[#3Fan]

Un-named sources speculating with phrases like "may have been" in a news report that pre-dates the Army's official report are neither oersuasive nor credible. If you want to use unsubstantiated news reports you could just as easily use the BBC's reports that state that everything we heard about her capture and rescue was false and/or staged.

You cite a foreign news source that has less credibility than the New York Times to say that our military lied. Uh oh, you just showed your hand and it isn't pretty.

[wtc911]

Have a little reading comprehension problem do you? Read the whole thread bozo. I wrote that the other poster could easily find "reports" that support any position, including the opposing one from BBC. The only report I gave any credence to was the 15 page one from the Army itself. (Do you know more about this than they do?) Citing speculative opinions, wherein the one giving the opinion actually states "I don't know", as proof of anything is just plain stupid.

Lifting phrases out of context and representing them as proof of a position while ignoring the full context as you did is dishonest. But, hey, go ahead and swallow whatever makes you feel good...even if the facts contradict it.