> Is it all a grand conspiracy to protect the good name and reputation of McAuliffe?
A small conspiracy is not at all far-fetched. First off, it's an inconsequential thing. Secondly, if one of the three told the truth, then he'd be called a liar by the other two. Who needs that? If you're in the military, you don't get ahead by contradicting the narrative. (My dad found that out the hard way - he was punished more than once for not writing reports that fit the narrative.)
For a grand conspiracy, consider how long Biden's staff held out insisting that Biden was sharp as a tack and writing off contrary reports as disinformation.
The most compelling bit about my evidence is the frankly laughable idea that a GI would use the word "nuts".
If there is any takeaway here, it would be that historical accounts are always suspect. History is written by the victors, as they say.
Is it all a grand conspiracy to protect the good name and reputation of McAuliffe?
I'll say no more.