes, as I have demonstrated to you.

As far as women in combat, if it ever came hand to hand, in general I'd much rather be up against a woman than a man. Same for any military contest of strength such as hauling ammo, supplies, wounded, firing heavy shoulder weapons, etc.

One last thing to consider. In the days before women combatants, military riflemen qualified at 1000 yards with 30 calibre weapons (essentially high powered hunting cartridges). Today the men and women qualify at 500 meters with 22 calibre weapons. The bullets that are used to qualify at 500 meters (the SS109 round) are highly ineffective at closer ranges because they do not tumble and create large wounds. Since most gunfire exchanges occur at close ranges, the rifleman (riflewoman) is handicapped by his ammunition.
Most people today who use the 30 caliber weapons are "highly trained snipers" (with the exception of M-60 type weapons). Why are the qualification standards and effectiveness getting lowered? Who pays for this in blood? Just some food for thought.

14 posted on 06/18/2003 8:58:05 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
My point is this, Is a female any less able to fix a truck behind the front line? Whoever got her in the mess she got in isnt because she is a woman. She is trained to shoot if she has to but her main priority is to fix stuff. That is leaving the men to do the battling. Her situation is different as she was ambushed but the fact remains that SHE wants to help the military by using her expertise. If someone can be utilized in such a manor, then why stop them because of their genitalia?

If a woman cant handle lifting, making decision, following orders, then said women should be relieved. Its not a gender issue, its soldier ability and conduct.
15 posted on 06/18/2003 9:05:55 AM PDT by smith288 (I wear myseatbelt because I want to, not because the gestapo state makes me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Where's the respect for our fighting men and women?

You mean, "Where's the respect for our fighting men and supporting women?".

16 posted on 06/18/2003 9:06:35 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras
I wouldn't go that far, but the "Rambette" story was so far out there that even Bill Clinton couldn't make it up.
17 posted on 06/18/2003 9:19:21 AM PDT by camle (no fool like a damned fool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Who qualified at 1000 yards?
18 posted on 06/18/2003 9:42:51 AM PDT by Hardcorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Tellytoe bump.
19 posted on 06/18/2003 9:44:59 AM PDT by wardaddy (I was born my Papa's son....when I hit the ground I was on the run.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smith288
Its not a gender issue, its soldier ability and conduct.

Well said.

I commanded Medical Units, which were largely composed of women. Most were amazingly competent. They worked tirelessly to care for the wounded, most of whom weren't Americans. Their job wasn't to be shot at or peppered with shrapnel, but it happened. In modern warfare the front lines are pretty fuzzy.

Some of the women were pretty good shots, too. Our dentist, all of 5'2' and 100 lbs could shoot the ten ring every shot.

20 posted on 06/18/2003 9:56:39 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (White Devils for Sharpton. We're bad. We're Nationwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: smith288
You are absolutely right.
21 posted on 06/18/2003 10:48:23 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hardcorps
I believe the US Marines in the 1950's using M-1 garands.
22 posted on 06/18/2003 10:49:40 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
"Personally I'm appalled that the US uses women and "children" as combatants."

Talk to former congresscritter Patsy Schroeder about it. It's her legacy. (And others like her)

23 posted on 06/18/2003 10:59:45 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hardcorps
Here's something that may be of interest:

The National Guard in the 1890's:

http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/nrrc/cultural/cmpLogan/camplogan.htm

At Camp Logan, targets were erected on ranges of 200, 300, 500, 600, and 1000 yards, oriented toward Lake Michigan. A marksman needed to qualify at each range by achieving a minimum of 40 percent of the possible hit points for that target. After a soldier qualified at the 200 yard range, he would advance to 300, then 500, and on up. After a soldier finished the course at the minimum standard, he would start over and attempt the next higher standard. The highest achievement was “Distinguished Sharpshooter.” In addition to the standard bullseye targets, Camp Logan also had a skirmish range with silhouettes of standing, kneeling, or prone figures that tested a more realistic combination of firing and maneuvering.


The Marine Corp in WW1:

http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/range.html

Then came record day (early August 1917). I blacked my sights so the sun would not reflect on the middle. That morning was wonderful, an ideal day. We got our instructions & down we went to 200 yards. Qualified. 300 yds, same. 500~600 yards, same. At 1000 yards I missed one and got nine bull's eyes & qualified as a sharp-shooter, 251 out of 300 points. I sure was one happy boy. That meant three dollars more a month.

24 posted on 06/18/2003 11:11:18 AM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Thanks, interesting reading. Being a 1950s era Marine I remember firing from 500 yards in the prone position. This was at Camp Matthews North of San Diego. I did not remember a thousand yard range. I had to take some of the letters from the 1917 era with a grain of salt and believe that the old 03 was better than I thought. Sights adjusted for 3.25 miles and 8 inch bulls eye at 600 yards specifically. We were taught that 1000 yards was a piece of cake for the M1 Garand to kill.
25 posted on 06/18/2003 1:42:42 PM PDT by Hardcorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hardcorps
My dad was an early 1950's Marine. He told me they shot 1000 yards with the Garand. He shot at Parris Island, Camp Pendleton at targets and in various parts of Korea at Communists. He also told me that the Springfield 03 was used for sniper work in Korea. Some of the 03's had only one land in the barrel (fast wartime production). I've owned two 03's and they were good shooters but I can't attest to their MOA accuracy.
26 posted on 06/18/2003 7:31:11 PM PDT by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson