She had:broken leg, broken thigh, broken ankle, broken arm, was in shock after losing half her blood from the 15cm hole in her head and internal injuries; it was 0700. She was very close to death. The doctors have always told the truth about the incident while the Army has always misrepresented it.
Edit: "Al-Saeidi said he found no signs of rape during an examination although he acknowledged he was not looking for signs of sexual assault."
"Dr Mahdi Khafazji, an orthopaedic surgeon at Nasiriyah's main hospital performed surgery on Lynch to repair a fractured femur and said he found no signs of rape."
Many articles include these statements, but the Boston Globe article includes, "Khafazji, speaking at his private clinic in Nasiriyah, said he examined her extensively and would have detected signs of sexual assault. He said the examination turned up no trace of semen."
At this point, the only "sources" we have are people who have read or who have been told what was in the book. The New York Times article is the only one I have seen that directly states the report was from "military doctors". Other news articles only refer to a "medical report", and one article even states that, "it was unclear if the book cites American or Iraqi records."
While it is true that since the book was an authorized biography, the author would have access to the military medical record since the discharged military member would be authorized to make a copy, that is only a reasonable speculation as to the source of the information.
I don't think you can make that assertion until someone definitively reports what the book says, and the book isn't supposed to be released until next week.
She was treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre, an army hospital in Germany.
Iraqi records? Maybe you missed the part where the Iraqi doctors said there was ZERO evidence she was raped.
Edit: OK. nevermind. I was going to play nice, but here's my post again.
Are you kidding, right? She was treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre, an army hospital in Germany. Nice try.
Iraqi records? Maybe you missed the part where the Iraqi doctors said there was ZERO evidence she was raped.
Why are you being confrontational? What's this "nice try?" Did I deny that she was treated at a military facility?
"Yes, Iraqi records". I am not the one who asserts that. All I did was quote what a news article said, and I did include the part about the Iraqi doctors. I am trying to be balanced by contrasting the different ways in which the different news organizations are reporting this.
My point is that you are discussing second hand information and it would be nice to know what the book actually says, since the news articles say different things. Unless you want to pick and choose which news articles you want to believe.
My point is that you are discussing second hand information and it would be nice to know what the book actually says, since the news articles say different things. Unless you want to pick and choose which news articles you want to believe.
The NYT article left open the possibility, but the statements from the Iraqi doctors shot it down. Nothing contradicts.
The fact is that we are getting one story for the US military and another from everyone involved. Someone's blatantly lying, and it's crystal clear who that is.
Also, you can bet Lynch got a call since here comments were released, but this doesn't change what she said.
The NYT article left open the possibility, but the statements from the Iraqi doctors shot it down. Nothing contradicts.
Actually, no. The NYT article is the one that said the report was from military doctors.
The Fox report included the statement about being unclear of the source.
OK, we have news reports about the book, and news reports with Iraqi doctor statements, but I claim we still do not know exactly what the book says and what it cites for references.
The fact is that we are getting one story for the US military and another from everyone involved. Someone's blatantly lying, and it's crystal clear who that is.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. The only news articles state that the Army would not comment on the confidential records.
When someone reads the book and gives a definite report on what sources were cited, then fine, I'll accept your evaluation. Until then, I believe you're "jumping the gun".
When someone reads the book and gives a definite report on what sources were cited, then fine, I'll accept your evaluation. Until then, I believe you're "jumping the gun".
So, if it wasn't from the Iraqi doctors and it wasn't from the military doctors it would be from......nobody! Since that's the only other possiblity.
However, it clearly came from the military, and it clearly is propaganda.
So, if it wasn't from the Iraqi doctors and it wasn't from the military doctors it would be from......nobody!
Well, exactly. Authors have been known to make things up. If Mr. Bragg states that the source is from military records, then it is possible, since I tried to say how he would have access to the records. However, if the book does not cite a reference, then who knows?
