Wag The Dog Anyone?

[OlderThanDirt]

myfiles3000 wrote:

anyway, i'll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

Horse manure. The US government/military doesn't care a whit about that. jesus.

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 19:18


Pardon me for asking but did you see these interviews on "NBC" News? Or was this based on interviews performed by a BBC journalist (who has since been discredited)?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/...kampener.lynch/

Your link doesn't seem to discredit Kampener in the slightest.

By whom has he been discredited?
Bill O'Reilly?

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 02:21

myfiles3000 wrote:

anyway, i'll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

Horse manure. The US government/military doesn't care a whit about that. jesus.

hey, i'm just happy you're able to use a computer. you must be very special.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Your link doesn't seem to discredit Kampener in the slightest.

Uh ... read it again ... especially the mention of John Vauss, a CNN reporter embedded with the team that rescued Lynch ... and that Kampener is basing his take on the testimony of "Iraqi" medical personnel.

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 19:37


Uh ... read it again ... especially the mention of John Vauss, a CNN reporter embedded with the team that rescued Lynch ... and that Kampener is basing his take on the testimony of "Iraqi" medical personnel.

Okay, I read it again ( and I'm trying to remain persuadable here) but I still don't get it. Didn't Vause file the report about the ambulance?
And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

BTW, wouldn't incontravertible evidence of Lynch's bullet /stab wounds pretty much defuse this whole brouhaha? Why not not just release some X-rays and medical reports and halt this whole situation before it degenerates into another JFK autopsy fiasco?
Even her family, who I would expect to be freely forthcoming, are being strangely closemouthed about the real extent of her injuries.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

I watched this rescue on Fox News. It was dark. And this is the exact quote of Iraqi doctors from Kampener's piece:

"It says like a film in Hollywood, they cried go, go, go. They shot with guns, and blanks with bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions, and break the door. We were very scared."

How could anyone, doctor or not, tell the difference between a bullet and a blank in the dark? Do blanks break doors?

BTW, wouldn't incontravertible evidence of Lynch's bullet /stab wounds pretty much defuse this whole brouhaha? Why not not just release some X-rays and medical reports and halt this whole situation before it degenerates into another JFK autopsy fiasco? Even her family, who I would expect to be freely forthcoming, are being strangely closemouthed about the real extent of her injuries.

I agree. But NO ONE but Lynch (an adult) has the right to release her private medical info to anybody. And I don't think her being close-mouthed on the subject is strange at all. In fact, that may have been part of her movie deal ... a promise to "keep quiet" until the film is released. Such gag-clauses are not uncommon in situations involving "true-to-life" movie deals with people in the public eye. And, we even have a more recent example of this. Remember that NY Times reporter who was caught plagarizing/falsifying his work. He's refused comment to the press about the incident. And even those at the NY Times are not surprised since he's been offered a $9 million movie deal for "his story."

"True story" movie deals generally involve "exclusive rights" clauses. If Lynch told her story for free to the press before the film hits TV, NBC would probably take her to court to get their money back. Money talks.

[clocker]

[QUOTE=OlderThanDirt,3 June 2003 - 20:34]

clocker wrote:

And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

I watched this rescue on Fox News. It was dark. And this is the exact quote of Iraqi doctors from Kampener's piece:

"It says like a film in Hollywood, they cried go, go, go. They shot with guns, and blanks with bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions, and break the door. We were very scared."

How could anyone, doctor or not, tell the difference between a bullet and a blank in the dark? Do blanks break doors?

Okay.
Their English is broken.
I don't necessarily read that to mean that the blanks broke the doors.
But so what?

Isn't the point here that some people are alleging that the whole rescue was overhyped and basically a staged for the cameras event? We seem to be at a "she says-he says" impasse.


No fair! You edited your post while I was responding. Now this is all screwed up!

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 20:34
Remember that NY Times reporter who was caught plagarizing/falsifying his work. He's refused comment to the press about the incident. And even those at the NY Times are not surprised since he's been offered a $9 million movie deal for "his story."

By whom?
Last I heard negotiations for his book deal had broken down and he was without a publisher.

[OlderThanDirt]

David Vigliano is negotiating the book and movie deals separately for Blair, though I'm certain both the studio and eventual publisher (if there is one) would like a tie-in between the release dates. As of a May 31st article in the New Orleans Times Picayune, the negotiations (and $9 million asking price for movie rights) are still on track. How the book deal is going is something I don't know.

Okay.
Their English is broken.
I don't necessarily read that to mean that the blanks broke the doors.
But so what?

But I don't necessarily see what that has to do with being able to see the difference between a blank and a bullet in the dark ... especially if the doctors were scared as they said they were. And maybe they said "blanks" because they didn't see where the bullets hit ... which doesn't necessarily make them blanks.

Isn't the point here that some people are alleging that the whole rescue was overhyped and basically a staged for the cameras event? We seem to be at a "she says-he says" impasse.

Yes ... and it's an impasse that won't be settled until after NBC airs their film (and only if Lynch wants to speak out then). I hope she does. I agree that this could turn into a JFK type brouhaha if she doesn't.

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 21:21


Yes ... and it's an impasse that won't be settled until after NBC airs their film (and only if Lynch wants to speak out then). I hope she does. I agree that this could turn into a JFK type brouhaha if she doesn't.

I'm confused ( and somewhat startled).
You would accept a NBC made for TV movie as the definitive version of what happened?

Sidebar: I have no knowledge either way on this so please correct me if I'm wrong, but- when you become a soldier doesn't the Army (or whatever branch) basically usurp your right to privacy re: medical records?