Yeah, I’m sure noticing one. It’s like that dog I had, chasing its tail....
Lame.. the pattern is that it is hard to interpret Lynch's behavior in a positive light the more you consider it.
Unfortunately, the same consideration is beginning to apply to your own behavior. This has been an interesting and successful thread up to the point that you come back to speculating about not being able to "trust" the Military as a generalization based on these flimsy twisted aspersions. This thread and what has been presented in it clearly demonstrates that the Military's narrative of these events has continued to become more accurate over time, despite press coverage that filled in gaps with overblown heated images.
It also has been presented that an excessive demand for legalistic standards of "proof" and care in a war zone is actually putting our own troops in jeopardy for no benefit in the pursuit of victory.
I haven't taken the time to research your other postings so I keep assuming you are approaching this in good faith, or at worst playing the devil's advocate.
But playing the devil's advocate and being the devil's advocate are only a breath apart.
You said — “Unfortunately, the same consideration is beginning to apply to your own behavior. This has been an interesting and successful thread up to the point that you come back to speculating about not being able to “trust” the Military as a generalization based on these flimsy twisted aspersions. This thread and what has been presented in it clearly demonstrates that the Military’s narrative of these events has continued to become more accurate over time, despite press coverage that filled in gaps with overblown heated images.”
Oh, don’t worry, the military doesn’t get singled out in such a statement of trust. It usually extends to any governmental agency and/or a politician or a company — any of whom tend to hire PR people to massage the truth. It’s not the government or business are known for truth-telling standards.
Most of the time, the small guy, various individuals, are the ones who are trying to tell the truth on a matter. So, I’ll be giving a lot of weight to individuals whose first-hand experience is “at stake” so to speak, rather than a bigger organization (whomever that might be) who has an overall agenda in what they’re doing.
An example of that, in terms of what many here would more than likely understand, is maybe a blog of a soldier/contractor, who is “on the ground” in Iraq (or who has been), and they may be posting a day-to-day journal and taking pictures and videos, putting them on. They’re just tellling a small segment of a larger story, but it’s relevant and important. I’m much more likely to listen to this one guy as being closer to the truth on a matter, than some statement out of the press office of the Pentagon (which is managed and filtered).
In the end, the military doesn’t get any more singled out than any other organization. It’s just that the military is part of this particular story.
.
And then — “It also has been presented that an excessive demand for legalistic standards of “proof” and care in a war zone is actually putting our own troops in jeopardy for no benefit in the pursuit of victory.”
Hey, we’re not talking about putting yellow tape around a piece of ground where the enemy is still zinging bullets around. To put it in that category is nowhere near what telling the truth is about. It’s simply giving an accurate rendition of the story — well..., let’s say one that, at the very least, matches what the main participant says... That would be a good starting point...
.
Finally — “I haven’t taken the time to research your other postings so I keep assuming you are approaching this in good faith, or at worst playing the devil’s advocate.”
I’m not playing devil’s advocate here. What I said, it’s meant in the plainest sense that anyone can read or understand. The big problem here — on Free Republic — is that it’s “polarized” (politically speaking). That means that everything is literally “charged” with one political pole or the other.
As far as “researching” my other postings, you probably wouldn’t find them interesting, but rather hum-drum. I mean, is anyone’s posting more interesting than to oneself? That would be like telling any one of us to write a book about ourselves and see if we could even sell it to our own relatives (and knowing my relatives, they would want a free copy...).
As for me, while I recognize political differences and what the Democrats are trying to do, I’m not participating in my discussion with a “polarizing mentality”. I’m simply speaking to the issue as I see it.
Others are putting the statements in the crucible of the next election and trying to figure out if this statement or that fact, or this reference is going to make a difference for some hypothetical Republican candidate. I’m not in that mode. I’m in the mode of simply speaking to the issue — and that is any of these governmental agencies or politicians (or even throw in a bunch of companies here, too, if you want) — have to be speaking truth on these issues (whatever the topic of discussion is).
And then, secondly, I’ll prefer to hear what the “small guy” has to say first, especially when they are the main figure or character in the issue — as opposed to some big organization or agency or other political figure, who always have agendas that are not necessarily geared towards truth.
So, with that, I just gave you an outline of where I’m coming from...