Although it should have been obvious, even to a four-year-old.

Are you conversent with what constitutes a classification of "amputee"? If a humvee passenger gets both right limbs explosively removed and there's nothing to amputate, is he or she an offical amputee?

This is just inane, similar to the idiotic idea that nobody is counting troops as casualties that have been shipped out to outside medical facilities and die there. Everybody knows what the hell an amputee means, and the idea that it would only include people who had their limbs removed surgically is worthy of a four-year-old.

Also, does "the war on terror" have a specific connotation and does it include Operation Iraqi Freedom?

The term "Iraq and Afghanistan" is used several times during the quote from the military article.

You wouldn't make a post like this that mirrored some blog without attributing it would you?

The numbers come directly from the DoD, and the article quoted is from that source. There is no sign that a blog was involved in any part of that post.

What difference would it make if a blog had linked to it, or anyone else? Are we now at the point where the person who points to a fact is more important than the fact itself? Never mind, that question answers itself.