"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he just
said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard in
the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in
the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This, of
course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has the
time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and present
you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names,
but those names are not important at the moment.