McG - it might help us if you included the dates of the articles you cite, since the story has unfolded over time from the story of a "missile attack" to that of a "crash".
...and its not too odd to me that you could only find articles to support the administration's contention that the vehicle was attacked. I think you'd have trouble finding George Bush's boot up your butt, unless he wiggled his toes. Even then you'd probably apologize for sitting in the wrong place.
I have read again and again that her vehicle struck another, this is the first time i've read that it was struck by an RPG--which is why i asked.
Tartarin,
It's impossible to avoid being accused of misleading. It shouldn't be intentional but for many people anything short of saying "we are gonna go to war for oil" would be interpreted as misleading.
Thing is, I vehemently objected to the war but not for a minute do I believe it was just about oil.
What I'm talking about here is that the rescue footage was misleading, it was edited to make it seem exiting.
That's not a lie nor do I think it's wrong. In the particular case I think there were a few lies and a lot of the rest is people interpreting it the way they want to.
You know, Lovey, irony usually shoots right by the Shrub's cheerleaders . . .
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/11/1057783331778.html
"It said Lynch was seriously injured when the vehicle she was in crashed into the back of another vehicle at high speed and was later captured, refuting earlier, unconfirmed reports that she had been shot or stabbed while resisting."
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/252838.htm
Setanta wrote:I have read again and again that her vehicle struck another, this is the first time i've read that it was struck by an RPG--which is why i asked.
Look for the Post's June 17th corrections. They published the best article on Lynch thus far on that day. it was called: "A Broken Body, a Broken Story, Pieced Together"
The Humvee was hit on the driver's side by an RPG and then crashed.
Nemind looking for the article, I finally found it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2760-2003Jun16?language=printer
Lynch's unit, the 507th Maintenance Company, was ambushed outside Nasiriyah after taking several wrong turns. Army investigators believe this happened in part because superiors never passed on word that the long 3rd Infantry Division column that the convoy was following had been rerouted. At times, the 507th was 12 hours behind the main column and frequently out of radio contact.
Lynch was riding in a Humvee when it plowed into a jackknifed U.S. truck. She suffered major injuries, including multiple fractures and compression to her spine, that knocked her unconscious, military sources said. The collision killed or gravely injured the Humvee's four other passengers.
The above was lifted right out of the article you provided, Craven. Where's the RPG? It says the convoy was attacked, but that the injuries and deaths occured because they frikkin ran into each other!
I don't get the fuss about the RPG, but here is a quote from the same article:
Washington Post wrote:A U.S. tractor-trailer with a flatbed swerved around an Iraqi dump truck and jackknifed. As Dowdy's speeding Humvee approached the overturned tractor-trailer, it was hit on the driver's side by a rocket-propelled grenade. The driver, Piestewa, lost control of the Humvee, swerved right and struck the trailer.
i've seen references to the rpg in a few of the articles. i spoke to some of the ex-military folks here. they say the rpg shouldn't really have done enough damage to the humvee to cause the accident. they think the driver was probably very inexperienced and was startled by the rpg. Startled and driving a humvee at 40 mph is dangerous when you don't know where you are.
well, there we go. looks about the same as our trucking guys were just telling me.
It's not really a fuss, CdK, but it does change the character which the administration has always tried to give events, in that they've protrayed an heroic Lynch surviving a hot firefight . . . it matters only in the degree to which the boys and girls in the Pentagon's Facts as We Insist You Believe Them department are able to spin the entire event . . . i'm am also left to wonder from whence their particular details, if Lynch's companions were killed, and she is claiming not to remember . . .
That is a very good synopsis.
Okay, I found it. The "Fuss" is that they were trying to pass off the injuries she sustained in the collision as having been inflicted on her whilst she was battling for her life, B-movie style. whether the vehicle she rode in was struck by a shell was relevant, because its still unclear how much was embellished, and how much not.
Ok, gotcha, under fire versus foolish collision. It does make a difference in perception.
The article I linked to is the most accurate I'm aware of thus far. It paints a pretty good picture and goes into a level of detail that only an embarassed newspaper (the Post was doing damage control with that aricle) does.
So, now that we all agree on the story, is there an OFFICIAL administration press release that says anything different? No "unnamed" sources, or "Anonimous officials". But an official briefing.
Yeah, I get it now Snood. I know she was not injured by hostile fire but having read that article months ago I'd been aware of the underfire element. I thought the fuss was about under fire AND hit by RPG or under fire and no RPG.
Turns out we were talking about being under fire at all.
The B movie stuff is quite common. There are even whole studies being conducted right now on why all these M-16s are jamming at the most inopportune moments.
A pity that the main study is pointing at sand.
As soon as they crawl out from under their desks, they'll be right at that briefing.
I know. That's mean.
But it does kind of feel that way sometimes. Come out - speak boldly - hide when challenged - come back out, and whisper the truth, when you think everyone has forgotten your original story. (the 'you' is gov't talking heads)
McGentrix wrote:So, now that we all agree on the story, is there an OFFICIAL administration press release that says anything different? No "unnamed" sources, or "Anonimous officials". But an official briefing.
McGentrix,
You got right to the point.
No, there was no clear point in which the apocryphal elements of the story were introduced. Some "officials" did say things but they were repeating reports.
Where the apocryphal elements were inserted has not been determined and I'm betting we won't know.
But there is little doubt that it was intentional. There have been indications that even point to an admission of that.
Maybe we should ask Pat Roberts which military officials briefed him on this back in April.
