We've all been through the threads here at uma about the Jessica Lynch
drama; well, it appears that Lynch was not the soldier who battled
against the enemy. I just hope the government, military, and the
media will do the right thing and publicly acknowledge the truth as
it is indicated in the below article (entire article not posted).
The investigation may never state without a doubt it was him but
clearly there is strong indication it was....so why not just go with
it and give this family some peace? I'm not slamming the military,
love you guys, but you (powers that be) need to get on the ball and
do what is right with this case...just my opinion. What do members
of Usenet think of it, what's your opinion?
[Q]KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- The family of a Missouri soldier killed
in the same Nasiriyah, Iraq battle that made Jessica Lynch a
household hero wants the Army to set the record straight.
Sgt. Donald R. Walters' family contends that he -- not Lynch -- was
the blond soldier who was reported to have fought fiercely and did
not want to be taken alive in the March 23 battle.
"It was Don," said Walters' widow, Stacie, of northern Kansas City.
"I want the military to face me and to tell me it was Don."
.........Col. Heidi Brown at Fort Bliss, when interviewed by "60
Minutes," said Walters could be the blond soldier thought to have
fought so hard before being stabbed.
"When (the military and the media) thought the blond soldier was
Jessica, they just ran with it," said his mother, Arlene Walters of
Salem, Ore. "But Don was the one who stayed out there alone and
fought for his fellow soldiers. I wish they'd come out and admit it."
The Army released a 15-page narrative of the battle in July, but many
families said the report didn't answer their questions. Walters, for
example, mysteriously vanished from the convoy after the
tractor-trailer carrying him got stuck.
"There is some information," the July report states, "that a U.S.
soldier, (who) could have been Walters, fought his way south of
Highway 16 towards a canal and was killed in action."
http://www.newstribune.com/stories/112903/sta_1129030003.asp [/Q]

"Jeff" <jeff@turboarrow3.com> wrote in message
news:3FC98451.BDBD6EA2@turboarrow3.com...
I don't think the family in the article I provided wants anymore than
what is due, and really it has nothing to do with Lynch herself but
more with the media etc. Yes, it was media who went over the top,

but did anyone do anything to effectively counter it?

~Nins~ wrote:
Same media that went "over the top" fabricating lies, and exaggerating
to support Bu$h's Illegal Invasion of Iraq ...
Don't see the Whitehouse rushing to correct the absolutely FALSE
beliefs held by over 50% of idiot Americans, do ya ...?
Posted on Sun, Jun. 22, 2003
False war beliefs 'striking'
BY FRANK DAVIES
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - A third of the American public believes U.S.
forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a
recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or
biological weapons.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis
were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001.
But such weapons have not been found in Iraq, and were never
used. Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None
were Iraqis.
How could so many people be so wrong about life-and-death
information that has dominated news coverage for almost two years?
These results startled the pollsters who conducted and analyzed
the surveys.
"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the
Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of
Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll
of 1,265 respondents.
He added, "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of
public attention, this level of misinformation suggests some
Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive
dissonance."
That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts.
Kull said the poll's data showed that the mistaken belief that
weapons of mass destruction had been found "is substantially greater
among those who favored the war."
Pollsters and political analysts see several reasons for the
gaps between facts and beliefs: the public's short attention span on
foreign news, fragmentary or conflicting media reports that lacked
depth or skepticism and Bush administration efforts to sell a war by
oversimplifying the threat.
"Most people get little whiffs and fragments of news, not in
any organized way," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings
Institution, a centrist-liberal think tank. "And there have been a
lot of conflicting reports on the weapons."
Before the war, the U.S. media often reported as a fact the
assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed large
stockpiles of illegal weapons. During and after the war, reports of
weapons discoveries were often trumpeted on front pages, while
follow-up stories debunking the "smoking gun" reports received less
attention.
"There were so many reports and claims before the war, it was
easy to be confused," said Larry Hugick, chairmxan of Princeton
Survey Research Associates. "But people expected the worst from
Saddam Hussein and made connections based on the administration's
policy."
Bush has described the preemptive attack on Iraq as "one
victory in the war on terror that began Sept. 11." Bush officials
also claim that Iraq sheltered and helped al-Qaida operatives.
"The public is susceptible to manipulation, and if they hear
officials saying there is a strong connection between Iraq and
al-Qaida terrorists, then they think there must be a connection,"
Mann said.
"Tapping into the feelings and fears after Sept. 11 is a way to
sell a policy," he added.
Some analysts say Bush has been following a long presidential
history of framing a foreign crisis for maximum domestic benefit.
"I'm not going to defend the president, but a policy of
preemptive attacks sure looks better after this country has been hit
hard," said Sam Popkin, a polling expert at the University of
California at San Diego.
Polls show strong support for Bush and the war, although 40
percent in the May survey found U.S. officials were "misleading" in
some of their justifications for war. A majority, 55 percent, said
they were not misleading.
Several analysts said the murky claims and intelligence data
about lethal weapons and terrorist ties allow most people to see such
news through the filter of their own political beliefs.
And GOP pollsters said any controversy over weapons wouldn't
change public attitudes because ridding Iraq of an oppressive regime
was reason enough for war for many Americans.
"People supported the war for national security reasons and
that shifted to humanitarian reasons when they saw evidence of
Saddam's atrocities," said Republican strategist Frank Luntz.
"There's an assumption these weapons will be found because this guy
was doing so many bad things."
Popkin said he was troubled by the lack of knowledge about the
Sept. 11 hijackers, shown in the January survey conducted for Knight
Ridder newspapers.
Only 17 percent correctly said that none of the hijackers were
Iraqi.
"That really bothers me because it shows a lack of
understanding about other countries - that maybe many Americans don't
know one Arab from another," Popkin said. "Maybe because Saudis are
seen as rich and friendly, people have a hard time dealing with them
as hijackers."