Was He or Not

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed? 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?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

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?

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence