Article

2007-03-22 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-22 14:13|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 while i have no room for those that commit crimes like the ones described, i have just as much 'no room' for those that either have a time delay in reporting or blatantly fabricate such stories. i think she may be telling a story.....

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-03-22 14:21|| 2007-03-22 14:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Why would the Times take time to check a good story?

Posted by Bobby 2007-03-22 14:32|| 2007-03-22 14:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Especially one that fits so well into the agenda..

Posted by tu3031 2007-03-22 14:35|| 2007-03-22 14:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Especially one that fits so well into the agenda..

Garsh, you'd think that those were the ones that they'd want to check most closely in order to assiduously maintain their credibility. [spit]

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-22 14:51|| 2007-03-22 14:51|| Front Page Top

#5 They lost their credibility a long time ago Zenster. Now they really don't care as they figure not very many people, if any, will go back and check the facts of the story.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2007-03-22 15:52|| 2007-03-22 15:52|| Front Page Top

#6 He said that by deadline, the Navy had not given the Times any reason to disbelieve Randalls claim of service in Iraq.

Great. Gave the Navy three whole days to dig through a mountain of paperwork. They're sort of like a dinosaur, where the head doesn't know the tail has been bitten until a week later! High standards the Times displays there. I figure they're doing it knowingly. Ditto, DB. The worst that will happen is they have to print an itty bitty correction on page 73 amongst a billion other footnotes that few ever read.

Posted by gorb 2007-03-22 16:08|| 2007-03-22 16:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Now they really don't care as they figure not very many people, if any, will go back and check the facts of the story.

I know, DB. Especially in this age of shoe sized IQs with fruit fly attention spans.

The worst that will happen is they have to print an itty bitty correction on page 73 amongst a billion other footnotes that few ever read.

Yeah, funny how even the most flamboyant ~~lies~~ mistakes never get a retraction printed on page one above the fold.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-22 16:30|| 2007-03-22 16:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Aaron Rectica, who runs the magazines research desk, disputes that. He said that by deadline, the Navy had not given the Times any reason to disbelieve Randalls claim of service in Iraq.

I believe this is the new modus operandi of the press: call for a response when it's too late for the target to respond accurately, then blame the target for "not responding by our deadline". It gives them the out of saying "we asked them!" while simultaneously making it impossible for any evidence counter to their preferred story line to be produced.

And given Randall's "memory" of an attack that never happened, I'd tend to doubt her claims of being raped. Which sucks, because that kind of false -- and dramatic -- claim makes it harder on real victims.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-03-22 17:42|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-03-22 17:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't believe the NYT if they said the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow morning. They're lying, hypocritical bastards with a truly severe case of BDS, a case so bad they'd see America brought to its knees before they would help the war effort.

Posted by Mac 2007-03-22 17:44|| 2007-03-22 17:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Randalls personnel file includes a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which is only awarded to troops who have served in a war zone.

It wouldn't the first time one had been issued by 'mistake'. All it takes is a good story to a sympathetic ear, or a clueless friend in PSD (personnel support detachment)trying to do a good deed. Especially if Randall was being separated (the medal at that point might've been considered a moot issue).

Marzorati...added that no one has challenged the military records of the 30 other women mentioned in the article.

Odds are, they will be now.

Posted by Pappy 2007-03-22 21:16|| 2007-03-22 21:16|| Front Page Top

23:48 USN, ret.
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:42 USN, ret.
23:41 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:38 Shipman
23:34 49 Pan
23:24 WTF
23:16 SteveS
23:03 3dc
23:00 Jackal
22:59 OldSpook
22:57 ed
22:56 OldSpook
22:53 trailing wife
22:53 Jackal
22:52 3dc
22:52 OldSpook
22:50 OldSpook
22:46 OldSpook
22:43 OldSpook
22:42 OldSpook
22:42 Zhang Fei