Apparently no one really knows at this point, since they all seem to have to go to the Lynch family to confirm that the assertion is in the book. If people have read the book, why would they have to ask the family for that confirmation?
To recap, if Mr. Bragg states that the source if from the military, then your criticisms are fair. If he doesn't, then perhaps he is speculating to include a sensational item that will encourage people to buy and read his book.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
However, it clearly came from the military, and it clearly is propaganda.
Perhaps, but if true, it is not the military who is disclosing this. It is not much use at this late date. If Ms. Lynch were writing the book herself, would she have even included the possibility? It doesn't seem so from the reports about her reaction to the events. So, to continue with the consipiratorial aspect of the thread, perhaps Mr. Bragg is a government shill?
Well, exactly. Authors have been known to make things up. If Mr. Bragg states that the source is from military records, then it is possible, since I tried to say how he would have access to the records. However, if the book does not cite a reference, then who knows?
[quote]
It's unlikely Bragg made it up. However, Bragg is not really the most credible source since he was forced to resign from the Times.
Quote:
Apparently no one really knows at this point, since they all seem to have to go to the Lynch family to confirm that the assertion is in the book. If people have read the book, why would they have to ask the family for that confirmation?
lynch commented on it saying she has no info, IIRC.
Quote:
Perhaps, but if true, it is not the military who is disclosing this. It is not much use at this late date.
It's of tremendous use. "Lynch Raped" was a HUGE headline everywhere. I bet if you did a random sampling at the grocery store, most folks would say she was raped.
Quote:
So, to continue with the consipiratorial aspect of the thread, perhaps Mr. Bragg is a government shill?
On doing further research, apparently there is one AP story. All the different services have cut and pasted from the article to suit their needs. Here, apparently, is another version of what was included in the AP story as reported by the Toronto Star:
SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
ASSOCIATED PRESS
"Although Lynch, 20, said she has no memory of a sexual assault, medical records cited in I am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story indicate she was raped and sodomized by her captors, according to U.S. media reports. It is unclear if the book cites American or Iraqi records."
lynch commented on it saying she has no info, IIRC.
Yes, that is true. Excuse if I don't go back to the articles to give a source for this. Many articles said they asked a family member if the story was in the book, and the family member said it was. Ms. Lynch has said she does not recall the incident, but I do not remember any statements from her.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It's of tremendous use. "Lynch Raped" was a HUGE headline everywhere. I bet if you did a random sampling at the grocery store, most folks would say she was raped.
Well, I live in a cave, then. The first place I saw this was an article on the Fox newspage. The CNN story didn't come until a day or day and a half later. The reports of the Iraqi doctor interviews came shortly afterwards. I have never seen it in newspaper headlines, not even in the tabloids.
I don't see how it is timely because it is not likely to affect anyone's opinion of whether we should stay in Iraq or withdraw. It is curious that it comes after the alleghations that white soldiers and black soldiers are receiving different treatment, but I consider it a stretch to think the two are related.
Many times propoganda is all about timing and the miitary didn't have much control over the release of this information. If Ms. Lynch had remembered or had been persuaded that the event did occur, then the information could have come out immediately. Since she had no recollection, the information was private and could not be released without her consent. But considering how much other information seems to be leaked when convenient, if it were the military's purpose to use the event as propoganda, I would have expected this to have come public much earlier.
Well, I live in a cave, then. The first place I saw this was an article on the Fox newspage. The CNN story didn't come until a day or day and a half later. The reports of the Iraqi doctor interviews came shortly afterwards. I have never seen it in newspaper headlines, not even in the tabloids.
Yeah, you must. When it came out (yesterday or the day before) it was in HUGE print on every major website (CNN, ABC, etc) I saw.
Quote:
I don't see how it is timely because it is not likely to affect anyone's opinion of whether we should stay in Iraq or withdraw.
No one incident is going to change that. The Lynch story is part of a huge campaign, but it is a necessary cog.
