what's wrong with it, is that it assumes the negative regarding this story from the outset. read it to yourself a few times, look at the phrases in it: "laws were broken", "punishment", "those who violated the law".
instead, he should have said that a combat Marine deserves the benefit of the doubt, that the case is more complex then the media and others (Murtha) have spun from the outset (its instantly a "war crime" and "murder"), that conduct under fire, in battle, at the point of attack, is alot more difficult to understand, then some investigator or reporter who breaks down the case in the aftermath.
Big difference.
Big.