How do you expect to talk this soldier, who apparently has soured on Bush's action, if you call him a liar to his face? Is that the plan?
========================================
Nope, cause I didn't call him a liar. So, that's definitely not the plan.
In fact, as I recall, I said I believed him at least twice. Indeed, the first sentence stated my acceptance of his impressions.
Now, believing him is not the same thing as believing that one person has described the whole situation.
What I was focusing on was the tendency of, well nearly everyone really, to grab hold of an opinion or report which jives with their beliefs regarding this matter and having an *a-ha* moment in which all falls into place - either pro or anti.
This is why I said nuance in understanding was needed.
So I wasn't calling him a liar - no more than I would call Einstein a liar for having a firm grip on the atomic but a less firm grip on the particulars of the sub-atomic world. All of us can see things only up to a certain point - acknowledging this is not the same thing as accusing someone of *lying.*
Also, there's no negativity (I can detect) in saying we need to be sharper so our arguments make more sense, take a broader view of the scene into account and make room for the fact that many Iraqis can be called *pro-American* and that this opinion can change over time - waxing and waning depending upon very complex circumstances.
Seems to be a positive thing to me.
DRM