You're changing the "rules of the debate" again to suit your own purpose and hoping no one notices.

You originally called the soldiers who were still in Iraq liars because they were still over there. You indicated that, when they got home, they would probably say something critical of the war.

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
lets see what [this soldier] has to say once he's out of the army. most soldiers won't say anything negative about their bosses until they finish their tour when suddenly they say all the bad shit they went through.



Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
I'm more open to hearing from soldiers after they're back and...Once they're back they can see things more objectively. Then if they say they believe in what they did, and the war itself, I hold it with more credence.



In response, I posted the CSM article. This article interviewed soldiers who had, in fact, "finish[ed] their tour" and were back home. These soldiers, rather than "say all the bad shit they went through," complained that the coverage of the war was too negative and that the "bad shit" was outweighed by the positive aspects of the mission.

Faced with evidence that contradicted your argument, you did not "hold it with more credence."

Instead, you first accused the Christian Science Monitor of being an unreliable source. (Basically, you accused the newspaper of lying) However, others (myself, WBAM and Theo), then demonstrated that it was a reliable, and Pulitizer prize winning, newspaper.

Faced with that, you first made a few lame, bigoted, jokes about the Christian Science religion.

In addition, you restated your original premise to avoid admitting your original theory was wrong. Instead of claiming that soldiers home from Iraq would attack the war and President Bush, you now claim that you meant that soldiers who were home AND completely discharged from the military would do so.

Furthermore, your premise ignores one simple fact: even if the soldiers did not want to insult the President or the Army, there is nothing "forcing" them to speak so positively about the war effort. If anything, all they would have to do is refuse these interviews. Therefore, the fact they agreed to the interviews tends to show they are genuine in their views and support of the war effort.

As such, by claiming the soldiers are actively misstating their views of the war to the press, once again you have called the soldiers liars.

So, let's recap: the administration is lying, the Christian Science Monitor is lying, even the soldiers are lying.

Why not just trot out the "vast right wing conspiracy" theory and be done with it?