« Senator Lieberman's Speech On the Iraq Withdrawal Provision | Main | Senate Passes Military Spending Bill Now Headed for Veto »

Who Is the Source of the Jessica Lynch Hero Story?

Ray Robison at The American Thinker takes a look at the original Washington Post story on Jessica Lynch's heroic feats in Iraq and notices something no one else seems to have noticed. The story was based on an unidentified source and Army officials warned them that the information might not be reliable before they ran it. The Pentagon referred to the story as a "rumor."

So let's get this straight, The Washington Post single-sourced this story from one official that they couldn't even identify. Ask yourself why they couldn't identify a military official praising a soldier. Is that really a secret? This isn't a whistle blower or Bush Administration insider. It would more than likely be an officer or NCO at the tactical operations center if this person existed.

So why couldn't The Washington Post name the source? The answer is obvious; because the reporters don't even know who it was, or if the incident even occurred. It sounds very much like one person's ruminations in passing, chatting about rumors from unofficial sources. Then The Washington Post ran with the information despite army officials warning them about the veracity of such rumors. And this is the military's fault? Are you kidding me?

Isn't the media supposed to be superior to citizen journalists because of all the editorial safeguards and fact checking? But yet in this reporting, one unidentified source who may indeed be a fiction - a literary device to whom to attribute overheard conversation - trumped the military spokesperson. I challenge The Washington Post to identify this source so that this person can be questioned in the current proceedings.

Read Robison's entire piece to see the relevant quotes from the Washington Post story. (Hat tip Bruce Kesler)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who Is the Source of the Jessica Lynch Hero Story?:

» Sensible Mom linked with Media Darlings And The Fog Of War

» Bill's Bites linked with 2007.04.26 Media Ineptitude Roundup

Comments (52)

And we still don't have the... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

And we still don't have the full story to this day. Lynch has said that she didn't fire any shots because her rifle jammed. Having been in the military and fired the M16 I can tell you I have never heard of it jamming prior to firing the first shot. Maybe first round was a dud, but that's not a jam and it's easily cleared. A jam is caused by either a problem with expending the fired case or chambering the next round, but the chambering problem is easily cleared. The worst kind of jam is when the extractor pulls the head off the case leaving the body of the case in the chamber. That kind of jam renders the weapon useless in a combat situation, but it's a rare problem and never happens before the first shot is fired.

If the Democrats want the whole truth why aren't they asking Lynch how her rifle jammed prior to firing the first shot. What, they don't want to embarrass her or damage her reputation by showing she never attempted to return fire. Well that would be the honorable thing to do and that's what the military has done many times in the past by telling families of fallen soldier that their son died in action when the truth is something less respectable.

I believe this story grew o... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I believe this story grew out of a desire to be PC about women in the military than anything else.

that's what the military... (Below threshold)
Brian:

that's what the military has done many times in the past by telling families of fallen soldier that their son died in action when the truth is something less respectable.

So you approve of institutionalized lying? Incredible.

Brian, READ what Mac said. ... (Below threshold)
mojo:

Brian, READ what Mac said. He doesn't approve of institutionalized lying. Low marks on your reading comprehension. Incredibly low.

Uh, mojo, take your own adv... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Uh, mojo, take your own advice.

Brian,So you want ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

So you want the Democrates to expose Lynch's lie? If not, then you must be for institutionalized lying yourself. Incredible, particularly from those belonging to the party that thinks it was ok for Clinton to lie to the American people about sex in the Oval office.

Now that you are off your phony indignation, people lie all the time to spare other's unnecessary pain. Next time some woman asks you how well she looks tell her the truth or get off your high horse. Rather than just say someone was killed in action you would have the Military tell some grieving family that their son panicked under fire and got himself killed when he didn't follow orders. What the Democrats are all about is gaining political power at any cost. Shame on them.

Brian:Uh, mojo... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

Uh, mojo, take your own advice.

Turned your "talents" to satirical writing I see.

So you want the Democrat... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So you want the Democrates to expose Lynch's lie?

First of all, you're the only one I've heard of who is accusing her of lying. Given the greater military experts than you who are available to Congress and the media, I'm going along on the presumption that you're mistaken.

Next time some woman asks you how well she looks tell her the truth or get off your high horse.

Wow, you equate a white lie between individuals over vanity with institutional lying by the US military to soldiers, families of soldiers, Congress, and the American people. Go tell the Tillman family to "get off their high horse". I say again... incredible.

What the Democrats are all about is gaining political power at any cost.

Yes, "at any cost". Even if it means exposing the truth!

Whereas what the Republicans are all about is looking good at any cost, even at the expense of the truth.

Turned your "talents" to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Turned your "talents" to satirical writing I see.

No, just to relevant and comprehensible writing... you know, to balance out others like you.

Of course, if you still think mojo's correct in stating that I misinterpreted Mac, even with Mac's additional comments solidifying his point, then perhaps you and mojo can work together on improving your comprehension skills.

I believe this story gr... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I believe this story grew out of a desire to be PC about women in the military than anything else.

I agree. And you can thank liberals for that. The birthplace of the PC movement.

The military lies all the t... (Below threshold)
Ben:

The military lies all the time.

And thank god they do. Deception is part of the art of war. May they lie well, and lie often, and confound and confuse the enemy. What is a camoflauge uniform, after all, but a lie woven into cloth? Institionalized lying, done when the situation calls for it, has saved a lot of lives.

And if every now and then they tell a "white lie" (ie, a lie told to make people feel better) and cause no real harm in doing so, well, anyone who claims they don't support things like that is either a liar himself, or autistic.

There is a time and a place for all things.

Ben

Whereas what the Republ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Whereas what the Republicans are all about is looking good at any cost, even at the expense of the truth.

Brian
(Editor of The Onion)

Too funny.

Why Brian's really projecti... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Why Brian's really projecting today.

The sick and twisted part of this whole thing is that the Democrats are trying to tie the Lynch thing with the Tillman thing when they are totally different and unrelated situation.

They support the military, they just want to do everything in their power to harm the military and make it look bad.

Democrats are all about loo... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Democrats are all about looking good at any cost, even to the expense of their country.

Give me an S
Give me a U
Give me an R
Give me another R
Give me an E
Give me an N
Give me a D
Give me an E
Give me an R

What's that spell? What's that spell?
D.E.M.O.C.R.A.T.

Losers & wussies. All of 'em.

I meant "Wow, Brian's reall... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I meant "Wow, Brian's really..." not "Why Brian's really..."

Sorry 'bout that.

Brian: "Even if it means ex... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Brian: "Even if it means exposing the truth!"

This truth, like the truth about Tillman, was exposed a long time ago, and by the very military that is being castigated today.

In the Tillman case, the family was initially given a false explanation of how he was killed. However, a scant 5 weeks later, that same military told the family that Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

That was 3 years ago.

Yep. Thank God Waxman is re-exposing this already exposed truth from 3 years ago.

"I believe this story grew ... (Below threshold)

"I believe this story grew out of a desire to be PC about women in the military than anything else."

"I agree. And you can thank liberals for that. The birthplace of the PC movement."

I disagree. Not that there isn't a strong PC element to talking about women in the military, but that it was the motivation behind the way the story about Jessica Lynch was reported.

I don't believe that it's any more complicated than the need for Journalism to have a "hook." Reporters want more than anything else to have a way to personalize a story. For that they need a person. A frail looking blond female person, quite a contrast to faceless, hulking, masculine war, is almost too good a hook to pass up. It's theater. It's drama. A damsel in distress or Xena warrior princess... who the heck cares?

Mac, I think that focusing on her supposed "jammed" weapon is a bit much. She doesn't present herself as doing anything heroic. Apparently she didn't take care of her weapon either. I thought that getting sand in them was a common problem. Why is it hard to believe she couldn't fire it? I don't remember the words she used but she says she handed her weapon to the guy next to her to see if he could fix it. It doesn't sound to me like they were in an active firefight at the time, just getting ready for one.

And as I said in a comment on Blackfive, I'm sure she gets tired of being criticized for failing to pull combat infantry training she'd never had out of her *ss.

