I did not understand your complaint then, and still don't.
But I note you have accused me of "word-smithing" and now "tunnel vision," along with "taking this far too personally."
I would again ask you to go back an read what you wrote then. I told you then that you were taking my statement out of context. It’s all right there, and my reasons have all been clearly presented. It’s not a complaint, it is an observation which unfortunately I think takes away from your argument as a whole.
I am glad you noticed that I stated that I think you are taking this too personally since you seem, in my opinion, to be getting far too spun up over this. I do believe that it is affecting your objectivity. You may take that for what it is, it is only my personal observation on how you have approached this debate.
I am still happy with my conclusions based on my own analysis of primary sources. I don’t think I’m out of line stating that Richardson’s concerns about Pearls defenses were very low on his list compared to his main objections. I think his stated objections that he made to Stark, and at his testimonies makes sense. Pearl Harbor did not have the proper facilities to train for war. It did not have the equipment to put the fleet on a war footing. It’s remoteness could have a negative impact on moral and Hawaii had only “one secure port”, meaning that there were no secured secondary facilities. It would make the West Coast very much preferable if you were the commander of that fleet. I think that the argument that Richardson’s argument with FDR was based only on the defenses at the facility is highly unlikely, and very biased when presented as a primary issue. All the evidence says otherwise. I am more than willing to look at proof that the “vulnerability” was his big issue, but as of yet I have not been presented with anything that suggests that.