”You keep throwing more red herrings on the trail.”
Jewel, now you write that, "If you simply mean that you want them to have the same working conditions and benefits afforded to non-combatants, then the 'support the troops' comment is empty agendized rhetoric."
Uh…this is the direct quote that I was responding to.
”Unlike some on both side of the issue who give lip service, I truly opposed the war but support our troops.
You positioned it as the foundation of your viewpoint on how the Pentagon and Bush administration should manage troops. ….red herring you say….tsk
”…my posts reveal what I did and didn't say.”
Yes they do. Your unqualified position has been to go on a rash of rants to bash the Bush administration because the Pentagon announced that their budget for extra pay had all been spent. That’s all that happened (no big conspiracy by Bush and the Pentagon to bring extra suffering to the troops). Now, predictably, the Pentagon is working to restore these benefits (yippee), and Bush had nothing to do with any of it.
You positioned yourself as a spokesman for the troops and as an expert on the conditions of work and benefits that should be managed by the Pentagon, and as a judge of the level of care you have for the troops vs Bush, the Pentagon, or anyone who supports the military efforts…lol. It was all silly nonsense that was driven by your agenda to cast innuendo, encourage rumor, and foment false allegation at every turn.
Not my fault you picked a lame horse to enter the race. The SF Chronicle knows best how the Pentagon should operate??? snicker snicker |