Quote:
It is curious that it comes after the alleghations that white soldiers and black soldiers are receiving different treatment, but I consider it a stretch to think the two are related.
See, I didn't know about that. Then again, I've been focusing on research FOIA exemption attempts over the past few days.
Quote:
But considering how much other information seems to be leaked when convenient, if it were the military's purpose to use the event as propoganda, I would have expected this to have come public much earlier.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could be reading this incorrectly), but are you arguing that the military did use this as highly public propaganda?
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could be reading this incorrectly), but are you arguing that the military did use this as highly public propaganda?
No, I'm saying that if the military wanted to use it as propoganda, I would have expected them to make this public much sooner, such as when the hints of an investigation for war crimes were made public.
I was speculating that, if the military did propose this, they were not able to because it would involve the disclosure of private medical data. If Ms. Lynch remembered the event or could have been convinced that the event happened, it would have been easier to leak this medical report at that time.
If the report were falsified, it would have been prudent, if the military could not use the event as propoganda, to purge the record. However, I question whether the report was generated in Germany. If it were generated in Iraq, it would have been hard(er) to purge the information because the records would have been reviewed by the doctors in Germany, who might have said something if the report of the examination disappeared at a later date.
I am speculating that at this late date, it is not propoganda, but is possibly an unintentional revelation (from the military's standpoint) because it is proof that they intended to use a falsified event as propoganda.
But this all hinges on the source being military medical records. It is possible (but, I admit, not likely, since I don't think Mr. Bragg would have access to these) that the reports might be Iraqi because the reports disputing the rape have come from only two doctors and there were other people attending to Ms. Lynch. But all that is my own speculation, which is obvioiusly not based on any first hand information, and I wanted to avoid such specuation because it seems there is enough of it without me adding to the pool.
Anyway, if the source were military medical records, and Ms. Lynch has given Mr. Bragg access to the copies, and, by the sentiments expressed in this thread, the reports are falsified, it is an interesting situation because the medical reports are traceable to the attending physician/medic/corpsman. So, the situation is more serious than comments on how this is to be expected from the US military, etc.
See, I didn't know about that. Then again, I've been focusing on research FOIA exemption attempts over the past few days.
Well, this has been buried. I can't find printed references. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is representing Shoshona Johnson because of the differential in disability compensation. It's something like Ms. Johnson is being given 20% disability while Ms. Lynch is being given 40%, or Ms. Johson is being given 40% while Ms. Lynch gets 80% (both subject to reevaluation when their medical conditions change.
As I said, I must live in a cave, because from what I saw, this received as much coverage as the Lynch story is receiving now, with the exception of the additional stories to dispute the book's claim.
But to take this in a different direction, does anyone have any comment on the laywer's story? By the same accounts (considering Ms. Lynch's statements), this also could have been propoganda based on a falsified account.
Well, this has been buried. I can't find printed references. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is representing Shoshona Johnson because of the differential in disability compensation. It's something like Ms. Johnson is being given 20% disability while Ms. Lynch is being given 40%, or Ms. Johson is being given 40% while Ms. Lynch gets 80% (both subject to reevaluation when their medical conditions change.
As I said, I must live in a cave, because from what I saw, this received as much coverage as the Lynch story is receiving now, with the exception of the additional stories to dispute the book's claim.
But to take this in a different direction, does anyone have any comment on the laywer's story? By the same accounts (considering Ms. Lynch's statements), this also could have been propoganda based on a falsified account.
Comments
Who do you believe?
Originally posted by Skipjack
.
Edit: "Al-Saeidi said he found no signs of rape during an examination although he acknowledged he was not looking for signs of sexual assault."
"Dr Mahdi Khafazji, an orthopaedic surgeon at Nasiriyah's main hospital performed surgery on Lynch to repair a fractured femur and said he found no signs of rape."
Many articles include these statements, but the Boston Globe article includes, "Khafazji, speaking at his private clinic in Nasiriyah, said he examined her extensively and would have detected signs of sexual assault. He said the examination turned up no trace of semen."
Originally posted by Skipjack
At this point, the only "sources" we have are people who have read or who have been told what was in the book. The New York Times article is the only one I have seen that directly states the report was from "military doctors". Other news articles only refer to a "medical report", and one article even states that, "it was unclear if the book cites American or Iraqi records."
While it is true that since the book was an authorized biography, the author would have access to the military medical record since the discharged military member would be authorized to make a copy, that is only a reasonable speculation as to the source of the information.
I don't think you can make that assertion until someone definitively reports what the book says, and the book isn't supposed to be released until next week.
She was treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre, an army hospital in Germany.
Iraqi records? Maybe you missed the part where the Iraqi doctors said there was ZERO evidence she was raped.
Edit: OK. nevermind. I was going to play nice, but here's my post again.
Originally posted by giant
Are you kidding, right? She was treated at Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre, an army hospital in Germany. Nice try.
Iraqi records? Maybe you missed the part where the Iraqi doctors said there was ZERO evidence she was raped.
Why are you being confrontational? What's this "nice try?" Did I deny that she was treated at a military facility?
"Yes, Iraqi records". I am not the one who asserts that. All I did was quote what a news article said, and I did include the part about the Iraqi doctors. I am trying to be balanced by contrasting the different ways in which the different news organizations are reporting this.
My point is that you are discussing second hand information and it would be nice to know what the book actually says, since the news articles say different things. Unless you want to pick and choose which news articles you want to believe.
Originally posted by Harald
Who do you believe?
Well, if the book asserts that the only souce is military medical records, than the claim would be suspect.
As I have tried to say, all we know about the book and its claim is through second hand reports.
Originally posted by Skipjack
My point is that you are discussing second hand information and it would be nice to know what the book actually says, since the news articles say different things. Unless you want to pick and choose which news articles you want to believe.
The NYT article left open the possibility, but the statements from the Iraqi doctors shot it down. Nothing contradicts.
Originally posted by giant
Edit: OK. nevermind. I was going to play nice, but here's my post again.
??? Why play nice or not nice? This statement doesn't give me much to reply to.
Also, you can bet Lynch got a call since here comments were released, but this doesn't change what she said.
Originally posted by giant
The NYT article left open the possibility, but the statements from the Iraqi doctors shot it down. Nothing contradicts.
Actually, no. The NYT article is the one that said the report was from military doctors.
The Fox report included the statement about being unclear of the source.
OK, we have news reports about the book, and news reports with Iraqi doctor statements, but I claim we still do not know exactly what the book says and what it cites for references.
Originally posted by giant
The fact is that we are getting one story for the US military and another from everyone involved. Someone's blatantly lying, and it's crystal clear who that is.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. The only news articles state that the Army would not comment on the confidential records.
When someone reads the book and gives a definite report on what sources were cited, then fine, I'll accept your evaluation. Until then, I believe you're "jumping the gun".
Originally posted by Skipjack
When someone reads the book and gives a definite report on what sources were cited, then fine, I'll accept your evaluation. Until then, I believe you're "jumping the gun".
So, if it wasn't from the Iraqi doctors and it wasn't from the military doctors it would be from......nobody! Since that's the only other possiblity.
However, it clearly came from the military, and it clearly is propaganda.
Originally posted by Skipjack
The Fox report included the statement about being unclear of the source.
Ahhh, Fox. Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by giant
So, if it wasn't from the Iraqi doctors and it wasn't from the military doctors it would be from......nobody!
Well, exactly. Authors have been known to make things up. If Mr. Bragg states that the source is from military records, then it is possible, since I tried to say how he would have access to the records. However, if the book does not cite a reference, then who knows?
Apparently no one really knows at this point, since they all seem to have to go to the Lynch family to confirm that the assertion is in the book. If people have read the book, why would they have to ask the family for that confirmation?
