Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.
How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.
I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.
What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed?
I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?
-spence
|
So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?
Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?
And is "outright" an absolute?