You mean the BBC, in its ridiculous story on the Jessica Lynch rescue, had no idea what the hell they were talking about and may have even been lying? Mercy, what is the world coming to:
A few weeks later, the BBC checked in with a documentary accusing the U.S. forces of firing off blanks in the hospital, a sure sign it was all staged for the cameras to provide great propaganda video of military heroics.
But now, several week later, NBC’s Jim Avila and crew have gone to Nasiriyah and discovered that the truth seems to lie closer to the story initially conveyed by the U.S. military than to the anti-military tales spun by ABC and the BBC.
On Friday’s NBC Nightly News, Avila reported that hospital staff “say the so-called blanks were actually flash-bang grenades used to stun and frighten hospital workers and potential resistance. No bullets or blanks were fired inside the hospital. And the Americans had every reason to expect trouble. Hospital workers confirm the Iraqi military used the basement as a headquarters.” A doctor told Avila that “what he calls the big heads of the Iraqi army left just six hours before the raid.” Avila added that “the Iraqis told NBC News the American soldiers’ behavior was humane.” For instance, when one of the physicians said the handcuffs “hurt and they were too tight,” the “soldiers immediately loosened them.”
Have no fear- being wrong and on the left means never having to apologize- besides, Dennis Kucinich is going to really get to the bottom of this.
By the way, this picture is something the Beeb and the rest of her willing accomplices (Robert Scheer?) in the anti-Bush, anti-military propganda war might want to pay attention to in the future.
It is, of course, going to be difficult to explain to them. It is a reporter investigating a story, getting an idea about what may have ACTUALLY happened, and then reporting it. Novel concept, hunh? Much more preferrable to snarky op-eds and half-assed blog posts from left-wing web sites.
I will be waiting for the corrections to start appearing… I will be waiting a long time…
(via the Instapundit)
John- The BBC may indeed have been wrong about Jessica Lynch’s rescue. I don’t work for the BBC, so don’t expect me to clarify their actions.
As for the NBC reporter, disabuse yourself of the notion that he single-handedly investigated this story himself. As someone who spent ten years in the broadcasting industry, I can tell you that it’s much more likely that an underpaid, overworked producer did the actual investigating, and that the “reporter” just came in to read interview questions the producer wrote, and to shoot his stand-up.
Bringing up Dennis Kucinich is as much “fringebaiting” as mentioning, say, Alan Keyes would be… :)
Bringing up Dennis Kucinich is as much “fringebaiting”–
Good catch- I am guilty as charged!
If including Kucinich is “fringe-baiting,” what does that do to the Progressive Caucus in the Congress? Are they ALL simply of the fringe and to be dismissed? Is VT’s Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, therefore to be dismissed out of hand?
Paul Wellstone would’ve been a member of that Caucus’ Senate counterpart. Were his opinions, too, to be dismissed?
I think the term “fringe-baiting” can too easily devolve into “Of course, we don’t mean HIS/HER opinions” when they’re embarrassing, yet are included when either seeking votes (for politicos) or seeking legislation.
M. Scott Eiland
“Bringing up Dennis Kucinich is as much “fringebaiting”-”
Except that he’s pushing a position that a lot of liberals were all too glad to jump on with both feet when they thought they caught the Pentagon in a lie. If you want to disassociate yourself with Kucinich’s (and Robert Scheer’s) loony babblings, a retraction from the individuals who wholeheartedly embraced (or supported via veiled innuendo) the libels of the BBC would be called for–and quickly.
Gee, MScott… you must think I have a lot more clout than’s actually the case. I was just speaking for myself. And if you’re going to talk about disassociating, y’all on the Republican side might want to think about purging your ranks of all those fine Carolinians who thought Eric Rudolph was a great guy. (The link’s on CNN)
But that’s fringebaiting, and as SENSIBLE conservatives like the proprieter of this fine site are trying to avoid that sort of thing, so shall I.
So here’s a question for everyone here? What if the BBC didn’t lie? What if they just fucked up? Kind of like all those WMD sites that turned out to be vacuum cleaner depots… Fog of war and all that, you know.
Or are only Republican presidents allowed the luxury of making mistakes?