To recap, if Mr. Bragg states that the source if from the military, then your criticisms are fair. If he doesn't, then perhaps he is speculating to include a sensational item that will encourage people to buy and read his book.
Originally posted by giant
However, it clearly came from the military, and it clearly is propaganda.
Perhaps, but if true, it is not the military who is disclosing this. It is not much use at this late date. If Ms. Lynch were writing the book herself, would she have even included the possibility? It doesn't seem so from the reports about her reaction to the events. So, to continue with the consipiratorial aspect of the thread, perhaps Mr. Bragg is a government shill?
Well, exactly. Authors have been known to make things up. If Mr. Bragg states that the source is from military records, then it is possible, since I tried to say how he would have access to the records. However, if the book does not cite a reference, then who knows?
[quote]
It's unlikely Bragg made it up. However, Bragg is not really the most credible source since he was forced to resign from the Times.
Apparently no one really knows at this point, since they all seem to have to go to the Lynch family to confirm that the assertion is in the book. If people have read the book, why would they have to ask the family for that confirmation?
lynch commented on it saying she has no info, IIRC.
Perhaps, but if true, it is not the military who is disclosing this. It is not much use at this late date.
It's of tremendous use. "Lynch Raped" was a HUGE headline everywhere. I bet if you did a random sampling at the grocery store, most folks would say she was raped.
So, to continue with the consipiratorial aspect of the thread, perhaps Mr. Bragg is a government shill?
Perhaps.
Originally posted by giant
Ahhh, Fox. Why am I not surprised?
Google does list 173 sources for this story.
On doing further research, apparently there is one AP story. All the different services have cut and pasted from the article to suit their needs. Here, apparently, is another version of what was included in the AP story as reported by the Toronto Star:
SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
ASSOCIATED PRESS
"Although Lynch, 20, said she has no memory of a sexual assault, medical records cited in I am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story indicate she was raped and sodomized by her captors, according to U.S. media reports. It is unclear if the book cites American or Iraqi records."
Originally posted by giant
lynch commented on it saying she has no info, IIRC.
Yes, that is true. Excuse if I don't go back to the articles to give a source for this. Many articles said they asked a family member if the story was in the book, and the family member said it was. Ms. Lynch has said she does not recall the incident, but I do not remember any statements from her.
Originally posted by giant
It's of tremendous use. "Lynch Raped" was a HUGE headline everywhere. I bet if you did a random sampling at the grocery store, most folks would say she was raped.
Well, I live in a cave, then. The first place I saw this was an article on the Fox newspage. The CNN story didn't come until a day or day and a half later. The reports of the Iraqi doctor interviews came shortly afterwards. I have never seen it in newspaper headlines, not even in the tabloids.
I don't see how it is timely because it is not likely to affect anyone's opinion of whether we should stay in Iraq or withdraw. It is curious that it comes after the alleghations that white soldiers and black soldiers are receiving different treatment, but I consider it a stretch to think the two are related.
Many times propoganda is all about timing and the miitary didn't have much control over the release of this information. If Ms. Lynch had remembered or had been persuaded that the event did occur, then the information could have come out immediately. Since she had no recollection, the information was private and could not be released without her consent. But considering how much other information seems to be leaked when convenient, if it were the military's purpose to use the event as propoganda, I would have expected this to have come public much earlier.
Originally posted by Skipjack
Well, I live in a cave, then. The first place I saw this was an article on the Fox newspage. The CNN story didn't come until a day or day and a half later. The reports of the Iraqi doctor interviews came shortly afterwards. I have never seen it in newspaper headlines, not even in the tabloids.
Yeah, you must. When it came out (yesterday or the day before) it was in HUGE print on every major website (CNN, ABC, etc) I saw.
I don't see how it is timely because it is not likely to affect anyone's opinion of whether we should stay in Iraq or withdraw.
No one incident is going to change that. The Lynch story is part of a huge campaign, but it is a necessary cog.
It is curious that it comes after the alleghations that white soldiers and black soldiers are receiving different treatment, but I consider it a stretch to think the two are related.
See, I didn't know about that. Then again, I've been focusing on research FOIA exemption attempts over the past few days.
But considering how much other information seems to be leaked when convenient, if it were the military's purpose to use the event as propoganda, I would have expected this to have come public much earlier.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could be reading this incorrectly), but are you arguing that the military did use this as highly public propaganda?
Originally posted by giant
Correct me if I'm wrong (I could be reading this incorrectly), but are you arguing that the military did use this as highly public propaganda?
No, I'm saying that if the military wanted to use it as propoganda, I would have expected them to make this public much sooner, such as when the hints of an investigation for war crimes were made public.
I was speculating that, if the military did propose this, they were not able to because it would involve the disclosure of private medical data. If Ms. Lynch remembered the event or could have been convinced that the event happened, it would have been easier to leak this medical report at that time.
If the report were falsified, it would have been prudent, if the military could not use the event as propoganda, to purge the record. However, I question whether the report was generated in Germany. If it were generated in Iraq, it would have been hard(er) to purge the information because the records would have been reviewed by the doctors in Germany, who might have said something if the report of the examination disappeared at a later date.
I am speculating that at this late date, it is not propoganda, but is possibly an unintentional revelation (from the military's standpoint) because it is proof that they intended to use a falsified event as propoganda.
But this all hinges on the source being military medical records. It is possible (but, I admit, not likely, since I don't think Mr. Bragg would have access to these) that the reports might be Iraqi because the reports disputing the rape have come from only two doctors and there were other people attending to Ms. Lynch. But all that is my own speculation, which is obvioiusly not based on any first hand information, and I wanted to avoid such specuation because it seems there is enough of it without me adding to the pool.
Anyway, if the source were military medical records, and Ms. Lynch has given Mr. Bragg access to the copies, and, by the sentiments expressed in this thread, the reports are falsified, it is an interesting situation because the medical reports are traceable to the attending physician/medic/corpsman. So, the situation is more serious than comments on how this is to be expected from the US military, etc.
Originally posted by giant
See, I didn't know about that. Then again, I've been focusing on research FOIA exemption attempts over the past few days.
Well, this has been buried. I can't find printed references. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is representing Shoshona Johnson because of the differential in disability compensation. It's something like Ms. Johnson is being given 20% disability while Ms. Lynch is being given 40%, or Ms. Johson is being given 40% while Ms. Lynch gets 80% (both subject to reevaluation when their medical conditions change.
As I said, I must live in a cave, because from what I saw, this received as much coverage as the Lynch story is receiving now, with the exception of the additional stories to dispute the book's claim.
But to take this in a different direction, does anyone have any comment on the laywer's story? By the same accounts (considering Ms. Lynch's statements), this also could have been propoganda based on a falsified account.
Edit: I found it. 30% vs 80%
Lynch versus Johnson disability
Another Lynch/Johnson story
More
One of the original stories (Oct 25)
Originally posted by Skipjack
Well, this has been buried. I can't find printed references. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is representing Shoshona Johnson because of the differential in disability compensation. It's something like Ms. Johnson is being given 20% disability while Ms. Lynch is being given 40%, or Ms. Johson is being given 40% while Ms. Lynch gets 80% (both subject to reevaluation when their medical conditions change.
As I said, I must live in a cave, because from what I saw, this received as much coverage as the Lynch story is receiving now, with the exception of the additional stories to dispute the book's claim.
But to take this in a different direction, does anyone have any comment on the laywer's story? By the same accounts (considering Ms. Lynch's statements), this also could have been propoganda based on a falsified account.
Edit: I found it. 30% vs 80%
Lynch versus Johnson disability
Another Lynch/Johnson story
More
One of the original stories (Oct 25)
yeah, I forgot my boss was talking about this yesterday. Pretty interesting.