In this case the PCness is a plague on both houses because, when it comes to women soldiers, who made the rules? If the rules are that women are not allowed to fight, how is the criticism that they don't behave properly under fire valid? Self-identity as a soldier gets to be this limited, crippled, thing. And then who's fault is it that it's crippled?

Synova: "In this case the P... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Synova: "In this case the PCness is a plague on both houses because, when it comes to women soldiers, who made the rules?"

Congress

Synova: "the rules are that women are not allowed to fight, how is the criticism that they don't behave properly under fire valid?"

Lynch received weapons and basic infantry training just like every other soldier. No excuse for the gun jamming.

However, it is highly possible that given the rules and regs governing "Women in Combat" that she was not really "ready" to engage the enemy.

wasn't there a video of the... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

wasn't there a video of the rescue to accompany the story?

who produced that piece I wonder?

Brian,Fir... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

First of all, you're the only one I've heard of who is accusing her of lying. Given the greater military experts than you who are available to Congress and the media, I'm going along on the presumption that you're mistaken.

The problem with you is that you are letting someone else do your thinking for you. Even if you don't know squat about guns it's pretty obvious they don't jam BEFORE you fire the first shot. The reason Lynch's lie hasn't been exposed is that before she became a tool of the Democrats, it served no purpose to expose her lie.

Wow, you equate a white lie between individuals over vanity with institutional lying by the US military to soldiers, families of soldiers, Congress, and the American people.

Cut the crap about there being individual lies and institutional lies. A lie is a lie and it's told by one or more people to one or more other people. Even so called white lies can be told for selfish reasons. Maybe the woman is your boss and you lie not to spare her feelings but for your own gain. Is it really a white lie then? The Military has been telling families lies about how their loved ones died for generations rather than demeaning their dead with the truth. Only dim witted lefties think this is something new or only happens when Republicans are in office.

Losers & wussies. All of... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Losers & wussies. All of 'em.

Good point, Sock Puppet Jo! Though since you're referring to "losers", I think you meant to refer to the Republicans, not Democrats (who, if you weren't paying attention, won). Enjoy the rest of your day in fantasyland!

Yep. Thank God Waxman is... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yep. Thank God Waxman is re-exposing this already exposed truth from 3 years ago.

And did the military reveal 3 years ago that a soldier was ordered to conceal the truth? Did it reveal 3 years ago that it never bothered conducting a proper investigation? Did it reveal 3 years ago that the top brass knew the truth at the same time they were peddling the falsehood? And 3 years later, what punitive actions were taken against those involved?

Geez, you'll suspend all critical thought when this administration tells you to, won't you?

You go tell the Tillman family that this was all over 3 years ago.

Synova,Ma... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Synova,

Mac, I think that focusing on her supposed "jammed" weapon is a bit much. She doesn't present herself as doing anything heroic.

I only bring up Lynch's lie because she has become a tool of the Democrats who say they seek only the truth. Well, what about the truth behind one of their main props?

Apparently she didn't take care of her weapon either. I thought that getting sand in them was a common problem. Why is it hard to believe she couldn't fire it?

Maybe it's because I have been in the military and have some experience with the M16 and other guns. Had Lynch said she fired one round and then her rifle jammed I would have no questions. What sticks out is that she's saying her rifle jammed before she fired any shots. If you are in a war zone you would have your rifle ready with a round in the chamber and the safety on. No jam of any kind I know of would prevent the first round from being fired.

I don't remember the words she used but she says she handed her weapon to the guy next to her to see if he could fix it.

Was that before or after he was killed? Just saying, a dead witness is no witness.

It doesn't sound to me like they were in an active firefight at the time, just getting ready for one.

So you think she was trying to fire her weapon before they were under attack? And still not even the first round would fire. Maybe there's nothing to it, but there's enough material there that if the Democrats wanted to they could make Lynch out to look like a liar and a coward. Maybe Lynch knew that and that's why she went along with the Democrats. Makes sense, I don't expect the Democrats to be above blackmail.

The problem with you is ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The problem with you is that you are letting someone else do your thinking for you.

In matters in which I'm not educated, of course I do. I'm open to hearing what any and all firearms experts have to say. But so far you're the only one saying what you're saying, so that makes it easy to not think it's likely.

