(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the former counsel for the Navy's
Court of Inquiry, released a signed affidavit in October, stating he
was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary,
Robert McNamara, to conclude the attack was unintentional, despite
evidence to the contrary.

Just another incorrect statement. So damn typical. 80-year old Boston
did
not
state what is claimed above.

Just so typical. Weeks does not offer any evidence to support
his claim. But since he is omniscient, he never needs to offer
any evidence. Weeks just knows.

Idiot; the statement as posted in inaccurate; there's nothing to show

Weeks feels his arguments are so weak that he needs to resort
to childish name calling. How typical.

And this compares to you continuing w/ these silly claims, such as above as
only one example? You think perhaps it's all rather boring by now?

Note: still no evidence to support his claim.

The only way to prove that I misquoted Boston is for Weeks
to post what he thinks Boston actually said. But apparently
Weeks is unable to do that. Weeks does not need to post any
evidence. He knows all. He sees all. He is omniscient.

Once again LOL; find the statement from 2002 (or even 2003) in which Boston
reportedly states "he was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and his defense
secretary, Robert McNamara". That's what was posted for reportedly his Oct.
2003 statement – so in any case, you can't even use the correct reported
source in support of something Boston didn't claim.

Still no evidence. Weeks does not need to produce a source
for his claim. He sees all. He knows all. But he wants to
muddy the waters for everybody else.

All you have to do is actually quote Boston stating what you posted in "a
signed affidavit in October [2003]"; what's the friggin' problem?

The problem, Weeks, is you. You refuse to produce any evidence.