That was just about stand-alone perfect.
Thanks.

The Liberal news media vultures will be realy upset becuase it will leave no more for them to feed on sorry but that the way it gose

Valiant Bearded Warrior Poets Gravely Wound Our Callow Youths . . .

I have also heard the tale that some squads of soldiers have taken to using tampons as an emergency field measure to plug bullet wounds.

I think I saw that in a letter from a soldier on Hugh Hewitt's page, but now I can't remember. I hope it's not an urban legend.

"Number of badly wounded soldiers on rise in Iraq"

Was it really that malicious a headline?

Yes, it was. The intent of the headline was to show just one more negative thing about the war in Iraq. Not to underscore advances in battlefield medicine or the fine work of our brave medics. It seems like Al Rueters would have preferred our soldiers to just go ahead and be dead instead of wounded - that would be better for Al Rueters AND the American Taxpayer.

yes, it was. the implication is very clear.

NYT ran a similar story about 8-9 months ago. same bent.

The article to which you refer is really about the "after" effects of being wounded, and that there will be an overwhelming nimber of soldiers who will have to deal with the physical trauma, hospital stays, and long-term treatment...and who's going o PAY for it.

I've read nothing, by ANY news organization that implies they are not happy that more soldiers are being kept alive.

Maybe you should visit one of the military hospitals and see what this war is doing to our young men and women before posting such a biased and inaccurate comment.

Maybe you should visit one of the military hospitals and see what this war is doing to our young men and women before posting such a biased and inaccurate comment.

Perhaps you should read the post more closely before blathering incoherently. The objection was to the headline, not the content of the article. The mismatch between the headline and the content gave rise to Ace's satirical headline.

Thomas,
These injuries are extremity injuries (arms and legs) that are severe and mostly ones that require amputation(s).
This is a testament to the body armor that the troops wear. You know the same body armor that you decried as inadeqaute.
The really amazing thing about these soldiers is the number of them who want to and try to return to their combat units.

Here's the headline:

"Number of badly wounded soldiers on rise in Iraq"

Wherre in the aritcle does the author contradict this statement?

And...you DO understand that headlines are designed to garner attention.

You know...like: "Clinton Gave Iran Nuke Blueprints" (bullshit)

"Shed No Tears For Dead White Coal Miners" (huh??)

"Steven Colbert: Pro-Torture?" (huh??)

YOu people ONLY want to hear what you already believe to be so.

Wherre in the aritcle does the author contradict this statement?

Is that the point of the post? No, it isn't. When you comprehend the point of the post, perhaps you might be able to make cogent and relevant arguments. I'll wait.