So the Iraqi who risked his life to walk to the American lines and report the story because he was so upset at the treatment she was getting, he was just imagining it all?
Both the BBC story and Scheer's column that was uncritically based on it have been thoroughly debunked. Many of the relevant stories can be found on the page from which the following summary originates: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/009660.php#009660
could you point out where it was "thoroughly debunked"? the blog, and the other sections of the same blog it links to, seem to contain only more unsubstantiated opinion and, naturally, more self-righteous ad hominem drivel. neither the line of the cited BBC article, nor calling the author an idiot foaming at the mouth refute the claims or explain why the pentagon refuses to release the original footage. it is difficult to determine the truth here - both sides have been less than clear.
Yeah, I'd like to see that too. Surely Kymar doesn't consider the piece of playground name-calling that he posted as having "thoroughly debunked" anything? So, come on Kymar, quit hiding the good stuff (if you have it). Specifically, I'd like to see the following points addressed: - the "amnesia" Private Lynch is suffering. (Sure comes in handy.) - did she or did she not suffer bullet and stab wounds? Why should we ignore the testimony of the doctors who treated her who say that there was no evidence (you think they'd know) of such wounds? - why aren't we being shown the unedited footage of the alleged assault? - the reliability of the testimony of the Iraqi lawyer; who, apparently, is refusing to answer any question and has a $500k book deal lined up. - the incident with the ambulance.
We'll probably be dead and gone before the Pentagon ever releases full unedited video from a Special Forces operation of any significance. For reasons that should be obvious, the military has always been reluctant to share information of potential tactical value, and should be. They would prefer to conceal even a lack of unique tactical information in the conduct of such an operation. Anyway, whose opinion needs to be "substantiated" here? The military reported an action - a rescue conducted by Special Forces - and presented video footage that did not, contrary to Scheer's claims, in any way suggest that a "battle" had gone on. There were no images of explosions or of anyone firing weapons, with or without "blanks." (Gen. Brooks' statement that the soldiers had been risking their lives, on the other hand, stands uncontradicted. Even if the hospital/command post had been evacuated by the Fedayeen prior to the rescue, until and unless a war zone has been "cleared" - and even then - entering it remains a risky undertaking.) If reporters at various news outlets got other aspects of the story wrong, then that's not the responsibility of CENTCOM or anyone else in a position of authority. And how are they to control "unnamed military sources" who supposedly passed on a more dramatic story? That's like making the FBI responsible for Jayson Blair's stories on the DC sniper case. If Scheer or anyone is going to claim that the event was "staged," then the burden is on them to provide proof. One of the blog pages goes into a great detail on the journalistic flaws in the original story. Others address various aspects of the alternative story that defy credulity - such as the idea that US Special Forces would or even realistically COULD enter a war zone armed with "blanks." One possible and more likely explanation is that the individual quoted by the BBC reporter had no idea what kind of ammunition was being carried, and was simply exaggerating to make his point, and that Scheer took up the claim literally and uncritically. When asked on CNN to give a bottom line, the BBC reporter confirmed that he could not accuse the military of perpetrating a "fraud." He dodged other questions, but did go on to expose his own bias against the American military. Subsidiary details, such as the multiple ambulance stories or the apparently conflicting descriptions by supposed eyewitnesses at the hospital, are dealt with either in pages linked directly on the Instapundit page, or further down the link tree. It is impossible for us to check the "truth" of any of the competing claims out, but many aspects of the "alternative story" in its extreme form don't make sense. The most you can fairly conclude, as Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit points out, is that the US milked the event for publicity. As he so eloquently puts it, "Duh." If you can can read through all of this material and still conclude that Scheer was justified in his "Wag the Dog" accusations, then I have to wonder what could possibly cause you to doubt him.
Not unusual. And who cares? The matter was discussed in some detail at various points in the saga. The only contradictions that exist are in press accounts, not in official statements, as far as I recall, but someone else will have to answer for you more definitively - presuming someone cares. There was no "alleged assault." There was an actual rescue operation. As for unedited footage: See above, and, anyway, what makes you think you have any right to it? The proof of his veracity was, among other minor details, the actual rescue of PFC Lynch. I can't say anything about the book deal and the figure attached to it, but, if it's true that he's made a deal, then it's hardly surprising that he would be expected to keep whatever else there might be to the story to himself prior to publication. Personally, I don't really care: I was more interested in the lame attempt to make Wag the Dog accusations on this story, which on its own terms never seemed very significant to me - for anyone other than those immediately involved - except as a bit of wartime sentimentality. But as far as "reliable testimony" goes, what about the supposed witnesses haphazardly and unverifiably quoted by the BBC reporter? Let's say you're a hospital worker - doctor, nurse, orderly, janitor - who's lived his or her entire life in a totalitarian state where saying the wrong thing can get you killed. Your country has just come under the control of military occupiers, and a foreigner approaches you with questions about an incident that has attracted a lot of interest, one involving a female American soldier. I think your answer would go... something like this: "Oh, yes, of course, she was treated very, very well. She was given special treatment! We all were very kind to her. Everyone was very kind to her, yes. There was no danger to her. She did not even need to be rescued! Earlier, we even tried to bring her back, but, then, it was too dangerous. It was two days ago. But it was too dangerous. The Fedayeen? Well, actually come to think of it maybe it was yesterday that we tried to take her to the Americans, but they fired upon our ambulance so we had to bring her back to the hospital. Do you not think we deserve a reward?" See above. Multiple inconsistent stories. And, oh yeah, why do you care?