[MainFrame65]

I stand by my statements and interpretations of events. You have chosen the most malign explanation of everything that happened, and I think you are wrong. If both of us were on the jury, based on what we know now, there would be no verdict. I believe that a violation occurred, but exigent circumstances, judged against the specific actions and nature of this occurrence, mitigate the offense almost - but not quite - totally.

It seems to me that you are prosecuting this case instead of evaluating both sides of it, and while that is your right, I don't think it represents abstract justice. I fear that your approach would impose a smothering political correctness on our troops that would diminish their effectiveness and lead to more attacks on both civilian and military targets, more damage, more injuries, and more loss of life. I am sure that you think just the opposite of me, even though I do recognize that the rule was broken, so I guess that we are done.

[r9etb]

It seems to me that you are prosecuting this case instead of evaluating both sides of it

But that's precisely the problem. We're not seeing both sides of the case. We're only seeing Lt. Col. West's side of the case -- heavily spun -- and even it raises serious doubts.

I have no qualms about highlighting those doubts, because I do not like being asked to call a man a "hero" when he has, by his own admission, acted like a thug. And I do not at all appreciate the fact that he's got a spin team working the WND "yellow journalism" side of the street as part of his defense.