Excuse me for trying to be rational here, but what does that mean, specifically? Out of all the media available, the Post is among the most socialist. You
know the socialist media are rabid for women in combat; it's a major point in the socialist cause.
Why do you buy the story from this cryptic statement? What were the monitored communications and exactly what did they say? What does it mean "Iraqi sources in whose reliability has yet to be assessed"?
This lady should be honored for her support service, in spite of her being placed much too close to the front lines. But this kind of bloviation? From this source, with all the potential benefits for so many feminist causes?
I'll be willing to compliment her on her resolve and courage under pressure, but to go any further I'll need to see these communications first. I'll sure as hell not take the raw word of the Washington Post.
General Franks is forwarding the information to you now. Check your Freepmail for a message from "Tommy".
You accuse (probably correctly) the
Post of having a liberal bias that would want to promote the idea of women in combat:
You know the socialist media are rabid for women in combat; it's a major point in the socialist cause.
And yet, it appears to me that you have an agenda of your own:
This lady should be honored for her support service, in spite of her being placed much too close to the front lines.
I'd like to set the predetermined bias aside, and just see what the actual TRUTH of the story is.