Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
The pilot of a helicopter on which NBC News anchor Brian Williams flew in Iraq said on Thursday that the aircraft did take some fire in 2003, adding another twist to a story that the newsman was forced to recant and apologize for this week.
Pilot Rich Krell told CNN's Brian Stelter that Williams had some of the facts right, but did make some mistakes in telling the story.
Williams issued multiple apologies on Wednesday night for saying that he was in a helicopter that was hit by a rocket propelled grenade while covering the Iraq War in 2003. He admitted he was in a different helicopter and blamed the errors on "the fog of memory."
But Krell appeared to back up at least some of what Williams has said during repeated tellings of the story over the past decade, even if the anchor did get some things wrong. The most striking thing that Krell said was that the military helicopter Williams was riding in did in fact come under enemy fire, though it was not from an RPG.
"Some of things he's said are not true. But some of the things they're saying against him are not true either," Krell told CNN.
Their helicopter was second in a formation of three aircraft carrying bridge parts, according to Krell. The first helicopter was hit with the RPG attack, which Williams likely did not witness from his seat in the back of the chopper.
All three of the helicopters were hit by small arms fire, however, according to Krell.
"The bridge expansions we were hauling took most of the hits," Krell told CNN.
The helicopter on which Williams was riding then dropped off the bridge parts before catching up to the other two aircraft and landing.
According to CNN, Krell was not angry with Williams over his embellishments, but acknowledged that the NBC anchor made a few errors.
"Yeah, he messed up some things and said some things he shouldn't have. I [first] heard it a few years ago," he said. "Actually one of my flight engineers said, 'Did you hear him say that? Wasn't he on our bird?'"
"After a while, with combat stories, you just go 'Whatever,'" Krell added.
But the numerous versions of the story told by Williams and others leaves it unclear just how much and how often the NBC anchor embellished on what really happened.
During his 2015 version of the story, which he told on-air Friday while honoring a member of the military who was with him during the incident, Williams said the helicopter on which he was flying was hit by an RPG, but he did not specify whether any other aircraft were hit.
His most recent tale sparked backlash among crew members who were flying on separate aircraft in Williams' fleet. Crew members told Stars and Stripes that the chopper Williams was riding on did not take fire, and that he was not near the other helicopters during the attack.
Krell's version of events, as told to CNN, may explain why some crew members thought Williams was nowhere near the attack, even if he was in fact right behind the aircraft hit with RPG fire.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
How, exactly?
That is a catchy title for a song, though, Tool of the War Machine.
|
|
east side underground
climber
Hilton crk,ca
|
|
+1 warbler...." a tool of the government and industry too...... I'm the slime on the video"
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
Feckless? Hardly. Whatever, I'll take it over reckless, ringworm.
Rightwing critics...got a lot of 'em. These are the folks who would have had Sarah Palin as sitting VP right now....so take their opinion with a grain of salt.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Cronkite was the Pope of News Slant, btw.
DMT
BLASPHEMER!!!
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
I don't care for Brian Williams, has always struck me as a smug as#@&%e. In fact, never cared for any anchor from NBC. Couldn't stand Dan Rather of CBS either...except when he was doing his surrealist/performance art pieces during presidential elections (complete with an endless stream of regional colloquialisms)
Now, having said that...
How many of you critics, have been in an active war zone? Ronald? Or even a shootout here in the states? How many volunteered to go to the sandbox? Well, Williams did. So he's already got more sack than Ron and his other critics.
Next point...eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Adrenaline surge, unfamiliar situations, unclear what is actually going on, a hard landing with a bunch of radio chatter about one of the birds being hit, all the soldiers around you yelling and tense and so on.
Warbler knows what's up...GE owns NBC, GE's aviation division has revenue of ~$20-25B/yr. That's a B, for Billion. It's something like 15% of GE corps revenues.
Meanwhile, you've got numpty ass dipshit Senator from North Carolina saying restaurant employee handwashing after taking a sh#t should be optional and the state shouldn't be able to mandate it. Yet another example of why Rebublicans are WRONG about EVERYTHING. Enjoy your fecal burger, Senator Dumfuk.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Meanwhile, you've got numpty ass dipshit Senator from North Carolina saying restaurant employee handwashing after taking a sh#t should be optional and the state shouldn't be able to mandate it. Yet another example of why Rebublicans are WRONG about EVERYTHING. Enjoy your fecal burger, Senator Dumfuk."
Feck, that's priceless.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
This Brian Willimas deal is lighting up the wingNUT-o-sphere. Got 'em all riled up. Perfect for the low-hanging fruit pickers.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Cronkite was the Pope of News Slant, btw.
Oh come on, DMT! I knew he was a liberal, but he reported news objectively. I didn't get the impression that news was mere entertainment then. Maybe the news departments were better at hiding the real nature of their work then, but I think they offered much better quality information 50 years ago than now.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Can anyone point me to the vitriolic derision from Righties when Gerald Rivera, chief war correspondent for Faux News, claimed to have prayed over the bodies of American soldiers when he was no closer than 300 miles from the site?
Haven't been able to find it myself....odd.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Gerry Rivers is only present for comic relief.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Well, then, he's perfectly suited to this network of faux journalists, eh?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
Feb 11, 2015 - 05:01am PT
|
the last (or latest?) liberal bastion of gender hatred: "women's colleges"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398335/womens-colleges-left-trying-decide-what-womens-college-means-katherine-timpf
so, libs, how does this figure into the so-called "rape culture" on college campuses?
consider:
let's say there is a "gender fluid" person who was born "male" (i.e. with a penis) but sometimes identifies as a female
let's say this person begins the evening identifying as a female and goes to a party and meets a lovely "female" (i.e. with the biological lady parts) lesbian and they have sex; BUT while having sex, the gender fluid female begins identifying as a male
is "he" (just recently "she") obligated to tell (warn?) the female lesbian of his/her gender change? if "he" doesn't, is "he" guilty of rape since the female lesbian did not consent to have sex with the male-identified gender fluid person but only with the female-identified gender fluid person?
if so, what happens if, during the trial, the gender fluid person identifies as a female? can the court convict "her" for a crime "he" committed? (this reminds me of my favorite line from three faces of eve when the bad girl says she goes out at night and gets drunk but lets the nice girl have the hangover the next day)
or, what if the fully female lesbian decides to "experiment" and consents to have sex with the female-identified gender fluid person BUT secretly only for "her" biological male parts? is the fully female lesbian guilty of rape since the female-identified gender fluid person consented only to lesbian sex?
or let's say both the female lesbian and the female-identified gender fluid person decide to experiment together with the male apparatus...when the male-identified gender fluid person discovers what happened with his male parts without his consent, would "he" have a right to feel violated and, if so, would "he" be considered the victim of a rape? or a gang rape since there were actually two other people involved? is it even possible that "he" was raped" since "he" wasn't actually present when the sex act occurred?
and about that "slippery slope":
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/10/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-vomitorium/
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 11, 2015 - 06:08am PT
|
^^^^Your fixation on this is really weird.^^^^^
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|