Besides, you have no knowledge of what the "first shot" is that you're referring to. She could have fired one shot off an hour earlier, or the previous day, and the gun jammed after THAT shot. She could have failed to properly inspect and prepare her weapon before the patrol. Her finger could have slipped off the trigger, and she incorrectly assumed it was a jam. You could be completely and utterly wrong in your claim. Who knows? Not me, not you. But it's not relevant.

Only dim witted lefties think this is something new or only happens when Republicans are in office.

I think, nor have I suggested, neither. But even if you think it's OK to lie to avoid "demeaning their dead with the truth" (whatever that means), what do you think about those who lie to cover their asses or to engage in a bogus PR campaign?

Brian, sock puppetry is a c... (Below threshold)

Brian, sock puppetry is a charge I take very seriously. And I did a quick check -- "jo" is posting from an IP that has never been used by any other name.

Knock it off, huh?

J.

Thanks Jay. I just read th... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Thanks Jay. I just read that comment and was going ask Brian what he was basing that claim on. Maybe he is confused about what the term means?

Independent of the facts of... (Below threshold)

Independent of the facts of the Lynch matter or anything else, are the lefties here that condemn "institutional lying" suggesting that it is immoral to prepresent to the survivors of a dead soldier that he died "with honor" if they know damn well that he was shot in the back running away from an engagement?

Just wondering if there is any "gray area" here that requires the recognition of judgment or nuance.

In this case, Mac, I think ... (Below threshold)

In this case, Mac, I think you're bordering on silly.

"If you are in a war zone you would have your rifle ready with a round in the chamber and the safety on. No jam of any kind I know of would prevent the first round from being fired."

Funny. Scuttlebut I heard was if you're in the Army it's a wonder if they even give you ammo.

What *ought* to be isn't always so. Why do you take as an absolute (rifle ready, round in the chamber) when the entire event was such a cluster f**k from beginning to end? And getting all worked up about "jammed". As if people don't utterly insist on using the word "clip." Is that lying too if someone claims they put a clip in a weapon that takes magazines? What her biography says is that she was attempting to chamber the round (that you insist absolutely had to have been chambered all along) and it didn't work. Is there a special non-jammed word for that? Please do share.

Brian,Bes... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Besides, you have no knowledge of what the "first shot" is that you're referring to. She could have fired one shot off an hour earlier, or the previous day, and the gun jammed after THAT shot. She could have failed to properly inspect and prepare her weapon before the patrol. Her finger could have slipped off the trigger, and she incorrectly assumed it was a jam. You could be completely and utterly wrong in your claim. Who knows? Not me, not you. But it's not relevant.

It's obvious you don't have a clue about weapons like the M16 because if you did you would know how silly your excuses are. It's also obvious you have never been in a combat zone or even in danger from people out to kill you. Your explanations might hold water if Lynch was out on the farm shooting varmints with a single shot or bolt action rifle or if Lynch was perfectly incompetent with her rifle. Other than that her statements don't add up.

I think, nor have I suggested, neither. But even if you think it's OK to lie to avoid "demeaning their dead with the truth" (whatever that means), what do you think about those who lie to cover their asses or to engage in a bogus PR campaign?

As I pointed out a lie is a lie, but it's the motivation behind the lie that makes it white or not. The Military lied and that's a fact, but what was the motivation? The Democrats paint the worst possible picture while some Republicans paint the best possible picture. Likely the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. Friendly fire incidents are often initially reported as enemy action because unless it's obvious to the contrary, that's the usual and expected case. It can take time to sort out the facts, but that's what the military did and set the record straight.

I condemn lying for selfish motives, but I also recognize that the truth is not always apparent in the fog of war. If it were, there would be no friendly fire incidents in the first place. The Democrats are just using the military as a whipping boy thinking they are somehow gaining votes, but I expect their selfish motives will do them great damage.

Brian: "And did the militar... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Brian: "And did the military reveal 3 years ago that a soldier was ordered to conceal the truth?"

I believe that came out about a year ago. I'll go look it up.

Brian: "Did it reveal 3 years ago that it never bothered conducting a proper investigation?"

