« Murder of a Culture | Main | Teamsters Link With Anti-Labor Group »

April 16, 2003

Myth of Saving Private Lynch

From a Murdoch paper-- read this story on the unheroic and almost murderous story of the "rescue" of Private Lynch.

Posted by Nathan at April 16, 2003 11:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


All I have is tow letters about this story..........B and S.
-Robert S. Morgan

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 16, 2003 12:40 PM

Mr. Morgan-- you are starting to commit a sin worse than rudeness-- namely contributing nothing of interest to the discussion. If you have evidence to dispute the story or an argument to reinterpret the evidence presented, please supply it. Otherwise, this is an official moderation mandate to either substantiate your statements or hold your breath (and typing).

Posted by: Nathan Newman at April 16, 2003 12:43 PM

"She was very frightened when she woke up,” Dr Harith, 24, a junior resident at the hospital, said. “She kept saying: ‘Please don’t hurt me, don’t touch me.’ I told her that she was safe, she was in a hospital and that I was a doctor, and I never hurt a patient."
Well, if she was conscious, then she can substantiate a good portion of this story, which would demolish the version told in the US media. I guess the Iraqi doctor could get her boyfriend's name from news reports, I'm sure they covered it. I tend to think this is true - it's fairly detailed - but if so, there will be considerable pressure of various kinds on Lynch not to confirm it. An interesting moral test. If she does confirm it, don't hold your breath waiting for US media coverage.
Of course, it is possible that the doctor's story is a complete fabrication. Then we can expect Lynch to say so when she eventually speaks to the media. It is just starting to be a little odd that she hasn't said a single word.

Posted by: John Isbell at April 16, 2003 04:01 PM

I also think Mr. Morgan's comments are DOUBLE B & S. So I win. Neener-neener.
This method will vastly simplify discussion in comments.

John Isbell.

Posted by: John Isbell at April 16, 2003 04:07 PM

I wonder if Mr Morgan is our previous friend Jack Stephens returned under a different guise.

Sorry, it's a cheap shot, I know (but I couldn't help noticing some similarities). I submit myself for an official reprimand if deemed appropriate (and apologies to Mr Morgan if I am wrong).

Posted by: Carl at April 16, 2003 07:14 PM

Somehow I doubt she would even be capable of verifying the story. I mean think about it, she had no idea of what was going on in other parts of the hospital where the staff and patients were terrorized and she was probably little conscious of what was even happening in the room around her other than to register surprise and elation at the prospect of rescue. She was probably focused on the one soldier who was primarily responsible for her or the few soldiers who were carrying her out and wasn't capable of observing and understanding much of what was happening outside of her immediate sphere.

Posted by: Barry Freed at April 17, 2003 03:24 AM

Barry, you've got to read the link. She has extensive conversations with the doctor. If she did, I think she'll remember.
Your version - that she was mostly unconscious - is what I thought until I read this. I'd like to hear her debunk it.

Posted by: John Isbell at April 17, 2003 06:43 PM

It seems to me this board is quick to be skeptical of our superb president, yet is not at all skeptical about a reporter who you know nothing about.
Well, my friends, let me enlighten you. If this R.L. Perry is your example of a credible journalist, no wonder you have the opinions you have. I took the time to look up a bio on this guy. EVERY article he has written is anti-American and Anti-military. I will not give him any credence till Pfc. Lynch or someone else confirms it.
This all comes down to one critical issue. The great majority of you came into this war already biased against the military. So when some two-bit Anti-American journalist shows up, you all jump up and say "a ha! I know it was all a hoax".
The truth is if you all want to believe a lie, go ahead. This is a story about bravery in the face of danger and you want to turn it into something twisted to fit your own opinions of the war.
To Mr. Newman specifically, I respect you entirely as someone who cares about our government and the way it is run. I dissagree entirely with your views most of time, but I understand disagreement is an essential part of a democracy. The reason I said what I said was because things like this go beyond respectful criticsm. Brave men and women are fighting and dying out there. When this guy try's to paint the rescuer's as barbarians, he should be ashamed for the rest of his life (not counting the other articles he has written). -Robert S. Morgan

P.S.-No, I'm not Jack Stephens, but thats O.K., carl, I do sound a lot like him sometimes.

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 18, 2003 11:00 PM

Robert, judging from articles of Parry's from the Times itself, there is a bias against the US as well as the military, but his reporting is in no way anti-American. The same twisted logic would make any story regarding wartime suffering in Iraq anti-American. Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian wrote a moving piece about the water shortage in Basra. Is he somehow anti-American because he reported a problem precipitated by US/British action? Then there was Richard Sisk. He had the nerve to report about the US Military supporting the selling of water to thirsty people in Umm Qasr. I think it's pretty obvious that this man hates America.
Press freedom is one thing people tend to enjoy in western democracies, so labelling something false because it does not fit into your view of the world is hardly productive. Besides, if we didn't have such freedoms there would be absolutely no reason for those terrorists to hate us, now would there?

Posted by: Micah Lanier at April 19, 2003 05:34 AM

"EVERY article he has written is anti-American and Anti-military."

"So when some two-bit Anti-American journalist shows up, you all jump up and say "a ha! I know it was all a hoax"."

Define "anti-American" for me. Someone who disagrees with you? Is there a single measure of being an American? If so, it doesn't sound very pluralistic to me.

Posted by: Dennis Perrin at April 19, 2003 10:31 AM

I just want to know who threw the US flag over her for the photo op as they carried her out on the stretcher. My Mother was a VFW lady. One of the ones who went to the schools to teach people how to respect the flag. I think she must have turned a few times in her grave if she knew about that little incident.

Lets see... I wonder if the Iraqi hospitals use US flags for bedding... hmmm prolly not.

Do the marine units carry them to use as blankets... hmmmm prolly not.


Posted by: Mother of Blog Baby at April 28, 2003 05:30 AM

Re Pte. Lynch--the Reality and the Myth--you may be interested in having the Times story corroborated by a similar story in the Toronto Star. It was published about two weeks after the Times Story, but the journalist interviewed a number of the same people.

Of course, coming as it does from a Canadian source, some will be all too ready to dismiss it out of hand. But I trust that in time, the truth will become clear.

An interesting note: we now hear of her "amnesia." I'm sure she has no memory of some of the early events. But now we are also told that she suffers from a kind of "vacillating" amnesia. How convenient a cover for future "revelations." She or the authorities can invoke a kind of free-floating amnesia to erase any part of the story.

Here's the URL for the Star report. If it doesn't come through, go to thestar.com and type "Private Lynch" in the search box.



Posted by: George Vandervelde at May 7, 2003 12:29 PM

Our Aussie newspapers have featured the British story on the front pages, from several different sources. And none of them are anti-American - remember that we were only one of two other countries to send troops to Iraq in support of our American friends, similarly in Vietnam years ago.

Posted by: Vic Wyatt at May 18, 2003 10:45 PM

Just read the article linked above and the one published in the Guardian. Though the news sources not run by the Pentagon agree that the rescue was staged, there is still conflicting info: was the hospital under military command up until the "rescue" or not? Did Lynch have wounds from gun fire or not?
Making the un-edited (except for maybe bleeping out names/faces) "rescue" tape available could shed some light on what happened. The fact that this was refused seems like a strong indicator that it was indeed mostly made up. Why hide information when you are telling the truth?

Posted by: Marco at May 21, 2003 04:50 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)