The Sgrena saga continues.

The AP reports that the Italian story of Giuliana Sgrena’s release and later wounding at an American checkpoint, which also resulted in the death of intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, continues to fall apart. Two Italian newspapers now say that the general in charge of the Sgrena operation did not inform the US that Calipari’s mission was to free Sgrena, and one of them reports that General Mario Maroli didn’t even know it himself:

Sgrena’s slandering, libelous story that the American military deliberately targeted her for assassination continues to fall apart as well:

In a statement released after the shooting, the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which controls Baghdad, said the vehicle was speeding and refused to stop. The statement also said a U.S. patrol tried to warn a driver with hand and arm signals, by flashing white lights and firing shots in front of the car into the engine block.
In interviews published Friday, Sgrena said that no light was flashed at the vehicle and that the shots were not fired in front of the car.

“It’s not true that they shot into the engine,” she told Corriere della Sera, adding that the shooting came “from the right and from behind.”

Captain Ed points out the obvious:

That qualification changes the entire tenor of the story. Either one would have to believe that the checkpoint soldiers stopped the car and then shot it out—from behind!—or that the car never stopped at the checkpoint and traveled so fast that the soldiers could only catch up to it as it passed through. Think about the options for a moment. If a checkpoint successfully stops a suspicious vehicle, why would soldiers walk around behind it to open fire? They’d risk hitting their unit at the front of the car. Tactically, little gain would come from getting behind a potential VBIED in open space when one could get at least some partial protection from a potential explosion by the checkpoint barricades.

How can anyone believe what this woman says anymore? The Italian press-even the leftists-seem to be trying to get to the bottom of the ever changing, always shifting story of Guiliana Sgrena. I have no doubt that they would love to find evidence of something more than a tragic accident. So it’s to their credit that they are digging into the facts of the story and reporting things fairly straightforwardly.

That being said, where is this story leading? OC Chronicle has some thoughts on the Sgrena matter and how it might compare to the notorious Tawana Brawley affair:

After reading some details of conflicts in the story on Austin Bay’s blog, as well as some fishy foreshadowing fleshed out on LGF, I’m starting to sense a pattern.

The name of the terrorist group: “Mujahadien Without Borders”. Doesn’t that sound a lot like “Doctors Without Borders”? And doesn’t it sound a little too Euro? A little too touchy-feely to be a name of a terrorist group? (HT: Michelle Malkin)

Tawana Brawley was a young black girl who was found unconscious and beaten on a neighbor’s lawn. She told people that she had been raped and beaten by police. That’s when Reverend Al Sharpeton stepped in and led a campaign that accused so many people of the crime, he ended up charging the District Attorney himself with being part of the rape gang. Even after Brawley herself had recanted her story, Sharpeton kept at it. The DA sued Sharpeton and won a huge settlement.

Since the Italian media seems to be on this story like fleas on a dog, I feel pretty good about eventually getting to the bottom of Sgrena’s Saga.

UPDATE:

Rusty Shackleford blogs an NPR interview with il donna di menzogne and catches “the lying woman” in a (gasp) lie!

UPDATE II:

Commenter J.A. reminds us of the aftermath of the suit by the DA against Sharpeton:

The DA won his case against Sharpton, but the last I heard he had never collected a dime, as even Sharpton’s custom made suits are not really his— they are given to him (or so Sharpton says). Sigh.

Indeed!