Posted on 07/19/2009 6:38:26 PM PDT by Talkradio03
To clarify further the reason I think Peter’s talk is irresponsible, even though he qualified his statements with a lot of “ifs”... is because all of those “ifs” presume the worst in the captive soldier.
The presumption should always be the other way, giving the captive the benefit of the doubt. Peters has it exactly backwards.
You’re making a good point, I’m very pro-military also, and I cannot stand the media (and the John Kerrys and the Jane Fondas and Murthas).
And especially Omoslem, who keeps messing with the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, and sends captured terrorists surfing in Bermuda.
Those people are lower than worms.
In that context, I think you’re correct that we shouldn’t speculate about the captured soldier based on media pundits.
And if that turns out to be true, then he will be dealt with by the US Army. But we have to get him back first since as of now he is a POW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.