Posted on 04/24/2007 11:46:49 PM PDT by Star Traveler
US Soldier hailed for bravery in Iraq says Pentagon spin doctors made it all up
By DAVID GARDNER
The American military has been accused of telling lies about two of its most famous soldiers.
Official versions of the rescue of prisoner of war Jessica Lynch and the death of former US football star Pat Tillman turned both into national heroes.
But the propaganda was dismissed as "utter fiction" at a Capitol Hill hearing to expose the false battlefield stories peddled by the Pentagon.
Jessica Lynch, now 23, said she was giving testimony "to set the record straight".
"I'm no hero, the people who served with me who died are the real heroes," she said. "The truth of war is not always easy. The truth is always more heroic than the hype."
She said the stories of derring-do did not apply to her.
The former army private became a celebrity after being taken prisoner as the first wave of U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Military chiefs hailed her a gritty heroine who was only captured after putting up fierce resistance during a gunfight during which she was shot and stabbed.
She was eventually freed in a US raid on a hospital where she was being held captive, the Pentagon said.
But it later emerged that her gun was jammed with sand so she couldn't use it and she was only injured when her vehicle crashed.
There were no Iraqi troops at the Saddam Hussein General Hospital when the Americans carried out their "rescue" and medical staff had unsuccessfully tried to hand over the wounded private to US forces prior to the raid.
Although an authorised book about her ordeal claimed she was raped by enemy soldiers, Iraqi doctors have disputed the allegations and Miss Lynch says she was too traumatised to remember it.
"My parents were hearing the story that I was this little girl Rambo from the hills of West Virginia who went down fighting. But it wasn't true.
"The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales.
"Why did they lie when the real heroes were my fellow soldiers who rescued others or fought to the death?"
She told Congress she had a sixinch gash in her head and severe back and leg problems from injuries suffered during the battle that killed 11 US troops.
Her testimony began with a recollection of the March 2003 attack. As she and her fellow soldiers drove through Nassiriya, Iraq, they noticed armed men standing on rooftops. Three soldiers were quickly killed when a rocket-propelled-grenade hit their vehicle.
Another eight died in the ensuing fighting. Miss Lynch said she later woke up in hospital. "When I awoke, I did not know where I was. I could not move. I could not call for help. I could not fight," she said.
"The nurses at the hospital tried to soothe me, and they even tried unsuccessfully at one point to return me to Americans."
On April 1, US troops came for her. "A soldier came into the room. He tore the American flag from his uniform, and he handed it to me in my hand and he told me, 'We're American soldiers, and we're here to take you home'. And I looked at him and I said, 'Yes, I'm an American soldier, too'."
"I had the good fortune to come home and to tell the truth. Many soldiers, like Pat Tillman, did not have that opportunity," she added.
"I'm still confused as to why they chose to lie and try to make me a legend when the real heroes were my fellow soldiers that day."
Pat Tillman, 27, became a national hero after he gave up a lucrative contract with the National Football League's Arizona Cardinals to join the US Army and was killed during an ambush in an Afghan mountain pass three years ago.
Tillman, a member of the army's elite Rangers force, was awarded the Silver Star, the military's thirdhighest combat decoration, after the Pentagon said he was killed leading a counter-attack.
The story was revealed as bogus after pressure from Tillman's family. In reality he died as a result of friendly fire.
His brother Kevin - who also joined up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and was in a convoy behind his brother - rejected army claims that the confusion arose because of the fog of war.
He said the Pentagon version was "utter fiction" and charged the military with "intentional falsehoods that meet the legal definition for fraud".
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," he added.
The committee's Democrat chairman Henry Waxman said: "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth. That didn't happen for two of the most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars."
--
24/04/07 - News section
--
Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450509&in_page_id=1770 ©2007 Associated New Media
Well, I guess I still think it’s crazy for having a “little blonde” even fighting in such a situation. It’s just nuts to me, actually. But they’re there now, so at least get the story straight, if nothing else.
I have a feeling that this whole thing got to be this way *precisely* because she was that little blonde girl and it got embellished. That’s the problem with having her there in the first place...
So you want the military brass to run around and say, “Jessica Lynch is no hero?” I don’t think that is likely to happen nor should it. Sometimes it’s better to just let the story die on its own. But Congress critters determined to make hay out of nothing cannot let it die.
I don’t think that it was exactly the military that was making up the stories. The stories were mostly pieced together hearsay reports posted by the imbedded media who were looking for the “big story”.
not I
Well, I guess hay will be made, along with the truth getting out, then... it’s obviously starting now.
