[Marius3188]

Yep. Not Airborne qualified. Perhaps he ment 'repels' instead of jumps. The article is a fraud.

[aculeus]

The article is a fraud.

See 14.

[GOP_Proud]

One of the reporters on FNC mentioned the visit last night. He 9the PM) went to Walter Reed. The rest is just filler. You fuss about details if you want, but he visited WR. That's the important part. It was a classy move.

[pollyannaish]

I agree with you that the press is not to be trusted. And you absolutely may be correct that some of the information is screwed up. (In fact, I would be shocked if it wasn't)

But—you do not throw an entire article out on the basis of unrelated facts. That is true when it is a positive story and when it is negative. You only toss the thing when it messes up facts ESSENTIAL to the premise of the story.

In this case, the point is he made a visit. Unless there are factual misstatements about that, the article stands, imo.

[tarheelswamprat]

Yep. Not Airborne qualified. Perhaps he ment 'repels' instead of jumps. The article is a fraud.

The word is "rappels" - descending a rope. On a more important note, the only thing discernable for certain from the available evidence is that the article is riddled with errors relating to military unit and MOS minutia. There is no evidence that the Prime Minister's visit to Walter Reed Hospital did not occur - the fact is, it did.

Yet you pronounce it a "fraud". The word fraud connotes a deliberate intent to deceive - there is absolutely no evidence of this. An accurate statement would be that the premise of the article is truthful, but the article is somewhat flawed by the carelessness of the author. So, why did you use the word?