Comment: easy enough

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Who am I criticizing? (see in situ)

easy enough

its not that its terribly important...just that original and official can have pretty substantial differences...so i sought to clarify not correct.

yet again you offer "19 Hijackers and BLOWBACK". As if one equals the other. Having to explain that to you again borders on amazing.

Paul never said that. Never endorsed it. Its YOU who are assigning 19 Hijackers to Blowback. As if one equals the other and that no other explanation could possibly include blowback as a cause to the effects.

It would indicate that it is you who haven't read the book, are ignorant of Johnson's explanation of the differing forms that Blowback can take, and exclude possibilities that certainly fall into his definition. For clarity's sake i have read Chalmer Johnson's book.

This isnt the first post where you cite the book, go on to assign your beliefs to Ron's comments AND the book, without realizing there is no correlation to be found between them as you assign it.

It would seem that you do not understand the nuances outlined by Johnson and are repeating simple notions as if that provides support for your take. It doesnt.

I never offered Ron's position as I never spoke to him off the record. I am not one to believe that public comments capture the totality of anyone's beliefs. That would be an absurd notion that doesnt recognize the realities of public life. As an aspiring politician I would guess you will learn this soon enough.

I only offered quotes. Your desperation and accusation that i did...only underlines how thin your position has been and remains.