I don't think the Press has any business being involved in Military Operations. They destroy Operations Security, sometimes intentionally. Reporters should be held under detention at Brigade HQ and thrown scraps just as the dogs outside of the mess tents. Reporters in battle are flotsam and jetsam on a turbulent sea. All Public Opinion needs to know is, "is it over", and "did we Win?"
While I'm thinking about it, don't bother asking me what I think of Congress and the Military.
You said — “I don’t think the Press has any business being involved in Military Operations.”
Well, that’s the wrong way around from the way I was meaning it. For one thing, the Pentagon knows that in our society you can’t remove the press from the equation, since they’re considered the eyes and ears of the public (and the press would include all the forms of media). So, instead of fighting against it, they’ve decided to co-opt it and use it to send disinformation through those channels — for all sorts of reasons — one of which would be for “morale”. And thus, that’s why it’s very understandable how this situation came about.
And in regards to your opinions about the press, you know that what you’re saying will never happen. And as far as what the public needs to know — well, of course for operational security in certain discrete missions, you’re not going to tell the public stuff that will compromise that. Aside from those sorts of things the public *must know it all* — at all times. Remember, the military operates at the behest of the public — it’s not the other way around. So, that’s the way it’s going to remain, civilian control of the military and full information to the public (aside from the proviso noted), so the public can make determinations what the military should do and for the public to exercise *their control* over the military...
LOL ! I already saw it on your profile last night. My Mom was born in Hartshorne outside of McAlester.
Besides Tulsa, Antlers is where we have another group of relatives... what a small little (and typical) Okie town... :-)
When I was going through my officer basic course, the very topic came up that we are discussisng. Those who were prior service enlisted like myself split originally the way you and I split on this issue. We would have wanted our parents to be told something other than "your son was killed as a result of general stupidity" or "friendly fire".
By the end of the discussion all agreed that, were they able to do it (not all circumstances would allow it), when it came time to write the parents and loved ones about the death of a soldier under their command, they would opt for the palatable fiction.
Perhaps you have to have been in the position that writing such a letter is a possiblity before you can understand that your "truth uber alles" stance may not always be the best position.
Have you never told a "white lie" to spare someone's feelings? This is what we are talking about.
As for that article I referred you to... take it to the bank. That is what happened. I have that from someone who was there.
You said — “Have you never told a “white lie” to spare someone’s feelings? This is what we are talking about.”
Yeah, I very well understand that idea. I just know what the Bible says about those kinds of things. And, it says that all the truth is going to come out anyway. If it doesn’t get exposed now, it will get exposed later, one way or another — even with all the “saints” (which the Bible means believers/Christians) — and even if we have to wait until then. Everything is going to get uncovered. So, if it’s going to get uncovered, then better to know earlier than later.
Actually the Military does not act at the behest of the public. Since day one the President has been Commander-in-Chief. The only control the public has over the Military is in electing who will be C-in-C. After that it is up to the President to lead as he sees fit.
I believe it is a grave mistake embedding reporters in combat units or even allowing them into hot combat zones. I know the intent is to win hearts and minds back home, but it will always have the opposite effect. The ugliness of battle is not palatable to civilians at home. They will never understand it and we are fools if we think otherwise. I would at least like to bring back the pooled journalists or designated reporters and approved stories of past conflicts.
War happens whether it is reported on or not. The success or failure of battle should be determined by watching for the enemy at the city gates. The details should not be for public consumption until old men write their memoirs.
You said — “Actually the Military does not act at the behest of the public. Since day one the President has been Commander-in-Chief. The only control the public has over the Military is in electing who will be C-in-C. After that it is up to the President to lead as he sees fit.”
Well, that’s a bit simplistic, because we can see — as of right now — that pressure from Congress and those legislators, prompted and moved by public opinion, has an effect. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that they operate at the behest of the public, in more ways than one.
Even Donald Rumsfeld stated that very thing, himself, in several news conferences. He said that this was a civilian-controlled military. He actually *emphsized* that as a *point* he was making, in that regard. And as you know (from what lots here think of Rumsfeld) that if Rumsfeld said it, it must be true because he was a “straight-shoorter” when he talked to the press.
Further on the “President” as commander. You see that commander are always in charge temporarily, in all situations. Their actions can be *modified* by outside pressure. The commanders in the field, the commanders back at headquarters and the “commander in chief” — also is subject to this same thing. And that means — “the public”. They have an effect on the commander in chief. *That* is why *everyone* is always talking “to the public.” They wouldn’t talk to the public — if the public had nothing to do with it.
