So, go read the “CNN report of Sgrena’s claims that the US is lying about the circumstances surrounding her shooting.”:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/06/italy.iraq/index.html
CNN does a good job covering up her anti-war, anti-American positions, only conceding that Il Manifesto is a “left-leaning” newspaper.
What’s more interesting, however, are Sgrena’s own words:
bq. *Troops used arm signals and flashing white lights, fired warning shots in front of the car, and shot into the engine block when the driver did not stop, the military said in a statement.*
bq. *But in an interview with Italy’s La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said _”there was no bright light, no signal.”_*
So, she flat out says the military is lying, and says they were fired on “without motive”. However, in her next statement she says:
bq. *And Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather the shots came from _”a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight.”_*
So there were no lights, but they were lit up with a spotlight? How, exactly, does that work?
There have been questions all along how “real” her kidnapping was. She is openly hostile to the US, and disappeared while interviewing terrorist sympathizers. A video tape with her pleading for her life was released just before the Italian elections, in an apparent effort to influence them al la Spain. She was sure to thank her captors for treating her so well. And now she is telling people she was deliberatley targeted, and the leftists jump on the bandwagon as expected. I don’t think she planned on getting shot, but I do think she is going to use it to whatever political advantage she can – and bask in the hero worship of her commie buddies, of course.
As for the deliberately targeted meme they are trying to foster, it’s complete tripe. How do I know? Simple – because she’s still alive. If it really was a patrol that ambushed them in the night with the sole intent to kill her, why did they stop shooting? Certainly can’t be anyone around to challenge your version of events if you kill everyone right off the bat, right?
h3. UPDATE
And the story “just keeps changing.”:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1431436,00.html
bq. *Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had _already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. 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.*
They weren’t at a checkpoint, then they were. There was no light, a spotlight from a patrol, a flashlight in the window, and then several hundred rounds were fired from an armored vehicle. But only 1 person in the car died. I wonder what kind of armored vehicles we have that are so ineffective that 400 rounds shot into an unarmored car only kills 1 person?
This lady is lying – and the left will do everything it can to be sure that the lie is repeated often enough that people begin to believe it.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the Guardian notes Sgrena’s anti-war efforts, and describes Il Manifesto as a communist newspaper – something that CNN just couldn’t bring itself to do. Maybe the moniker of “Communist News Network” isn’t so far off the mark after all.
