[William Terrell]

You guys can be awfully gullible. What does that line you posted mean? Read it carefully.

I have no problem with a woman firing guns and killing, nor do I have a problem with a woman going through pain to fight. I've seen it real time. And there's a time and a place for everything.

But there are some truths you seem to be disregarding. One is she is a human being first, woman second. The media are socialists, and one of the socialists causes is women in combat. News sources lie; you know this. I has been proven again and again, but they lie, usually not outright, but by untrue innuendo and misdirection.

Just this is reason enough to be skeptical of such a heroric story. If it was indeed indeed heroric, I salute her even though there are more appropriate ways for a woman to serve her country. I would like hear the battlefield intelligence that came from monitored communications, and a more current assessed of that Iraqi source. Wouldn't you, to be a fair judge?

Remember, this is the Washington Post. Every phoneme out of that source should be treated with cynicism.

[twigs]

Imus had a reporter on this morning who said that this story had been around since before her capture, so it didn't emerge since she was rescued. But he also cautioned that they do not know all the details. My guess is that it at least has a basis in truth and the details are yet to emerge.

[A2J]

Remember, this is the Washington Post. Every phoneme out of that source should be treated with cynicism.

Rare are the times when you and I agree, but here's a "kudo" to you.