Washington Post, how about a full apology to the Pentagon on Jessica Lynch?

The Washington Post has yet to fully explain how it promoted the false story of Army Private Jessica Lynch “fighting to the death” in the first days of Iraq’s liberation. The Post allowed the anti-liberation mob to believe the Pentagon embellished the story of Lynch’s heroism to boost public support for toppling Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime.

Though she did not go down firing (She was severely injured in a vehicle crash in a March 23, 2003, ambush), Lynch was a hero just for taking the risks in those first days of the invasion. But when she returned, The Post’s cover-up of The Post’s own irresponsibility allowed Democrats to persuade even Lynch that the Pentagon had been dishonest in reporting her story.

“They chose to lie and tried to make me a legend,” she testified, fairly clearly referring to the Pentagon during her 2007 testimony at a congressional hearing.

So The Washington Post has yet to undo the lie it could have undone within a few days its misleading April 3, 2003, story. It should start by telling the truth to Jessica Lynch herself. Then the reporters and editors who covered up for The Post’s unethical disgrace should resign.

Frank Warner

Comments

[George]

See Taking stock: Top mythbusting posts of 2011

[George]

The military’s ‘fabrication’? No, Jessica Lynch was WaPo’s story

[Frank Warner]

As one of those links show, even author Jon Krakauer has retracted his wild accusation, used to boost his silly theory in his book about Pat Tillman, that a certain White House official dreamed up the story of Jessica Lynch heroics.

The Washington Post gave our enemies that public relations victory and never had the integrity to reveal the name of the idiot who gave them the false story, if indeed his words were reported accurately in the first place.

Again, Lynch was a hero, simply by accepting danger in a war zone. No one had to exaggerate her courage. The Post's blunders and cowardice tainted her service, and those reporters and editors should be ashamed.

[George]

Why WaPo should reveal sources on bogus Jessica Lynch tale/

[Frank Warner]

The only explanation for The Post's cover-up here has nothing to do with protecting the government worker it quoted. The Post's silence on the source's name or title reveals that The Post most probably misquoted the source, quoted him out of context or quoted only part of what he said. My guess is, the source made it very clear to the reporter(s) that he was only guessing, but the reporter(s) left that part out, leaving the impression the source was claiming to know what he was talking about.

We do know this: The source was not "the Pentagon," as so many of Saddam's defenders alleged. Even Jon Krakauer, the Pat Tillman conspiracy theorist, has apologized for falsely saying it was "the Pentagon."

Another point to remember: This bogus controversy (whether "the Pentagon" was trying to build Jessica Lynch into a bigger hero than she was) came early in the liberation of Iraq. Like the claim that U.S. troops allowed the total looting of the Iraq museum, the Jessica Lynch lie revealed that the Democrats and the Democratic press were rooting from the start for Iraq's liberators to lose. It is a disgrace the Democrats will never live down.

If Iraq's democracy survives -- in spite of the irresponsible early withdrawal of U.S. troops last year -- the Democrats will have to admit they had nothing to do with freeing 25 million Iraqis. The Democrats, including The Washington Post's reporters, were all too willing to fabricate stories that undermined even the most obviously noble aspects of the liberation, and they were equally willing to surrender to the fascists even when the victory of freedom was at hand.

[George]

10 weeks on: Still no word from WaPo about apparent digital scrubbing of Lynch articles