Quote:

Wednesday said:
If you're trying to say that these soldiers were probably PRO-Bush and PRO-Iraqi War, then you're probably right. I don't see what that proves, really, but you're probably right.



Quote:

the G-man said:
[Ray] originally called the soldiers who were still in Iraq liars because they were still over there. [Ray] 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 [his] argument, [Ray] did not "hold it with more credence."

Instead, [Ray] first accused the Christian Science Monitor of being an unreliable source. (Basically, [Ray] 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, [Ray] first made a few lame, bigoted, jokes about the Christian Science religion.

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

Furthermore, [his] 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 [Ray has] 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?