The Post retreats on story of Lynch

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | June 18, 2003 | Jennifer Harper

[robowombat]

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

[robowombat]

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.

[camle]

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.

[MEG33]

It was hard to read.I grieve for the losses.The fog of war.

[EggsAckley]

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.

[Gary Boldwater]

"Let the poor child go."

Sending children in harms way?

[alnick]

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.

[EggsAckley]

Huh??!

[camle]

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.

[Gary Boldwater]

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.

[smith288]

Those "children" choose to go. Comparing our volunteer armed forces with putrid excuses for men called Saddam Fadayeen is disgusting.

[Gary Boldwater]

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?

[smith288]

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.

[Hatteras]

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.

[Gary Boldwater]

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.

[smith288]

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.

[William Terrell]

Where's the respect for our fighting men and women?

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

[camle]

I wouldn't go that far, but the "Rambette" story was so far out there that even Bill Clinton couldn't make it up.

[Hardcorps]

Who qualified at 1000 yards?

[wardaddy]

Tellytoe bump.

[CholeraJoe]

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.