You're a fascinating display of the right wing corporate wonk/toady mindset.
As the chronology of the posts shows, first you falsely (or stupidly, which ever comes first) labeled the facts I posted as "anecdotal", opinions not worthy of consideration.
But once shamed in public as to your stubborn denial or genuine stupidity, you pull out the intellectually impotent stand by of a wonk/toady by saying the FACTS DON'T MATTER.
You follow this up with the usual supposition and conjecture laden screed sprinkled with your personal opinion. Time and again I keep schooling you that those are NOT facts.
It's like this, toodles: you initially laid out a study to prove your assertion....I pointed out that your study didn't even deal with a healthy fraction of the vets who were actually exposed to the chemicals. I also provided evidence that corroborates how this study's conclusions are flawed as itself admits it could not adequately gather the proper number of definite exposed personnel from deployment to in field exposed.
The topper is your personal opinion that an out of court settlement is to pay off accountants and "liars".
Listen up and get educated, genius: out of court settlements relieves the accused of possible public conviction (admittance of guilt), while providing an acceptable amount of restitution to the accusing parties. It's an agreement by both parties to forgo lengthy and expensive trials (i.e., class action suits, etc.), but leans in favor of the accused public reputation.
Couple this with the 1988 Clary letter and subsequent 1991 Agent Orange Act, and one would have to be as foolish as you to deny the conclusion of vets being exposed and subsequently poisoned by Agent Orange.
But like a good little toady, you'll put your God given common sense on hold and say, "Well, until someone says outright "I'm guilty" or "they're right" I'll stick with the party line.
Goebbels and Stalin would have loved you. Carry on.
