Well, it happened...

The article is here and online!

Read it first, then read my reaction:

I had my misgivings, and I was skeptical. As the article says, I googled her. I didn't see this kind of thing happen, and I feel a little betrayed. I thought we had a good rapport. See if you can guess the part that she took out of context and used for a little anti-war poke at the reader. I did not make that statement. What she wrote was cobbled together for a completely different feel to my words. That makes me feel rather bad about it and reminds me that I just can't completely trust media sources. In case you haven't figured it out, it's the statement, "We'd fly troops in and fly out the dead." I never said that. I did mention that occasionally we would also fly out the dead, but she makes it sound like an every day occurrence. Oh, I'm rather angry about that. Naturally it's right before another reminder about the "thousands of deaths". ooooo! I will be emailing her. It's slightly redressed with the line about believing in what we're doing. We'll see how I feel after a couple re-readings.

On the other hand...
I think the picture is hilarious. I was looking at an airplane flying directly over head landing at the nearby regional airport. I did choose the binary shirt on purpose. Can you read it? It's rather appropriate. Even though they got Michel's name right in the article, it's biffed in the caption.

Other than the bad part, the rest of the article I feel captures us nicely. It's nice to see us mostly well represented. Another liberty she took was to say that she contacted me after SHE saw the ribbons and sign and stuff. Actually, it was a neighbor that works with her that saw it all and told her about it. Interesting the liberties they take, eh?

All in all, I feel the article was well-written, that we are accurately portrayed in the wordspace allowed, but that one bit really irks me.