This is nonsensical. There were several investigations, but the point remains (and try to let this sink in Brian): 5 weeks after Tillman's death, his family was informed that he was killed by friendly fire. 5 weeks after. In the middle of a war. With troops conducting combat operations in the mountains of Afghanistan. With just about 99% of the focus on continuing operations. 5 weeks till the family was told the truth about friendly fire. As someone who served over 20years, I can tell you, that ain't bad.

Brian: "Did it reveal 3 years ago that the top brass knew the truth at the same time they were peddling the falsehood?"

Uh, by definition, yes. 3 years ago, the family was told that Tillman had died from friendly fire. That means that the higher ups knew at least by that time. Subsequent investigations discovered that top brass had known sooner than that. Which is why a couple of those guys will be going down for creating a PR screw-up where none need have occurred.

Brian: "And 3 years later, what punitive actions were taken against those involved?"

I'm waiting to see that as well. Frankly, I'm betting the Army was hoping that this would all just go away, given that a couple of senior guys had clearly not allowed the truth to pass through to the family until 5 weeks after Tillman's death. I'm not surprised really, given what I know about how after-action combat reports are written and what the flow of information is like in the middle of a war for a Flag Staff. Looks like a couple of guys were doing what they probably thought was a good thing.

Hindsight: always 20/20.

Synova,In... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Synova,

In this case, Mac, I think you're bordering on silly.

Well it wouldn't be the first time and likely won't be the last.

Funny. Scuttlebut I heard was if you're in the Army it's a wonder if they even give you ammo.

Now that would be something the Democrats could really damage the military over, so we know that couldn't have been the case given no mention of that during the show investigation

What her biography says is that she was attempting to chamber the round (that you insist absolutely had to have been chambered all along) and it didn't work. Is there a special non-jammed word for that? Please do share.

Well there are two possibilities, either she's lying or she's utterly incompetent with her rifle. Maybe the army is totally different for women than it is for men, but for an army men not to have his rifle ready for action in a combat zone seems far fetched. They weren't on the front lines, but they sure knew they were in enemy territory, yet we are supposed to believe they didn't even check their weapons until they were fighting for their lives. That story doesn't pass the smell test.

What bother's me is that Lynch knows what it's like to be in battle even if she didn't fight and she knows what it's like to have her fellow solders come and rescue her. Yet she lets the Democrats use her to damage the military she served in. Is she that naive or does she hold a grudge against the military for sending her to Iraq? If Lynch had earned any respect she lost it this week.

I don't think that they did... (Below threshold)

I don't think that they didn't have ammo! It was just a half-joke someone I know made when he was saying why to join the Marines. I'm confident that whatever truth there was to it has loooong since been corrected. None-the-less the Marine thing is that *everyone* gets infantry training. The Army... not so much. (We won't mention the Air Force except to say I've got no illusions.) My understanding is that *at that time* the Army had not yet adjusted to the "there is no front lines" reality of this war.

I find it easy to believe that a supply convoy would have very little combat training and no real expectation of finding themselves in a combat situation, no matter how foolish we now know that to be.

And I think that it *is* different from women than for men, though that's a mostly separate issue. It's why I said farther up that the PCness is a bane on both houses. On the one hand we're supposed to make the right noises about women soldiers. On the other hand there isn't a warrior tradition for women to look to or identify with. To a large extent what we've got is the ladies auxiliary.

Ignoring physical limitations is silly, but the idea that females shouldn't do jobs that they can do *well* just because they are co-located with combat troops is crippling. The mental is to the physical... how much?

I wanted to mention Sgt. Hester as a warrior role model for women soldiers. Then I started to wonder... do women military police still run the sort of missions that she was on, or did someone freak out that we put girl soldiers out there with guns and make the Army stop?

Do you know? Because I have no idea.

Yes, the congressional test... (Below threshold)

Yes, the congressional testimony stuff was disappointing. Granted, I didn't watch it. Don't want to watch it, either. I've heard that she was whiny and embarrassing and I've heard that she came across well and supportive of the Army. If she thinks that the military was promoting her as a hero and fanning the media flame... she heard that second hand.