Then they should issue the appropriate correction and retraction, and as far as I am concerned, the issue is over. But they won’t- look at the manipulation of the German mistranslation of the Wolfowitz quote. Sooner or later, all the anti-US attack pieces are going to have to be blamed on something other than incompetence.
1. If it was “just a fuck-up,” then it’s random. If it’s random, one would expect “fuck-ups” that cut both ways. When you find some BBC misreporting that puts us (the US) in a BETTER light, let us know, as that’d be great evidence of your point.
2. What if I just write, “JKC is a pedophilic priest.” Oops. Is that a “fuck-up” or something more serious?
I deliberately chose such an outrageous comment, b/c the idea that you’ve got SF guys running around w/ blanks is just as stupid, if not more so.
First, it doesn’t pass a basic smell-test, that of common sense. (Not to mention, as others have noted, the absence of the equipment needed to FIRE blanks from real guns.)
Second, the question arises, “Who made this charge?” If you got it from a US military supply sergeant, he’d at least be in the know. So, WHO said it was a buncha blanks? If it was the docs, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW???
So, at a minimum, the reporter:
A. Didn’t do research on how units operate;
B. Didn’t interview anyone from the unit(s) involved;
C. Didn’t talk to BRITISH equivalents (who’d have told him his sources were crap);
If it’s “fucking up,” I’d say it’s on the level of Jayson Blair-type fucking up.
This may surprise you, but I’ll concede most of your points. I ain’t a priest, though… :)
I agree that the idea off Special Forces allowing themselves to be cast as essentially movie actors is absurd. I think, though, that had the Pentagon released the unedited videotape of the rescue, a lot of this could have been avoided.
As for Herr Wolfowitz, the partisan in me has to say “sauce for the goose.” Conservatives in 2000 ran like hell with the “Al Gore said he invented the Internet” meme when anyone who did five minutes worth of research knows that what he actually took credit for was helping to draft the legislation authorizing ARPANet.
Guess this out of context stuff isn’t so much fun when it’s being done to you, huh?
As long as Kucinich wants to be president of the U.S. under a major party, it’s not “fringe baiting.” No one claimed Kucinich stood for the Dems but there’s no reason a candidate shouldn’t be discussed.
Yes, HH, there’s no reason Kucinich can’t be discussed. But please stop trying to pretend he’s representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
M. Scott Eiland
“Gee, MScott… you must think I have a lot more clout than’s actually the case. I was just speaking for myself.”
If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it–there are plenty of liberals who embraced the idea of Jessica Lynch as fraud with unabashed glee. They get to be associated with Kucinich’s lunacy until they admit they were wrong.
“And if you’re going to talk about disassociating, y’all on the Republican side might want to think about purging your ranks of all those fine Carolinians who thought Eric Rudolph was a great guy. (The link’s on CNN)”
As opposed to the guys on your side who think Mumia is a great guy? There are a lot of gray-haired Democrats out there who were supporting urban terrorists of various types in the late ’60s and early ’70s–I don’t think we want to play this game, do you?
Actually, Scott, I was trying to point out the silliness of fringebaiting. That’s all.
“Conservatives ran like Hell….”
Well, if you see any of these folks posting here, feel free to whack away at ’em. ‘Til then, I’d venture that YOU’RE fringe-baiting as much as John Cole is, in YOUR eyes. Goose, gander; pot, kettle.
But the reality is that Kucinich is NOT Alan Keyes. Last I checked, when Keyes ran, he was NOT a sitting REP or SEN. He was not part of a larger group w/in the Legislature. He’d been a political appointee, and not much more than that.
As I noted above, Kucinich is representative of SOME group w/ in the Dem party, and espouses quite a few positions that are embraced by mainstream members of the Party. While he isn’t the Dem Party, he’s a lot closer to the heart of power than Keyes ever was.
Well, Dean, I believe David Duke got elected, too. I could bring up Trent Lott or TomDeLay as well, but I don’t think any of these guys represent mainstream thought in their party. Well, maybe DeLay does…
Yup, he did, to the shame of LA’s citizenry.
In this regard, I’d have to accept that Kucinich is the Dem equivalent, then, of David Duke.
Or did you not quite mean it that way? ;-)
Seriously, you make a good point, JKC, and I have to agree that, perhaps, Kucinich’s antics are less representative of the Dem mainstream than I had earlier thought.