On the July 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while reporting on former Sen. Mike Gravel's (D-AK) assertion that “there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain -- it's more soldiers dying in vain,” CNN correspondent Brian Todd simply asserted that Gravel's “comment offends America's veterans.” Gravel's comments came during the July 23 Democratic presidential debate.

In reporting that Gravel's “comment ... offends America's veterans,” Todd did not note that Gravel is a veteran himself. According to his campaign's biography, Gravel “enlisted in the U.S. Army (1951-54) and served as special adjutant in the Communication Intelligence Services and as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps.” Another page on Gravel's website states that he “served in Germany.” A February 19 article in The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts, also reported that Gravel “served overseas.”

Todd could have used Gravel's comment as a basis from which to launch a discussion that focused not on Gravel as culprit for articulating what some -- including, apparently, at least one veteran -- regard as the truth, but on the substantive question he raised. In doing so, Todd might have noted that many people, presumably including Gravel, think that saying that “soldiers died in vain” is a criticism of civilian policy decisions, not of the soldiers themselves. He could even have moderated a debate on whether it is appropriate during wartime to assert that soldiers have died in vain. But he did none of those. Instead, he simply passed judgment on Gravel's remark, purporting to speak for all veterans in asserting that they are offended.

From the 5 p.m. hour of the July 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

TODD: Nobody wants to believe it. Few people will say it, except for presidential candidate Mike Gravel.

GRAVEL: Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. You can now, John, go to Hanoi and get a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone.

TODD: Or you can do what President Bush did and visit the stock exchange in Ho Chi Minh City. So what's the point? Why does the ability to eat ice cream or trade stocks with a former enemy mean America's troops died in vain there? Gravel says it's that Vietnam would have turned out that way whether U.S. troops had been there or not. And, he says, so will Iraq.

GRAVEL: Let me tell you, there's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain -- it's more soldiers dying in vain.

TODD: A comment that offends America's veterans, including this general, who fought in Vietnam.

RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (CNN military analyst): In Iraq, soldiers are providing, I think, an opportunity for the Iraqis to have a better life. You can argue whether that's our business or not, but so far, I don't think soldiers have died in vain.