Any policeman will tell you that one sure way to tell if a suspect is lying about committing a crime is if his statement changes in the retelling of it again and again. Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena’s story of the attack on her car by American troops has changed so often in the last 72 hours that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that she’s a bald-faced liar who is padding her story with falsehoods to advance her anti-war, anti-American political agenda.
Sgrena has made several statements about the incident; an interview with RAI Radio, the BBC’s World Today, an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera , an interview with the Italian wire service ANSA, an interview with Italian LA 7 TV, and interview with TG 5 TV, and Sgrena’s story in her own newspaper the Il Manifesto. In addition, Sgrena has been interviewed by an Italian prosecutor and has told the story to her boyfriend and her editor.
A common thread that emerges from these various statements is inconsistency. Here are a few examples:
HOW FAST WAS THE CAR GOING?
“We weren’t going particularly fast given that type of situation.” (RAI)The vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. (Sgrena’s editor)
“She said the “regular” speed of her car did not justify the shooting (ANSA)“The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them.” (Il Manifesto)
Somehow we go from “not particularly fast, to “not travelling fast,” to the car going “regular” speed” and ending up “almost losing control” they were going so fast.
Subtle differences? Yes, and significant.
WHO AND WHAT WERE FIRING?
“There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire, and I was speaking with Nicola, who was telling me about what had been happening in Italy in the meantime, when he leaned towards me, probably also to protect me,” (RAI)
“The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.” (Her editor)
She also said her group had been fired on by an American patrol and not at a checkpoint.
“We thought the danger was over after my rescue. And instead, suddenly there was this shooting. We were hit by a spray of fire.” (RAI TV)
They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing. It was so immediate. I didn’t know how I was alive after all that attack.” (BBC World Today)“It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that started shooting after pointing some lights in our direction,’’ (Prosecutor)
“We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us and he tried to cover me and he was shot. He died and, me, I was safe but he was dead. ” (BBC)
“They told me that we were less than a kilometer away…when…I only remember fire. At that point, a rain of fire and bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices of a few minutes earlier.” (Il Manifesto)
Lights or no lights? Tanks, armoured cars, a patrol, a checkpoint? Finally, “I only remember fire.” Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt because of a life and death situation, is she trying to tell us she can’t remember if there were lights or not? Of course she would think there wasn’t a checkpoint because the car wasn’t stopping! And what happened to the bit about “the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour?” The only place that appears is in The Guardian, a notorious anti-American British rag.
WHAT DID THE TERRORISTS TELL HER?
The shooting was ``without reason,’’ Sgrena said yesterday from a Rome military hospital, where she is being treated for her wounds. “I cannot find any justification for it,’’ she was cited as saying. (Corriere della Sera)
“I can’t say it was deliberate because we can’t say if there was a lack of information. But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information. ” (BBC)
‘Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,” (the Boyfriend)
‘’I believe, but it’s only a hypothesis, that the happy ending to the negotiations must have been irksome,’’ she said. ‘’The Americans are against this type of operation. For them, war is war, human life doesn’t count for much.’’ (TG 5 TV)
“They told me to beware because `there are Americans who don’t want you to return’” (Il Manifesto) (Note: This is the first reference to anything the terrorists may have said to her more than 24 hours after her release.)
“When they let me go, it was a difficult moment for me because they told me, ‘The Americans don’t want you to return alive to Italy.’” (RAI TV)I don’t know how much clearer it could be. I tried to place the above quotes in chronological order. However, since 3 of the interviews took place on Saturday, it’s impossible to tell which ones came in what order. It doesn’t take a genius to see the escalating anti-Americanism in her comments.
What to make of all this? Given that there have been other tragic incidents at military checkpoints, it’s very probable that both the Italian driver and the soldiers at the checkpoint made terrible mistakes. According to recently released documents this kind of tragedy has occurred approximately 30 times since the end of the war. Nor, I suspect, will it be the last.
The two questions on everybody’s mind would be; 1) Why would the US military want to kill some obscure leftist journalist, and 2) why didn’t they finish the job and leave no witnesses?
As to #1, no reason of course. Only in Sgrena’s fevered imagination would the US military care about anything a propogandist like her would write (Go here for review of her “articles”)
As for #2, the fact that she’s alive and well enough to postulate conspiracy theories gives the lie to the idea she was a target. Does she really expect anyone (besides the self deluded moonbats) to believe that if the US wanted her out of the way they wouldn’t hesitate to kill everyone and then blame it on the insurgents?
Communists believe that the rest of us are gullible sheep. Unfortunately, many in Europe and this country are proving them right.
Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network
UPDATE: HOW FAST WAS THAT AGAIN?
Michelle Malkin links to another story-this time from CNN that gives a different speed for the car yet again!
Not only is Sgrena a lousy journalist…she’s a lousy liar as well.
UPDATE II: WELCOME REV. MYKERU MOONBATS!
Welcome to all of you moonbats joining us from the Rev’s website. Believe me, I was honored and flattered to have the moonbat link to my humble abode.
