CNN?

[Michael Tee]

Thanks for the link.  From which:

<<Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.>>

Plural usage indicates this little bitta BS came from more than one U.S. official.  The reporter, like all good journalists, got corroboration, albeit water from the same well.

<<Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed.>>

The caution given was not that the EVENTS might not be true, but that their "precise sequence" might have to be revised.

<<Reports thus far are based on battlefield intelligence, they said, which comes from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in Nasiriyah whose reliability has yet to be assessed.>>

Yet when the whole story turned to shit, NOBODY in the administration had a single "monitored communication" to fall back on to prove its "legitimate" origins.

[Amianthus]

Plural usage indicates this little bitta BS came from more than one U.S. official.  The reporter, like all good journalists, got corroboration, albeit water from the same well.

Actually, that was the only place that the leaked information indicated it came from more than one official. Everywhere else, it says "the official." So, since the first paragraph is sometimes written by the editor and not the journalist, and it's the only paragraph which mentions "officials" I would say that the first paragraph was inserted by an editor that is attempting to cover his ass.

Yet when the whole story turned to shit, NOBODY in the administration had a single "monitored communication" to fall back on to prove its "legitimate" origins.

Actually, they did. Most of the leaked information was Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief's story, which as they said, the "reliability has yet to be assessed." They later confirmed that it was unreliable after they interviewed Jessica Lynch.

Regardless, none of the official reports from the Pentagon support your story. Your entire point is supported by leaked reports from unnamed sources.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, that was the only place that the leaked information indicated it came from more than one official. Everywhere else, it says "the official." So, since the first paragraph is sometimes written by the editor and not the journalist, and it's the only paragraph which mentions "officials" I would say that the first paragraph was inserted by an editor that is attempting to cover his ass.>>

Possible, but pure speculation on your part.  Even if you guessed right, it still leaves you with one official source to explain away.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on May 06, 2007, 05:17:09 PM
Yet when the whole story turned to shit, NOBODY in the administration had a single "monitored communication" to fall back on to prove its "legitimate" origins.


<<Actually, they did. Most of the leaked information was Mohammed Odeh al Rehaief's story, which as they said, the "reliability has yet to be assessed." They later confirmed that it was unreliable after they interviewed Jessica Lynch.>>

Actually the original report said their sources were "monitored communications" AND "Iraqi sources."  alRehaief's story would be an "Iraqi source."  A monitored communication means an eavesdropped or wire-tapped communication, presumably between two Iraqis, picked up by a third (outside) individual.  Nobody came up with a singe monitored communication to support their outrageous bullshit.  There was none.  Besides which, IIRC, al Rehaief's story did not refer to Jessica Lynch's alleged bullet wounds or stab wounds.

<<Regardless, none of the official reports from the Pentagon support your story. Your entire point is supported by leaked reports from unnamed sources.>>

No, it came from Pentagon sources who CLAIM it came from "monitored communications" and "Iraqi sources" not one of which was ever produced - - apart from al Rehaief - - and even al Rehaief did not produce the "stab wound, bullet wound" BS that the Pentagon had put out originally.  So, the question remains:  WHERE did the story come from if not from the Pentagon itself?

[Plane]

"WHERE did the story come from if not from the Pentagon itself?"


From the headline hungry and sensation loving Press , not covering itself in glory here or establishing its reputation for reliability .


Every thing we have been discussing here has been second hand , if the Pentagon made a press release , is it still availible?


On the other hand there was a soldier in that incident that fought heroicly but he died on the scene.
There was another Woman captured and returned to freindly lines wounded , but the press din't spend as much time on her.

The gestalt result of this story in the public perception is not much like what the evidence could prove , but this is a very normal thing.