Thursday, April 05, 2007

Who is Amorita Randall?

I can't seem to find much press about another screw up at the Times. The fact that the huge and widely dispersed article they published, "The Woman's War", featured an account of a humvee attack in Iraq recounted by Naval construction worker named Amorita Randall that was never fully checked out before the magazine went to press. Her story was used amidst a series of accounts meant to elucidate the role that sexual harassment in the military contributes to PTSD in female troops.

In the article it states: Amorita Randall lives across the state from Christensen, in a small town outside of Grand Junction. She is 27, a former naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004. Over the course of several phone conversations before visiting her in January, I grew accustomed to the way Randall coexisted with her memories. Mostly she inched up to them.

On days she was feeling stable, she would want to talk, calling me up and abruptly jumping into stories about her six years in the Navy, describing how she was raped twice - the second rape supposedly taking place just a matter of weeks before she arrived in Iraq. Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. "I don't remember all of it," she told me when I met her in the sparsely furnished apartment she shares with her fiance?. "I don't know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome."

The reason Randall doesn't "remember all of it" is because it never happened. She was never deployed to Iraq.

The Times Magazine fact-checkers didn't contact the Navy to verify Randall's story until three days before deadline, according to the editors' note. Hours before press time, a Navy spokesman denied Randall's account to the Times Magazine, the note states. Randall still stood by her account, and the Times Magazine sent it off to press with a passage containing the Navy contradiction: "No after-action report exists to back up Randall's claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour.

Three days after the piece went to press, reports the editors' note, the Navy provided the conclusive evidence that Randall had lied. Only part of Randall's unit was sent to Iraq, leaving her behind.

Naturally, the NYT willingly went along with it, not bothering with facts at all. Nope...no liberal media bias there. It's not like the NYT feels any compunction to saddle their articles with any sort of requirement of truth. What's important to them is the message and not the truth. The message seems to be: Bash the military.

I don't know about you, but to me the truth of what actually happened is more important than the way someone remembers it...

Another embarrassment for the anti-war fable enablers at the NYT.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Frank The Crank said...

Why check out her story? One look at her is proof it's bullshit. That poor couch! Was her MOS in the Navy being the destroyer USS Randall? Good Lord!

5/4/07 15:58  
Anonymous Sharp As A Marble said...

LMAO! Frank! My question would be how is it that she was considered fit for duty at that size? Does the Navy not have Physical Fitness requirements? About the story, nobody should be assaulted in the armed forces or anywhere else, but the NYT has undermined the seriousness of the situation in it's rabid haste to find nasty stories about the military. Their agenda is more important than the truth.

5/4/07 16:08  
Anonymous fidelio said...

I heard they had good chow in the Navy, but that is ridiculous! She could provide armored protection for an entire battalion of Infantry.

Anyway, having the media jump into poorly substantiated stories adds fuel to emotionally disturbed folks' delusional systems that further undermines our society.

5/4/07 16:43  
Anonymous reverse_vampyr said...

With every new story they publish they reach a new low. These fools should be ashamed of themselves, instead they slap each other on the back and are proud of their lies. Their anti-American rhetoric is disgusting and shameful.I have no sympathy for journalists who publishing bogus accusations against the military. Welcome Amorita to the Jesse MacBeth/Micah Wright/Jimmy Massey liars' club.

5/4/07 16:55  
Anonymous jumpmaster said...

It would have been easy to check her story. Randall’s claim that the driver of her vehicle was killed would have made it this simple: the Times researcher could have asked , “What was the driver’s name?, when did he die?” A quick check of the Defense Department’s archived news releases would show no such name, no such incident. The claim would have been disproved in less than five minutes. Plus she says she was raped? A blind elephant would be more discerning. NYT is shameless in it's agenda to discredit the military. I think someone over there get their ass kicked and their woman stole by some old war dog and they have held a grudge ever since.

5/4/07 17:07  
Anonymous kevin federline's ex-wife said...

Seriously ya'll are you sure that's even a woman?
I don't think even K-Fed would hit that. I'm no fan of the NY Times; although I do read the Sunday NY Times for the real estate and style sections; but they did print a correction and retraction about 2 weeks after that story ran. At least they admitted their mistakes...like I did...K-Fed was the biggest mistake I’ve ever made, but I thank him for them babies he made in me. Now where'd them kids get to anyhow?

5/4/07 22:30  
Blogger Digital Fortress said...

The NYT knew she was full of crap four days before publication, but went for broke anyway and then didn't bother publishing a correction for a full week.
The NYT seems to be so deep in bed with anti-American terrorists they probably share pajamas.

6/4/07 22:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home