So, sorry to say you’re wrong there. The President and all the legislators — and — the military is all accountable to the public. And that’s the way it’s going to remain.
By the way, if Presidents weren’t accountable to the public, Clinton would not have had an Impeachment process that he had to endure (even though it failed). This shows the accountability that a President has, too — along with everyone else.
.
And you said — “I know the intent is to win hearts and minds back home, but it will always have the opposite effect.”
But, it will never change. And so, what some people think should happen is that since this is never going to change, then what the Pentagon should do is simply *make up stories* and *lie* to the public. That’s apparently the view of several on Free Republic.
.
Lastly — “War happens whether it is reported on or not.”
And that’s the utlimate responsibility of the public, in our government. That’s why we have representatives in Congress and that’s why we elect a President and that’s why we have Impeachment proceedings.
So no white lies under any circumstance? A child askes you if she is pretty and you say “sorry sweetie, your butt ugly”. And while I am not sure of the passage I do call that the bible does allow the “white lie”.
I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree on this. Your view and experience on this matter are far too narrow.
You said — “So no white lies under any circumstance?”
There’s polite and courteous, and then there are lies. If I think someone is “but-ugly” and I see them walking along on the street, I don’t have to run up to them and say, “You know..., you’re just butt-ugly. I thought you should know that!”
You don’t have to say what you think. “Truthfulness” is not doing a “brain dump” on the other person. Some people mistake that for “truth”. That would simply be abusive.
However, if someone were to ask me, “Do you think I’m beautiful?” (and of course that usually only comes from someone you know closely :-) ... ), you can say easily, several things that are true to you, personally (and actually, that’s all you know...).
You can say, very easily, “Well, if you weren’t the most beautiful person to me, I wouldn’t be with you..” Or, you can say all sorts of other things, along that line. You don’t have to lie — but I’m presuming that this would be the person you would say it to. If not, then you might be in trouble! :-)
You can always say things that are correct and true, if you want to, like — “I was happy to get someone who was so much prettier than me.” You could go on and on, all day long like that — but whatever you say — make sure it’s *the truth*....
Yes he has legs, but a man on foot in that part of Iraq at night would have been cut down at that time. Did you know he was offered a free pass to the US?
A followup on another thing. You said the following —
And while I am not sure of the passage I do call that the bible does allow the “white lie”.
Well, a lie is a lie is a lie. With God, you’ll see this throughout the Bible — it’s *absolute perfection* or it’s sin. And, of course, we don’t meet up to absolute perfection, so that’s why we need a Savior, in Jesus Christ. There is “sin” in every person, which leads to all these problems that we have in the human race.
With God, there *are not shadings* at all. It’s perfection or it’s sin (and we’re talking about God’s character, in terms of how He’s related it to us). Mind you, I’m not saying we meet up with that — but short of being *perfect* — we’re all destined to hell — without the Savior, Jesus Christ.
In fact, to *emphasize* the point of the matter, Jesus *really* made that point, when he said it was not simply that someone committed adultery (as one particular example) — but — if someone *merely* gave it a thought or dwelled on that idea — that was the *same thing* as if you had actually done it. The *pefection* is not only in what you do — but it’s also in what you “merely” — think.
Absolutely none of it is allowed in God’s view. But, no one meets up to that standard, as we all well know. So, that’s why we will *never* merit being with God on our own. That’s why He provided a way through Jesus Christ, by accepting Him as Savior.
So, it’s *exacting* — very exacting...
You said — “Yes he has legs, but a man on foot in that part of Iraq at night would have been cut down at that time. Did you know he was offered a free pass to the US?”
Well, I would hope he has legs... but aside from that the *story* has legs, too — and it’s “walking”...
In terms of that guy, though — I didn’t know about the pass to the U.S. Is he here now, or did he decide to stay?
*** These others that Im interested in..., theyre the people of this country and they need to be heard... ***
Well, now you’re just being obtuse and spouting the liberal talking points.
They *have* been heard and there is nothing new being said that wasn’t already known virtually immediately after the actions in question.
I will have nothing further to say to you. You’re fighting for the other team.
*** These others that Im interested in..., theyre the people of this country and they need to be heard... ***
Well, now you’re just being obtuse and spouting the liberal talking points.
They *have* been heard and there is nothing new being said that wasn’t already known virtually immediately after the actions in question.
I will have nothing further to say to you. You’re fighting for the other team.
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.