I did get the feeling from her book (hey, it was on sale and I had *refused* to watch anything about her on television so about a year ago I bought it) that she really did not like the attention at all and was upset to have it when she felt that Lori deserved so much more.

Brian, sock puppetry is ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, sock puppetry is a charge I take very seriously. And I did a quick check -- "jo" is posting from an IP that has never been used by any other name. Knock it off, huh?

I never cast baseless aspersions. And weren't you the least bit intrigued by the fact that given the large number of times I've called her on it she's never once denied it?

Thanks Jay. I just read that comment and was going ask Brian what he was basing that claim on. Maybe he is confused about what the term means?

Nope, not confused at all.

It's obvious you don't h... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's obvious you don't have a clue about weapons like the M16 because if you did you would know how silly your excuses are.

Nope, I don't a clue at all, and I stated such. Though others seem to, and regardless of how unlikely or "silly" you find one particular suggestion, the point stands clear that there are many explanations for what she said that are nowhere near the "lies" of which you accuse her.

Hey Brian, someone once sug... (Below threshold)

Hey Brian, someone once suggested that *I* was a sock puppet of Jo.

Might that have been you?

I never denied it either... I just laughed because stupid people are funny.

'twasn't me. But the basis ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

'twasn't me. But the basis of my calling Jo out wasn't suspicion, but evidence.

Brian,Nop... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Nope, I don't a clue at all, and I stated such. Though others seem to, and regardless of how unlikely or "silly" you find one particular suggestion, the point stands clear that there are many explanations for what she said that are nowhere near the "lies" of which you accuse her.

I'm not sure who these "others" are that you refer to as your source. Experts who say nothing don't support or refute a given point. I think there's a lack of interest in outing Lynch because it serves no political purpose and would actually backfire if someone of some notoriety made the point. Maybe she couldn't chamber the first round because of some prior failure of the rifle, but that only means she was totally oblivious to the danger and totally incompetent with her weapon. Obviously, women don't get the same kind of training with their weapon as men do in the Army and that's a major blunder on the Army's part.

I will present my own milit... (Below threshold)
LJD:

I will present my own military experience and confirm what Mac has said. All of these soldiers had the training and damn well should have had an operable weapon. They were also trained to resolve stoppages of any type. It is ridiculous to think that the weapon "jammed" prior to having a round in it.

That said, perhaps any number of things happened from dropping the magazine, fear, or what have you. I guess she deserves some slack on that for what she's been through.

I get a real kick out of the lefties posting about this open and truthful military concept. I'm sure their communist ideals would have been well served in the open and honest ranks of the former Soviet Union or China. LOL

First off, the whole Jessic... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

First off, the whole Jessica Lynch story was a total media fabrication. I believe it started with USA Today. No one in the military said she was heroic in the press. Only in the generic sense. I would like to know if anyone can site a military source by name about the Lynch heroics at the time. Blond girl captured then rescued by special forces is just too good of a story to let it stand on it's own. The media added the drama of shooting the enemy,etc. Prove me wrong.

The democrats never miss an opportunity to go after the military. Never. ww

"I challenge The Washi... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"I challenge The Washington Post to identify this source so that this person can be questioned in the current proceedings."

Hah! Still waiting for that picture of Jamil Hussein, too?

I'm not sure who these "... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I'm not sure who these "others" are that you refer to as your source.

Well, Synova, and now LJD, seem to have made reasonable points.

I think there's a lack of interest in outing Lynch because...

No, there's a lack of interest because it's immaterial. If the issue under investigation were why she did not return fire, then her explanation would surely be examined more thoroughly. But it's not.

Brian,Wel... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Well, Synova, and now LJD, seem to have made reasonable points.

I didn't see anything in Synova's posts that would indicate she has experience in military weapons. LJD does and he says "I will present my own military experience and confirm what Mac has said."

These comments were also made after you posted your reference to "other" experts. I've noticed that other lefties also have trouble with the concept of cause and effect or the flow of time from the past to the current. They often use hindsight to claim some past action was wrong as if they knew that at the time.

No, there's a lack of interest because it's immaterial. If the issue under investigation were why she did not return fire, then her explanation would surely be examined more thoroughly. But it's not.

