The first paragraph says "... and the murder of a local prostitute servicing U.S. troops.
But surprise, surprise, surprise...
The last paragragh says...murdered a local prostitute whom Lateef accused of selling her services to U.S. troops.
Gee, I wonder why they couldn't include that attribution in the first sentence, where they state unequivocably that our troops are dipping their salami's in an Iraqi prostitute?
Anyone think I am being slightly cynical when I note that the attribution is included in the very last paragraph, and that I remember from my journalism classes that news stories are written specifically so that they can be cut from the bottom without losing any important information?
Anyone think I am being over-sensitive when it occurs to me that this scumbag of a news-writer is taking malicious glee in sticking a knife in our troop's back in what he thinks is a slick and risk-free fashion.
Gee, I wonder why they couldn't include that attribution in the first sentence, where they state unequivocally that our troops are dipping their salami's in an Iraqi prostitute?You're not being cynical. I agree that the position and wording of those sentences were intentionally written to imply scandal. I would also blame the editors of the New York Post for putting out this libelous report.
This woman is probably just someone the troops saved from receiving one of their stupid vengeance killings for accidentally showing a big toe or walking down the street at the wrong time.
Not at all, this is a typical fifth-column attempt to undermine the war effort. Imagine you're one of the many wives at home reading this.