[Lancey Howard]

....Navy Sec. Winters issued the letters "after senior generals determined that the three officers had not intended to cover up evidence...", but then goes on to say that Gen. Mattis made the determination. I guess the NY Times article leaves a little wiggle room that the decision of Gen. Mattis may have had other influences.

I really, really hate to say it but that fourth star on Mattis's shoulder looks mighty dirty at this point. All charges against the designated scapegoats - - you know, those lowly Marines who watched a comrade get killed and put their own lives on the line - - need to be dismissed immediately and without prejudice, and then a whole lot of people need to come clean. Jack Zimmerman will not be bought off, and he will never let go of this.

There is only a tiny window for all of this dirty laundry to be aired before things get even uglier than they already are. Time is critical.

[brityank]

I really, really hate to say it but that fourth star on Mattis's shoulder looks mighty dirty at this point.

In defense of Mattis, he was scheduled for reassignment and promotion and I believe that had already been told when he was appointed CA. I think that the expectation was that his position as CA would be stay with him to its conclusion, as it requires minimal involvement form him but provides solid oversight to all reports and activities.

[Girlene]

I'm not sure what to believe, Lancey, about the letters of censure. Reporting in the past made it sound like Mattis made the recommendations for all three to get letters of censure, Sec. Navy Winters then wrote up the letters. The Thomas More Law Center is alleging Winters changed Mattis' decision on Davis to a harsher penalty. Ultimately, Sec. Navy Winters signed those letters; the responsiblity is his.

If this allegation is true, why did Sec. Navy Winters think Col. Davis deserved the harsher penalty, and why did all the reporting indicate Mattis wanted the harsher penalty?