I don't think anybody understands that whole story. Instead it is constantly used as a narrative where a cover up occurred to defuse it.

Therefore it's a problematic point of controversy.

I don't think there will ever be the whole story on what that Intel was. You have a slight version of it from one side. Importantly, not the highest ups. Only a concentric narrative emerged after investigations.

A narrative occurred where it has holes.

Regardless, constantly using it as talking point is redundant, outside of any causalities. It has occurred in warfare constantly, the term, friendly fire. Except this wasn't. There were bigger risks and actions that caused the incident.

The ship didn't defend itself either. Laughably it Yankee don't. Sailed right into the thick of it, dropped its battle readiness, and expected to be umm umm, not get hit. It won't repeat it. Never drop battle readiness in a war zone. Those coms and protocols have improved dramatically since.

I don't think anybody understands that whole story. Instead it is constantly used as a narrative where a cover up occurred to defuse it.

Therefore it's a problematic point of controversy.

I don't think there will ever be the whole story on what that Intel was. You have a slight version of it from one side. Importantly, not the highest ups. Only a concentric narrative emerged after investigations.

A narrative occurred where it has holes.

Regardless constantly using it as talking point is redundant, outside of any causalities. It has occurred in warfare constantly the term friendly fire. Except this wasn't. There were bigger risks and actions that caused the incident.

The ship didn't defend itself either. Laughably it Yankee don't. Sailed right into the thick of it, dropped its battle readiness, and expected to be umm umm, not get hit. It won't repeat it. Never drop battle readiness in a war zone. Those coms and protocols have improved dramatically since.

I don't think anybody understands that whole story. Instead it is constantly used as a narrative where a cover up occurred to defuse it.

Therefore it's a problematic point of controversy.

I don't think there will ever be the whole story on what that Intel was. You have a slight version of it from one side. Importantly, not the highest ups.

A narrative occurred where it has holes.

Regardless constantly using it as talking point is redundant, outside of any causalities. It has occurred in warfare constantly the term friendly fire. Except this wasn't. There were bigger risks and actions that caused the incident.

The ship didn't defend itself either. Laughably it Yankee don't. Sailed right into the thick of it, dropped its battle readiness, and expected to be umm umm, not get hit. It won't repeat it. Never drop battle readiness in a war zone. Those coms and protocols have improved dramatically since.

I don't think anybody understands that whole story. Instead it is constantly used as a narrative where a cover up occurred to defuse it.

Therefore it's a problematic point of controversy.

I don't think there will ever be the whole story on what that Intel was. You have a slight version of it from one side. Importantly, not the highest ups.

A narrative occurred where it has holes.

Regardless constantly using it as talking point is redundant, outside of any causalities. It has occurred in warfare constantly the term friendly fire. Except this wasn't. There were bigger risks and actions that caused the incident.

The ship didn't defend itself either.