What is the author trying to say here, that the real reason the Army took out this crime ring is revenge?
Not that it is implausible that she was working the morale maintainance angle with some of the local GIs, but the source of this information is the warlord that was just busted. The military does not appear to have been asked to verfiy the claim.
Does the Post consider the U.S. Army less reliable than an Iraqi criminal warlord?
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.