Paulie, you've identified no inconsistency @169. "As long as he disavows" does not mean "as long as he again disavows" or "as long as he continuously disavows". It's just a statement that a disavowal has to have happened before his appointment can be rubber-stamped. My use of "further" was a reference to the first disavowal I ever saw him give, in response to my request for it. You cannot quote me asking for further disavowal, and it's not fair to suggest I ever did. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the first Wrights supporter (other than me) to take a stand on the question of whether a person should be appointed to an LNC vacancy if that person has a habit of advocating against donating to the LPUS.
I haven't called Wrights a liar. I've merely suggested that I wouldn't be surprised if people corroborated Sullentrup's statement. People can easily be wrong in how well they remember everything they've ever said aloud in a fit of anger, especially if they tend to get angry a lot. Now that Wrights has made a clear disavowal of wanting to starve the LPUS, I don't really have a problem with him rejoining LNC even if it turns out that others heard what Sullentrup says he heard.
Steven, one can endorse hunting terrorists without endorsing torturing them. If you agree with my Green congressional opponent (and 9/11 "truther") that KSM's claims of responsibility are insincere (whether as the product of torture or CIA puppet-mastering) and that he wasn't involved in the planning of 9/11, then I'm happy to let you end our discussion with this self-inflicted TKO. :-) Otherwise, wake me when you've been able to identify actual and specific disagreement between us about hunting terrorists.