Tom, I suspect your citation is worthy of another thread. And the context in which you are using it is an old one, mentioned by Fox.

Talk about one person's reported experiences at Guantanamo, and you talk about Kerry.

Talk about Israel ignoring UN resolutions which the US is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq AGAINST the UN's wishes, and you trot out Stalin.

Talk about Bush lying, and you trot out Clinton.

Is there a problem tracking, or are you trying to imply, each and every time, that two wrongs makes one right? For instance, Bush didn't lie, but if he did, then Clinton lied too? Excuses Bush for the lies he didn't tell.

Clinton lied. Period. Now, that doesn't mean that Bush did or didn't. Separate issue.

Kerry may have been a lousy commanding officer. He was there. Pay records would demonstrate he showed up, as they would for all the people who showed up. And don't for the people who don't show up. (And, I promise you, every commanding officer has people who didn't like him. Very few for the better ones, but those were times of great stress, and people handle stress differently. That's one of the reasons for military discipline, where one does what one is told, most matters are voted upon, or people asked if they would particularly mind following an order.)

And that has absolutely nothing to do with a man's experiences in Guantanamo. Does that make any sense to you, strike a chord anywhere, or mean anything?

I think that tactic makes sense when one is in grade school, after all it's a variety of the old "Your mother wears army shoes" thing. But as adults, I don't know that it contributes to a reasonable discourse.

Arf (by the way, that remark about "dishonest" is still unaccounted for)