Lies upon lies - the Jessica Lynch story

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The true story of the Jessica Lynch "rescue" has finally hit the US media.
Of course in true "free press" fashion, it was buried well on the inside of
my local paper, and received less than a minute coverage near the end
of our local TV broadcast.

The story has finally emerged in the US due to the impending broadcast
of a BBC special on the subject. But readers of this list know that the
story was first told, in essentially identical detail, EXACTLY ONE MONTH
AGO, in the Times of London:
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-648517,00.html
It was also featured several days ago in the Guardian (UK) (and reprinted
on the CommonDreams web site) as well as the BBC web site
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,956127,00.html)

Despite this widespread and respected circulation, yesterday in
Washington Ari Fleischer was able to make this preposterous claim
without apparently being challenged by the assembled "reporters":

"I haven't seen those reports,'' Fleischer said. "And I don't comment on
things I haven't seen, especially -- there's all kinds of different
tabloids.''

His statement that he hasn't seen the story, given both its sourcing
AND its importance to undermining the US story, is simply not credible.
And, of course, the implication that the story appeared in "tabloids" is
simply diversionary slander (note that he never SAYS it appeared in
tabloids, he just throws the phrase in to invoke guilt by association).
In short, the US government has been caught in a lie, and Fleischer's
only hope is to lie about the lie (claiming he isn't familiar with the
story) and hope that the "free press" lets the story drop so he won't
have to actually answer the question.

Meanwhile, more lies from the government, as an unnamed "defense
[sic] official" claims "the whole premise of that story was wrong,''
"adding that it was based primarily on speculation." Of course, the
story was based ENTIRELY on extensive interviews with
numerous eyewitnesses (doctors, nurses, and others) and doesn't
involve ANY speculation.

The only real speculation worth indulging in is whether Jessica Lynch's
convenient "lack of memory" of the events is real or the result of
someone "getting to her." Most likely they offered her money (for
the rights to her story for their movie-of-the-week) but made her
sign something that said she would have to give all the money back
if she said anything publicly to refute the "official line" (similar to the
way Mark Burnett keeps the cast of Survivor from revealing any of the
details before they are broadcast). Now that IS speculation.

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail