So you are calling him a liar without evidence.
I never said that. Instead, I wrote:
Whether General Sheehan deliberately deceived Congress to promote a personal perspective or has a faulty recollection of what happened almost 15 years ago is entirely a different matter.
As I don't have knowledge of his memory of past events or intent when he made his allegation, I can't go beyond the two possibilities I stated.
You have no counter claim from any source disputing what he said.
The absence of evidence, no references to sexual orientation whatsoever in the exhaustive investigation into the Dutch troops' performance with respect to the massacre, and in the numerous press accounts/stories concering the Dutch commander's views suggests that the body of credible evidence is greatly against the General's allegation. In contrast, the General provided no direct evidence to bolster his claim. He only suggested that a 'Dutch leader' told him. In the wake of his testimony, a number of Dutch political and military leaders condemned his remarks. No Dutch leader has confirmed his account.
And you have no history of him ever lying.
I never looked into his background, so I don't have any such knowledge. But, as noted above, faulty recollection not a deliberate lie could be involved
I got it. You and the others who just can't accept he was quoting accurately have nothing to back your assertions but you'll say it anyway because you don't agree with the statement.
Considering that all the other evidence--inquiry into the matter/press accounts from that time--make no linkage or reference whatsoever to the sexual orientation of some Dutch troops, and considering the response of the Dutch political and military officials following General Sheehan's remarks (not a single official corroborating his allegation), I have a good degree of confidence that the General's allegation is not accurate.
It truly is sad to believe someone is lying without evidence just because you don't like the answer.
I never made such a statement. A person's remarks could be inaccurate for a range of reasons. One such reason that I specifically noted was faulty memory from almost 15 years ago. Indeed, if I felt that the General was deliberately lying, rather than just suggesting that his testimony be stricken from the record, I would have suggested that he be held to proper account considering that he was under oath at the time of his testimony. Right now, I suspect that the combination of his personal opinions and a bad recollection of events from nearly 15 years ago are probably the basis of his allegation.
What is relevant for the Senate's work is that the answer to the question as to whether sexual orientation of some Dutch troops contributed to the chain of events in Srebrenica can be found in the large body of evidence from the inquiry and information that was provided following that tragic event and remains on record. Such information is not tainted by time's erosion of the human memory. The issue of sexual orientation did not arise at any time during the examination of the massacre. The evidence debunks the General's theory.
For the Senate's purposes, the only issue with respect to the Srebrenica massacre, as part of the larger performance context, is whether the sexual orientation of some Dutch troops contributed directly or indirectly to a bad performance leading up to and during the massacre. The evidence suggests no such contribution. Given the large body of existing evidence, the Senate can dismiss the General's unsupported theory.