[Billthedrill]

An excellent reply to a story that was simply astounding in its superficiality. The actual source of the original story was an antiwar "expert" whose livelihood depends on the ability to portray veterans as damaged human beings. That the NY Times chose to give him a sounding-board was explicable only by the fact that he fits their narrative regarding the war. That they should do so on the basis of such flimsy and easily-refuted statistics speaks purely to a lack of professionalism.

[StarCMC]

That they should do so on the basis of such flimsy and easily-refuted statistics speaks purely to a lack of professionalism.

But...but...but I thought Helen Thomas said that it was the PROFESSIONALS who had the ethics and the bloggers were the ones who didn't....? *eyeroll*