[QUOTE=elucidator]
Not good enough. Especially the coy bit about “make believe”, which is arch and cutesy-poo. You either have evidence of fraud, and some plausible motivation on their part, or you don’t. May we stipulate that you do not? And if you oppose such an acceptance of fact, have you any basis? Outside of your insistence that it must be so, because Kerry teh suxxor?
But you don’t, do you, otherwise you would have presented it by now, otherwise you would not find yourself retreating to ever more implausible scenario.
If even half the men at Winter Soldier told the truth, does that not indicate a pattern of denial and cover-up? How then can you assault Kerry’s accusation of complicity at all levels of command? How you evidence to offer that it never got beyond the junior officer level? Do we not honor, as an establlished principle, that officers are responsible for the actions of thier subordinates?
More and more, it appears that John Kerry’s “crime”, in your estimation, was telling the truth. You screech about him not “verifying” the stories, knowing full well that he was in no position to do so. Then you are forced to accept that if the stories had been vetted, they would likely have been shown to be true.
As I said: you got nothing.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I’ve got the fact the Kerry isn’t in The White House. And never will be.
But let’s say that half the men are telling the truth. Does that make this war different than any other in regards to horrors. I’m sure every war has contorted some men to commit heinous acts. But for Lurch to portray the atrocities of Vietnam as being routine is dishonest (what a surprise?).
Did you watch the videos? Do you think all those men are lying? Do you thiink there all wrong? Fine. Do youacknowledge that they might know more :eek: than you about the subject.? Do you think they are dishonorable? Are you ata ll impressed by the degree to which they are decorated? If you are, what would cause such honorable men to spew what you see as dishonorable shit? What is it about Lurch that would make these honorable men change so much?
Did you read the chapter of the book?
Now, if you would have read my most recent posts for content, you wold have noticed where I said that this exercise is pointless, as both sides will look down upon the cites offered by the other. If I give you a cite from a right-leaning cite, does that help us? No. It just wastes my time. Which I’m not inclined to do. I’d say the same would be true from your side. That’s just the way it is on issues like this. Do you really think that we’re going to resolve this here? We’re not. Even if I gave you ten cites that I thought were good. That should be evident. But if you want to insist to portray it as some grand failing on my part, :rolleyes:.
Now let me write a letter to President Ker—oops. Sorry, wrong guy. I mean the guy who the American people trusted more than the Dishonorable, Self-Important Lying Sack of Shit. Now THAT"S saying something!
You know, just based on that realization, today’s gonna be a good day. Have a lovely one, Sunshine.
Other than that, what evidence do you offer that he is not an honorable, honest man? What’s that? You offer that he “has a political agenda”. Unnecessary use of the loaded word “agenda” aside, are you of the opinion that a person shouldn’t have a political leaning? Should we all then ignore everything you’ve ever said about Obama, every verbal slurpie you’ve given him? The man has a political ideology. Some would think he has a right to one, even if he wasn’t one of the most decorated soldiers in U.S. history and served time as a POW. Do you have ANY evidence that his political leanings have caused him to subvert his honor? Is there some book he wrote or some argument he gave in court that leads you to believe that he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt? Or does disagreeing with you political agenda strip him of that little courtesy?
And to think I used to criticize your zingers.