US Soldier hailed for bravery in Iraq says Pentagon spin doctors made it all up

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."

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."

You said — “Uh I keep coming back to naive. You think this is any different than any war in any time in history. Our minds work overtime raising the standards of truth. Nevertheless, you are saying you are drinking Waxman’s Koolaid.”

Well, I see many government agencies doing that kind of stuff, wartime or not. It seems to be a habit with them (and legislators, too for that matter). As far as Waxman, I’ve seen several people raise his name up, althought I haven’t heard a word he’s said on the issue. I have no idea what he’s saying. I never voted for him and if he was in my area, I wouldn’t.

But, somehow the issue of “telling the truth” — seems to be perceived as “Waxman’s territory” — for some unknown reason. I had no idea Waxman was such an advocate of the government telling the truth (or a legislator, for that matter, like I said above).

Lastly — “This sort of talk is the sort that had Jim Robinson calling you names. This is the most accurate and timely information a society has ever had in a time of war. Folks who want to complain about their mink coat being itchy can find someone to listen to the rant. That doesn’t mean that real people don’t know better than give it any mind.”

Well, you misunderstood that quote then. Robinson didn’t call me that. He called someone else that. I was just making reference to that statement from Robinson, in light of someone else’s comments.

And without getting any more bogged down in the issue, the general idea that I’m following is that it doesn’t matter what party is involved or what government agency is involved — they all better be telling the truth of the matter, whatever their area of expertise is.

If Waxman is somehow championing that idea (and I have no idea because I don’t listen to him) — well, all I can say, then (if he’s doing) is he must have been reading me on Free Republic....

You said — “Presidents are accountable to the public, Commanders-in-Chief are not and shouldn’t be. That is why that Clinton bombed Quonset Huts and Aspirin Factories, because he allowed himself to be guided by public opinion and used the military as a tool to garner approval.”

Accountable to the public and “guided by public opinion” are two completely separate things. I never said a commander was to do his job by checking back with the public all the time. But, the public will have his butt (either sooner or later) if there is an uprising against him — that’s for sure.

And that goes for the President, too.

And then — “Conservatives should never elect a person so hollow of character as to look to public opinion to gauge the correctness of a military action. A President is a fool to put his finger to the wind before talking to the Defense Sec. and the Joint Chiefs. That is why President Bush will allow his approval rating to tank in the face of doing what is right. If the President is ready to ask one Marine to fire his rifle, he must be ready to send the nuclear triad on the enemy in spite of any public concerns. That is why we give him that responsibility.”

Well, right in that first sentence, you obviously seem to think that accountable to the public is taking public opinion polls. And as I said in my first remarks, just above, accountability and running things by polls are two different things.

The rest of your comment is all about polls and I’ve never said that.

But, the public will have his butt (either sooner or later) if there is an uprising against him — that’s for sure.

We have never had an uprising against the President, well maybe once, but he fought us to unconditional surrender at Appomattox.

The President only has to obey the law. Clinton was not impeached for using our Military improperly.

I watched all the coverage of Lynch and I never saw a Military spokesperson intentionally lie about anything. I actually heard spokespersons say to reporters, "if what your fellow reporters are saying is true, then Pvt. Lynch might be a hero." Or, "we will have to wait for further information before I can answer that question." And the reporters questions are always the stupidest idiotic foolishness that cause anyone that has been in the military to cuss in private company. I saw plenty of Retired officers that voiced opinion as so called experts on behalf of the networks. The lies and drivel among that pack of jackals was astronomical.

As for the Pat Tillman event, I don't think any good is served by publicly disclosing instances of friendly fire or supposed atrocities that our military may have committed in battle. [The same goes for the Border Patrol]

The UCMJ is harsh enough on personnel without Commanders having to make rules of engagement that bring Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in greater harm to avoid public recriminations.

Gen. Sherman said "War Is Hell" (we know something about that in Georgia)! Asking our military to abide by the whims and wishes of armchair civilians is lunacy.

Have you ever seen this description of how the Normandy Invasion would be reported if it had happened today?

If Normandy Happened Today

Good Morning. It is June 4, 1944. Welcome to The Mullings Cable Network's continuing coverage of: "Operation Overlord: What's Taking So Long?" I'm Rich Rundling. Let's go first to MCN's White House reporter, Greg Smith for the latest.

SMITH: Thank you, Rich. Hill Leaders have told MCN news that an invasion of Europe is, in their words, "very, very imminent." These sources, who have been privy to briefings by the Roosevelt War Cabinet, tell us that "the number of troops, the number of ships, and the sheer size of war materiel shipments" clearly point to an invasion, possibly within the next 24 hours. Rich?

