I am not defending Meat's conduct. I strongly disagreed with it then, and I strongly disagree with it now. I am saying it ought be kept in appropriate perspective.
Meat was in a hurry, and likely anxious. The people around Meat were in a hurry, and likely anxious. The advice, one presumes, was to press sharp, hard, and nasty, and get the matter settled quickly. Was this morally dubious or simply wrong? Very likely, in my judgement. It is not, however, the end of the world.
It was also, from the perspective of Meat's camp, effective in that it achieved the desired/necessary end.
Jim's relationship with Meat is longstanding, and complex. I am in no position and would not presume to judge what is appropriate judgement on the part of either man with respect to the conduct of the other. I see that as a matter between the two of them, and I would expect to see it reflected, in time, in public representations and/or the unfolding of events.
In matters of this sort it is often the case in my observation that it is often simpler for the principal parties to put the matter to rest than for friends/allies/whatevers.
|
