[bigheadfred]

I can say the same for your views.

Back to the main topic.

I don’t really think there is a Truth that can be gleaned empirically or absolutely in this case. There are too many conflicting statements. Too many inflammatory statements. Too much time has passed. Too many running for cover. That is why I say the truth is subjective. I think. I think I thought. I thought I thought.

We can debate the points over and over. It will be interesting to finally get to the trial and see just what is presented.

IMO, the only people who can accurately give a determination, panel wise, are people who have direct combat experience in Iraq. What either of us deem reasonable (or unreasonable) may mean something else entirely, to them.

[RS]

There's the rub - We are getting all these contradictory statements from people who HAVE had direct combat experience in Iraq. I'm not refering specifically to conflicting statements by different individuals, but to statements made at different times by the same person. Hopefully a trial will be able to reconcile these differnt stories and get us close to understanding what actually happened
Only THEN can it be determined if any individual oversteped the bounderies.

If it goes to trial, the prosecution must feel they have a case.
At the risk of making you smile :-) Based on what we are given, even ignoring all the "firefight" rhetoric being tossed around, I don't see them putting enough of these statements together coherantly to have a good case.
That said, you will recall that the best thing about telling the truth is that you don't have to remember what you said last time.