RUNDLING: Thank you, Greg. Now to the War Department and our reporter there Jim Smith. Jim? What are your sources there saying about a possible attack point?

SMITH: Well, Rich. Advisors to General Marshall are hinting at a strike at Pas de Calais, perhaps as early as tomorrow. However we believe this might well be disinformation and the real point of attack will be at Normandy. We have learned that Ranger and Airborne elements have been, in effect, rehearsing for the kind of terrain they are likely to encounter on the Normandy beaches and that Airborne units might be dropped in as early as tonight.

RUNDLING: So, Winston Churchill's famous phrase: "We shall fight on the beaches..." now must be considered as a clearly coded message to the French Resistance. For more on invasion plans, let's switch to London and our MCN reporter Eric Smith. Eric what are you hearing about where these troops may be going and when they might be going there?

SMITH: Rich, as you can see, the weather here is not good. Military meteorologists have advised SHAEF Command to stand down for at least the next 24 hours. If we can zoom in on this map behind me, you can clearly see that the combination of time and tides is most favorable for only the next 48 hours for a landing in France. Senior advisors to General Eisenhower are aware of, and very concerned with, the reports of growing impatience among many Americans with the amount of time it has taken to mount this invasion.

RUNDLING: Indeed, many here are asking why it has taken two-and-a-half years from the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 to June 1944 to reach this point. Eric, if they can't go within that window, what are Eisenhower's options?

SMITH: No good ones, Rich. Intelligence officers here in Britain are worried that if this operation has to be delayed for as long as two weeks, word will almost certainly leak to the German high command allowing them to move their defensive forces from their current location at Pas de Calais to behind the Atlantic Wall above Normandy.

RUNDLING: That would be unfortunate. Let's turn now to our MCN military analyst retired General Theodore "Teddy" Smith, the famous "Senior Señor of Santiago Bay." General, you helped design the invasion of Cuba in 1898 -- just 43 years ago -- during the Spanish-American war, what do you make of this?

SMITH: Well, Rich, I'll use this map to illustrate. Assuming our troops will try to cross these beaches here ... and ... here. And assault these cliffs... here, then they will have to be supported by a naval bombardment from... here. So, we expect the Hun is flying air reconnaissance and will bring to bear their air assets to disrupt any pre-invasion shelling as soon as Allied ships are detected in this area ... here.

RUNDLING: What about tanks, General - the Panzer Divisions of General Rommel?

SMITH: Rommel is almost certainly moving his Panzer Divisions behind the Atlantic Wall ... here ... for use in a counterattack if and when the Allied forces breach those lines.

RUNDLING: Now, to Christianne Smith on a satellite phone in the French countryside. Christianne, what can you tell us?

SMITH: Rich, there is a growing sense of apprehension here about 40 miles away from what we assume will be the point of attack on the beaches of Normandy either tomorrow or the next day. Mayor Jacques Capituler is with me. Mayor, tell our viewers how you feel about the coming invasion.

CAPITULER: We don't want to be liberated. We don't need to be liberated. The Germans have established a perfectly workable government, here. The Americans should go liberate someone else, somewhere else.

RUNDLING: The thorny issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage brought onto our living room screens from right there in France, Thank you Christianne. To ... where? Ok, to Edward Smith with the forces of General George Patton in Britain. Edward.

SMITH: Rich, I am here in Kent, England opposite the Pas de Calais just across the English Channel which, if the weather were better, you could see behind me. MCN can now confirm that the activity here in Kent, which has been named "Operation Fortitude" is, for want of a better phrase: A complete fake.

RUNDLING: Fake? Explain, please, for our viewers.

SMITH: MCN can now report that Patton has constructed, literally, a phony army here. The tanks are cardboard. The planes are rubber. The radio traffic is faked. Reports of troop movements are completely fabricated. This operation, clearly, is designed to fool the Germans in Europe and Americans back home into falsely believing that the attack -- which we now think will come tomorrow if the weather lets up -- will be aimed at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.

RUNDLING: Excellent reporting, Edward. Joining me, now, in the studio is MCN's Senior Ethics Advisor Emma Smith. Emma? What does it mean to the American way of life when their very own government engages in this kind of deliberately false and misleading information?

SMITH: The academic community has been warning for years that the American government would too easily sacrifice the truth on the altar of some alleged short-term military so-called advantage. "If the people can't trust the word of their government," many of us are asking, "then what we are fighting for in the first place?"

RUNDLING: Thank you, Emma Smith. And good luck with your exciting new book: "The Soviet Experience; Success, Solidarity, and Stalin." We have received a few e-mails from viewers expressing discomfort with General Theodore Smith's use of a word to describe our German adversaries, which, in some minds, is derogatory. MCN apologizes for the use of the "H" word on our air.

