I have to ask......Who the hell cares one way or another?????? a girl was captured....fact a girl was rescued.....fact whether it was in a blaze of glory or in an empty hospital, she would have been dead in another 24 hours from her wounds that she suffered during a military operation....whether they were inflicted by gunshot or a truck falling over, we know she was ambushed with her company , was wounded ( broke bones ect..) and was rescued....I can't believe this debate is still going on...who cares????? what does it prove one way or another??
if the story were just an unsolicited, independent media offering, then maybe. but the command, acting on behalf of the taxpayer, did much more than 'report an action' - it orchestrated, directed, edited, and produced nearly the entirety of US domestic war coverage. it restricted access to information and censored its dissemination. in this case they packaged this story for a particular effect. they released edited video with an accompanying narrative. they were aware of the effect, and of the kneejerk frenzy it induced in the media. if that effect was unjustified it should be their duty to say so. or is it the taxpayer that should bear the burden of investigation to assure that the "milking" military and its media outlets are accurate?
What do you care? You were against he war so why would you care whether it was exaggerated or not? let's be realistic....if video was released proving every single statement....would it change your mind about the war?....and would you have rather she died?
That's a good point TM, no matter what they say you shouldn't listen or believe anything anyhow. It's patently obvious that any purveyor of news has a reason for telling you, and it is rarely, if ever, for you own edification. There is however, a very entertaining plot here and I think this is what should be focused on. Whether it happened exactly as they say or Jessica Lynch was fabricated out of thin air, the story is classic. AND, it helps the war effort. Well...not good for those opposed to the war... but they're loons anyhow. Shit, war is fun and heroic and good for the economy - why would anyone not want a war?? It's not like they are asking us to go over there, just watch the spectacle from miles away. And it sure as shit was a whole lot more entertaining than American Idol. May God continue to bless America. RLB
WHAT!!!!?????? A, Idol ROCKS!!! I watched every show!!! Sure Ruben is a fat slob, bit the boy has pipes..
My point is that since you were against the war, you will only find fault and suspicion int he story....likewise since I was for the war , I beleive it was an incredible story and speaks volumes about the skill of our soldiers......
true, people are biased to look at either the good or bad of it. that doesn't mean minds can't be changed - but the command isn't making things easier on itself by refusing to answer questions, restricting access to information, and by their contempt for the rest of the planet. there is no prize in proving them wrong - it would be much better if they were forthcoming and earnest and believable, instead of constantly inviting suspicion and derision. sure, there will always be people that will disagree on principle alone. but the current policy seems hell-bent on pushing the fencesitters to disagree as well, for some unknown reason. and fwiw, US soldiers are by far the most skilled in the world - there's no doubt on that.
Generally speaking, your arguments reflect a total lack of realism about military operations. I'm not sure whether it originates in your hostility toward the military and US policy, in ignorance, or in some peculiar set of fantasies about the proper conduct of defense policy. Specifically, what is your evidence for the claim that "the command... orchestrated, directed, and produced nearly the entirety of US domestic war coverage"? It appears to me that the Pentagon provided access and passed on such information as it possesed while trying to preserve operational security. As for restricting access and engaging in censorship: Of course, it did. Only someone who was hoping that the US and allies would lose, or at least suffer a high number of casualties, would want the military to do anything else. As I understand it, the Pentagon stands by its story, if not, of course, by all embellishments and inaccuracies produced in the media. When questioned on this or any subject, its spokespeople should answer honestly to the best of their ability, and within security parameters. Otherwise, I don't believe it's the Pentagon's responsibility to gauge the quality and tone of national discourse, and attempt to weigh in - except where doing so is relevant to their mission. If greater oversight is needed, then, yes, it's up to the political process to produce it - if that's what you mean. How else would you arrange things? Your position appears to be that if the Pentagon releases any information that happens to make it look good, or puts any favorable cast on its operations, then it's violated some norm of conduct. Most people would consider that to be an absurd position, and not only because there is some military justification for accentuating morale-boosting stories, in particular if they convey the idea that every effort will be made to rescue POWs. Of course, if you, or some journalist or pundit, can show that the Pentagon has knowingly offered up falsehoods, then there's something to talk about. How significant it would be is another question. In any event, this is all very far from Scheer's wild accusations and ill-founded exaggerations.
Frankly, you don't seem to me to be in any position to judge the effect of the Pentagon's behavior on "fencesitters."