It's only immaterial because the Democrats are not interested in seeking the whole truth. If they were they might be forgiven for their shameful behavior.

B-How can you say th... (Below threshold)
LJD:

B-
How can you say the story is an example of the governemnt or "insitutional" lying, and in the next breath say it is immaterial?

It's only immaterial bec... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's only immaterial because the Democrats are not interested in seeking the whole truth. If they were they might be forgiven for their shameful behavior.

Yes, absolutely. If the Democrats wanted the "whole truth", they would investigate what she had for breakfast that day, and which clothes she put on first, and how may squares of TP she used. Instead, they are focusing on the things that are actually relevant to the inquiry. It doesn't matter if her gun jammed, she froze in fear, or if she was too busy cramming a jelly donut to even bother picking it up. It is irrelevant to the investigation.

Just for comparison, the definition of perjury is "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding". Why she didn't fire is not material. What happened after is.

I've noticed that other ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I've noticed that other lefties also have trouble with the concept of cause and effect or the flow of time from the past to the current. They often use hindsight to claim some past action was wrong as if they knew that at the time.

Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 04:54 PM
Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 08:38 PM
Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 11:25 PM

Posted by: Brian at April 26, 2007 11:56 PM

Perhaps I'm just using hindsight, but I believe 11:56PM is after all those other times.

How can you say the stor... (Below threshold)
Brian:

How can you say the story is an example of the governemnt or "insitutional" lying, and in the next breath say it is immaterial?

Wow, I've never had my statements so completely misunderstood before. Please reread what you thought you were understanding. The particular reason she didn't fire is immaterial. If she broke down and admitted she froze from fear, that would not change the investigation in any way. The "institutional lying" was perpetrated by the government in the aftermath of both her and Tillmans' experiences.

Posted by: Synova at April ... (Below threshold)

Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 04:54 PM
Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 08:38 PM
Posted by: Synova at April 26, 2007 11:25 PM

What? I am very confused.

And Mac is right. I don't claim any experience with military weapons. I was, after all, in the Air Force. ;-)

What I said was that others... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What I said was that others (like you, in those posts I cited) had ideas about why a weapon could jam other than Mac's explanation of "she's lying". The exact words were "seem to (my words) have a clue about weapons (Mac's words)."

Brian,It ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

It doesn't matter if her gun jammed, she froze in fear, or if she was too busy cramming a jelly donut to even bother picking it up. It is irrelevant to the investigation.

It goes to the credibility of the witness. If she lied about her own actions she's in no position to expound on the alleged lies of others.

Just for comparison, the definition of perjury is "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding."

The Democrats are not investigating perjury they are investigating lying.

Why she didn't fire is not material. What happened after is.

Firing or not firing may not be material but lying about it is. Lynch wrote a book about it and her account about her gun jamming doesn't make sense. Any honest inquirer then has to wonder what else in her story is incorrect. Don't be so dense.

Brian,You started ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

You started out referring to real but unnamed and silent experts in the following two posts.

"Given the greater military experts than you who are available to Congress and the media, I'm going along on the presumption that you're mistaken." - Brian at April 26, 2007 03:56 PM
"I'm open to hearing what any and all firearms experts have to say." - Brian at April 26, 2007 06:51 PM

In your 11:56 PM post you user the term "others" which you defined before as military and firearms experts. Here's that post.

"Nope, I don't a clue at all, and I stated such. Though others seem to,. . ." - Brian at April 26, 2007 11:56 PM

Then in your April 27, 2007 11:58 AM post you include LJD, but his post came at April 27, 2007 07:34 AM, which is AFTER your "others" post, so you couldn't have been referring to him. That leaves only Synova, which you now claim as your source, yet Synova refutes being an expert on firearms. The only other person on this thread who claims such knowledge is LDJ and he explicitly supports my position about Lynch's "my gun jammed" story not making any sense.

The problems is that we are now arguing about the argument itself. Now that's silly and being it's Friday night I have better things to do.

LDJ and he explicitly su... (Below threshold)
Brian:

LDJ and he explicitly supports my position about Lynch's "my gun jammed" story not making any sense.

And he also supports my position that it doesn't matter at all. All hail LDJ!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy