You decide on the CR "Vets" from their own words

I just had a chat conversation with "CRVetsForTruth" which I found enlightening. My tone of some of my criticisms may have been a tad harsher than deserved (they do seem like decent people, unlike those they are loyal too). However, all of my criticisms still stand.

The full text will be in the comments section.

Highlights will be drawn out here.

Relating to their name of "Vets"

tonygarcialive: CR Vets...what branch were you in
CRVetsForTruth: Veterans has multiple definitions, I suggest you pick up a dictionary. Not only is it a person who has served in the Armed Forces but also the following: "an experienced person who has been through many battles; someone who has given long service" and "seasoned: rendered competent through trial and experience"
tonygarcialive: th implication is otherwise, regardless of the literal meaning.
CRVetsForTruth: We are CR Veterans with a great deal of experience in the youth movement and a dedication to see it continue

As a vet I am deeply troubled by their bastardization of thne reverance held in the word "Vet". The way I see it they are playing semantics to fool people into thinking they are real Vets.

Remember that in order to participate in a discussion most sites have a comments section. The owner can remove onerous remarks. For the CR "Vets" they require an e-mail to be sent to them. If they deem it to be fair (which to this point anything against their candidates is considered dirty) they will post the e-mail. Hmm, sounds to me like they are the gatekeepers of truth, fairness and decency.

CRVetsForTruth: there is no gatekeeper
CRVetsForTruth: just rules of transparency

Their definition of "transparency? I could not really get that. It seems that they forget that those who need to stay anonymous can have the most credible information. Linda Tripp should have remained anonymous. "Deep Throat" is still anonymous. Anonymity does not mean that the information is bad.

So, if you can prove that Hoplin and Gourley were clean in the scandalous fundraising that existed in 2004 then prove it. Stop attacking the meesenger and prove their innocence frome the RDI connection.

So far it seems that Hoplin & Gourley claiming they cleaned up the mess is the same as if Nixon passed Campaign Finance Reform and then claimed he cleaned up the problems he inherited. Hoplin & Gourley were knowingly knee deep in shady fundraising (and should be prosecuted imho). They "cleaned up" only when they were caught. For that alone the Republicans should run them out of all positions. Make them start over and prove they have reformed themselves.

Circling your wagons around these Kenneth-Lay-apprentices is worse than what the Democrats in the Senate did for Clinton.