The facts be known. I'm thinking how this plays into the left's conspiracy theory that the entire Lynch thing (ie, capture, torture and subsequent rescue) was nothing but a DoD PR stunt attempting to galvanize support for our troops during the early stages of the war. I suppose their thinking will be the sodomizing rape was staged for effect.

//Kurt

Frankly, and I mean this as no disrespect to Pvt. Lynch, but I haven't seen a single authoritative piece of evidence to support a rape claim. Lynch herself has not said anything to this effect that I'm aware of. In the end we are left to fill the purported three hour gap in her memory with whatever lurid details we wish. Presumably the medical examinations performed on her after her recovery by U.S. forces would be able to shed some light on this, but they are quite rightly confidential, and thus not available for public examination and comment.

That leaves us with the assertions of the person who wrote the book, coupled with the lack of a denial from Lynch (who wasn't exactly altogether there due to her injuries), that could conveniently fit into the three hour memory gap.

It all sounds to me like sensationalism to sell a book that otherwise doesn't have much more to tell us than we already know. I can read Mike Durant's book "In the Company of Heroes" if I want to read about a U.S. soldier who was badly injured in combat and taken prisoner by a savage enemy, instead. (And I have, it's a good book.)

All right, I just read on msnbc that the book cites medical reports indicating rape. I retract what I said above about it being a bone of contention.