Two rules to follow while you’re here, please:
1. Keep your dirty feet off the furniture.
2. Please use a coaster for your kool-aid glasses.
I’d mention that it’s not polite to wear your tin foil hats inside someone’s home except I know there’s no way you’re going to take any chances while in this House.
UPDATE III
Jeff Goldstien has some interesting thoughts and a pornographic challenge, that, if it pans out, will rock the DU moonbats’ world! And if it doesn’t pan out…well, I’d still love to see those pictures!
12:26 pm
It was the Trilateral Commission. All the way.
3:16 pm
Very keen observations my friend.
3:48 pm
Hell, if we’d known she was going to make up a bunch of BS about us intentionally trying to kill her…we would’ve just popped a few .50 caliber slugs and tank rounds through her little get-away car.
7:15 pm
Superhawk,
Nah, that’s OK, we can snark at you over at my place (comments, message board and all) because, after all, your house has too many white sheets hanging on the line outside, if you get my less than subtle drift.
Besides, you’ve got the tinfoil hat on the wrong head, matey: Finding anomalies in eyewitness accounts is an old conspiracist’s ruse. There are still Kennedy Conspiracy whackjobs writing books because the first cop in the Texas School Book Depository mistook Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano for a Mauser, which are very similar. And even if cops know a “suspect is lying about committing a crime” they don’t expect the victim of a violent crime to have perfect recall. Giuliana Sgrena was the victim of a crime, not the people who shot her.
8:38 pm
Again, the question has to be asked…
WHAT SHE DOING STILL ALIVE IF SHE WAS A “TARGET” FOR ASSASSINATION?
Speaking of conspiracy theories (BTW, it wasn’t a “cop” that made the statement about the Mauser in TSD, it was an AP reporter who saw the gun and mis ID’d it. The AP pulled the report in minutes…but not before NBC reported it.) Ms. Sgrena has yet to explain how it could possibly have been a hit if the Americans didn’t even know she was released. The Italian intelligence service has admitted to not coordinating with our military on her release.
This should be pretty easy to understand even for a barking moonbat like you…How can the US military target someone for death when they don’t even know that the person targeted is within 100 miles of their checkpoint?
10:37 pm
“(BTW, it wasn’t a “cop” that made the statement about the Mauser in TSD, it was an AP reporter who saw the gun and mis ID’d it. The AP pulled the report in minutes…but not before NBC reported it.)”
Wrong. Apparently you are one of those people who never tires of pulling authoritative information from your ass:
Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman was one of the police officers on the sixth floor of the depository. Upon glancing at the rifle, he thought the rifle looked like a 7.65 Mauser. He later made a statement to the Dallas police on November 23, and the FBI on November 23(page 1 and 2) and November 25 (page 1 and 2) stating the rifle he saw was a 7.65 Mauser.
In his Warren Commission testimony, he explained how he thought it was a Mauser, but he only glanced at it.
Mr. BALL. In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN. In a glance, that’s what it looked like.
Mr. BALL. That’s what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. WEITZMAN. No; I said that. I thought it was one .
[http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mauser.htm]
11:37 pm
I got somethin else over at my site that you will want to see. I’m sorry to plug myself here so much, but I know you share common goals.
And thank you for helping to expose the ACLU. You will want to see this protest organizing. And again, the invitation to post at my blog is still out there, just let me know.
http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
2:57 am
No one has any faith in the US anymore except the neo-cons. All I see on everyone of your sites is slander of this woman on the grounds she is ‘left’.
OMG she’s left, she’s a commie, she’s anti-American. Well, I have news for you, most of the world is becoming anti-American. What about the Bulgarian soldier? I know another US mistake.
Why don’t you join secret service and put your life on the line like this man did? Or hell, become a reporter like Sgrena and risk your life trying to get the news to the people. Easy to be an armchair gunner isn’t it?
6:11 am
To call Sgrena a journalist is laughable. She’s a propogandist for an ideology that has never placed a premium on truth. Or as Reagan used to say…”They reserve unto themselves the ability to lie, to cheat, to falsify history…”
If you can’t see that Sgrena’s statements became progessively more anti_American as the hours passed and she realized what a cause celbre on the left she had become, then you’re willfully blind.
7:14 am
superhawk,
Do you have examples of her other writings to prove her “anti-Americanism”, or is your criticism that she just doesn’t have the right attitude towards being shot for no good reason. I know should some jihadist accidentally (or otherwise)shoot you there would be no hard feelings.
Incidentally, I find it exceedingly interesting that you edited your post to remove your remark about the AP reporter finding the Mauser rather than a policeman after I provided a cite to show you were wrong.
It would be Orwellian if it wasn’t so clumsy. No wonder PDF capture is my friend should you decide to edit my comments too.
7:17 am
Oh wait, there it is. Well, I’m going to claim conspiracy and media bias rather than admit to error. It seems to be the thing to do.
9:11 am
I have NEVER deleted, edited, or otherwise tampered with a comment on this site.
I believe that if people want to make fools of themselves, they have my enthusiastic permission to do so.
8:13 am
I suspect CNN.