jerry, you are not a syncophant. you are mick's friend and i see no reason why you would need to ingratiate yourself to him. the comment was not directed to you and i think you know that. sorry if you had a different impression.
michelle, you did indeed email me several weeks ago. my comment was regarding those who take strong stands on broad issues PUBLICALLY (like supporting a buddy on a forum) but do not take PUBLIC stand on specific issues (like....do you believe what the same buddy said to be true or not?, that would mean in this case simply answering y/n).
if i believe pretty strongly in something/someone i usually have no problem answering specific questions about it. publically sidestepping direct questions germain to the issue can cause people to doubt the sincerity of a position. sometimes there are good reasons for not doing so and that must be taken into account.
you did tell me that you did not answer online because you had already stated your final word on the subject here and i respected that. however, you have obviously returned so i do not think the comment is unfair.
as far as the term interogatorries, it was simply a response to jerry's use of the term "esculpatory". it does mean "request for information" which was my goal and i thought it was humorous in light of the previous post. it appears it was not, sorry.
i was sincere in my statement that i do not think these kind of threads will not go away until there is clarification of many of the issues at stake here. i still think that. many of the explanations provided raise more questions than answers.
this is not arrogance on my part.
i would submit it is more arrogant to expect people to accept incomplete, vague and often conflicting answers.
there is a simple way to resolve all this
for example.
the combat /military record.
post an unredacted dd214. mick unequivoqly stated here he is a combat veteran and that he charged a gunman with a knife in the service of the us government. the public record does not show a CIB or any combat medals. there is the issue of the osman lawsuit settlement contradicting this as well.
tell us where and when these events occured and this issue is settled
mick has posted he injured his spine and that is the reason he was removed from the rangers. he has posted that "I smashed the cable that runs from my Ranger Ass through my neck to my Ranger computer. Because of this, I walked around with numb hands and feet" and "Every toe was broken, every nail was missing…my toes almost had to be removed. No…I did NOT fall out."
i had difficulty matching the described symptoms as presented with known patterns of spinal injuries. attempts to obtain clarification were unsuccessful.
it is certainly his right not to provide more information but if you are going to use a medical excuse, post one that makes sense.
mogadishu, the carjacking etc
mick has posted he worked with some hard hitters andthat they did some good and some not "less so".
i will make this one easy. what good things did you do with these people?
when one reads mick's description of the events plea bargain
While in the courtroom, during my sentencing…when the prosecutor was supposed to be saying “Your Honor, we recommend Mr. Strider be sentenced to one year service in Somalia…” what came out of his mouth was “we changed our mind…”
it clearly implies the the prosecutor changed his mind at the last moment. that would really suck!!! providing a copy of a written plea agreement would absolutely lay this issue to rest. apparently there is a letter from his attorney saying that a mogadishu plea bargain was discussed with the prosecutor. it is a long way to go from a defense offer to an acutal agreement. a statement from his attorney specifically supporting mick's statement would be very useful in this case
