 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Blackfive points out Phil Carter's recent bit in the Trib. (Congrats on getting ink, Phil, though it was pretty lame of them not to link or mention your blog).
The Paratroop of Love also notes that no has one responded yet. Well, Phil didn't send out notices (not to me at least) and the rest of us were busy pointing out the fallacies of those types of argument anyway. Since the piece is dated Feb 15, and since it sounds a bit like an earlier entry in Intel Dump I'll assume the writing was done before the White House "released everything." Thus to address it would be chasing the tail, since there are several subsequent entries on this blog (here and here, to include comments) and others that detail how that sieve of a story doesn't hold a drop of water now.
Or does it? As predicted (and rather well documented) here, the media will reference "questions being raised" without noting they were subsequently answered from now 'til November. And without asking some other questions (more on those in a minute).
And if it's not obvious, look which version of the story is in a major metropolitan daily and which is known only to the entire US military past and present, and the good folks who read blogs.
Phil Carter's not stupid; he is a student at UCLA, after all. He does know most American's don't understand Guard service and the records keeping for it. Phil desires to appear as though he's giving the President a chance at redemption, but he knows better. If you're a Kerry man Phil, admit it. (As we say in the MilBlogs Ring: "Members are aware of the likelihood of difference of opinions between fellow members, and although we may not agree with each other on everything we say we will fight for the rights of each other to say it. We mean that literally.")
Ignoring the "lifetime ago" aspect of the events (which you did), your argument is weak (apples, oranges, and a lot of speculation) when applied to Bush, but ironclad evidence of "unfit for command" when applied to Kerry. He took an "easy out" and abandoned the men who depended on his leadership with three admittedly "low-grade" injury Purple Hearts during the height of the war. Yes, that was "within the rules" but I challenge any military leader to defend the action here.
That's not "Intel" dumped on Chicago. But thanks for opening that door.