So, there you have it. The Allied Expeditionary Forces will, in fact, invade Europe not at Pas de Calais as the American public had been lead to believe, but at Normandy. And, that attack will take place either tomorrow or the next day, depending upon the weather.

This is Rich Rundling, MCN News. Now back to Imus.

You said — “We have never had an uprising against the President, well maybe once, but he fought us to unconditional surrender at Appomattox.”

I’m not talking about an armed revolution, I’m talking about his party backing off support of him, because the public is “up in arms” (again figurative), and he can’t get legislation through and has to fight public opinion — in other words “beleaguered”. And then, he’s looking at the end of his term and he can’t get political capital together to get anything done. And other things add into the equation like losing one or both parts of Congress, find that he can’t work with them any longer (as he may have once been able to do). Well..., you get the picture. The President, in that case, has got his butt up against the wall, so to speak.

And then — “The President only has to obey the law. Clinton was not impeached for using our Military improperly.”

It’s an example of how accountability works. With one President, it could be one thing that gets him, with another — it could be something else. And furthermore, just like we see with the supposed impeachment that some want to go through with now, in Congress (although it will never make it), it’s not specifically what they’re going after (in an impeachment) that may be the driving force. The impeachment can be simply a “tool” and nothing more.

Of course, when you say that the President only has to obey the law, you have to remember that some laws the President doesn’t want to obey, although he has to, but some will try to find ways around it. I’m reminded of the so-called Iran-Contra affair...

About the Jessica Lynch testimony. I still would like to see what that testimony was, in writing, somewhere. I don’t know where it is, though.

Finally — “Gen. Sherman said “War Is Hell” (we know something about that in Georgia)! Asking our military to abide by the whims and wishes of armchair civilians is lunacy.”

It might be hell, but it’s still under civilian control, and it’s going to remain that way. And that means that the public is going to have a say in it — whether it be to go to war or to stay out of it. And if they don’t like the course of the war, they’ve also got a right to say, “Get out of there!” That’s the public’s total responsibility in the matter. And if the public thinks so, then they will elect Congressmen who thinnk the same and who will demand to get out of the war. And furthermore, if the public thinks so, then they will elect a President who will do the same thing and get out of the war.

That’s always been the case and it always will.

and he can’t get legislation through and has to fight public opinion

Good! We need less legislation, not more. If the President vetoed every bill across his desk for four years we would all be much better off.

And that means that the public is going to have a say in it — whether it be to go to war or to stay out of it. And if they don’t like the course of the war, they’ve also got a right to say, “Get out of there!”

I can only pray that foolish statements such as this fall on the deaf ears of a man of principle.

Your words are the same as the dumb-masses (mind how you say it) that protested Vietnam or even stormed "The Bastille" with red kerchiefs. I think you have lived in the Pacific Northwest to long. Move back to Oklahoma and get some grit. Visit Ft. Sill and see the "Molly Pitcher" sculpture on the battle monument. Think about courage in the face of battle, instead of recriminations in the face of cowardice and ineptitude. Stop thinking like a leftest whiner.

It matters not what a Private that couldn't fire her weapon while others died has to say. It matters less what the Communist shill Henry Waxman of Kalifornia has to say. Shout it from the mountaintop that those persons wish to bring our nation to ruin and destruction. If you believe their filth for one moment I don't think you belong on this forum.

Better still, you could enlist and learn for yourself or prove me wrong by your own experience.

You said — “Have you ever seen this description of how the Normandy Invasion would be reported if it had happened today?”

No, I haven’t seen that. But, I saw “Saving Private Ryan”. Does that count?

But, the biggest problem now is simply that the public (at large) doesn’t want to continue in that war over in Iraq and probably not in Afghanistan, either. And no one really seems to want to do anything about Iran, not to say anything about Syria. So, things are really not going to go too well in the future, it seems to me.

About the only thing that would “help out” — would be a few well-placed Al Qaida nukes — wiping out a couple of U.S. cities. Then, I think the public would refocus. Short of that, look for us to get out of there in about another year or so.

We’ll probably have a Democrat for President, as the Democrats will be pandering to the Gun lobby and saying sweet-nothings in their ears. And they’ll be pandering to the “churchy” people on the religious right, to grab some of those who think that their butts in a pew count for something. With those two groups (at least the ones they can peel away), they’ll be back in power all the way around, pulling out of everything, everywhere, commending Muslims on their peace-loving ways, and we’ll be well on our way to the Al Qaida nuke attacks, coming to a city near you.

So, we can wait around for the nuke attack to refocus public attention once again — and go back in there again.... (well, that is if we don’t become too pre-occupied with the disaster that it brings, or elect a Muslim President)...

C’est la guerre...

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.