[John Valentine]

The article makes the statement, "A US combat leader who was involved in the battle has also denounced the military's account of the battle., but nowhere in the stroy is this weird staement elaborated or substantiated.

In fact the only staement attributed to anyone that could be termed a "combat leader" SUPPORTS the version of the fight and the casualties that came from the battle assessments.

I think this is sloppy journalism at best and outright lying at worst.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I think this is sloppy journalism at best and outright lying at worst."

Or perhaps a truncated article. But I'm leaning towards the "lying" explanation. Since the beginning of the war, I've been amazed at the bias and downright mendacity of the allegedly "objective" British press, so beloved of American liberals.