Man.
You must have a tough time dealing with humorous remarks at parties.
The comment was obviously in jest, as a response to your unwillingness to believe any word at all in the Wash Post.
It was made to make fun of your unreasonable demand to personally review the intel on this op.
See? That's ridiculous.
And since your stand was so absurd, someone responded in kind.
You know, "Ho ho ho! If you require classified data, well, I'll just get General Franks to email you it, because you're so important! Yes you are! Yes you are! And you're so precious! Yes you are! Yes you are!"
See? That's what is known as SARCASM.
I can tell you must have skimmed the responses, otherwise you would have seen this - as everyone else has. Ah well.
A lot of us find ourselves responding to jokes as if they were serious - so you're not alone in your embarrassment.
It is a well known, and well used technique out here, to make a statment designed to divert inquiry, and encourage those who look no deeper than a simple claim to buy into the position represented by the poster. When called on it, it was "just a joke" dontcha know.
Did you fall for that statement, "The report said the information about Lynch's ordeal was based on battlefield intelligence which officials said came from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in whose reliability has yet to be assessed."?
Did you parse it? Or did you, as many here, let their biases and emotions hold their noses while they swallow it whole.
All I asked for is a simple content of the "communications" and a verification of the "Iraqi source". Instead I get "jokes". Well, joke on, my friend, instead of trying to get to the truth of the matter.
