Prevaricator?

Straw men?   

If the categories don't fit, Jim, it's reasonable to assume that I was talking about someone else.

In any case, I think my position is clear: the United States did what it had to do, and with the minimum of violence possible.

In an ideal world, perhaps, where nothing goes wrong and all decisions are perfect, Bin Laden would have been arrested and tried -if terrorism even existed in such a world. The legal and medical teams readied by the U.S. show that it had prepared for just that possibility - which casts doubt on the idea that the SEALs had absolute orders to shoot to kill. In the judgment of the shooter, who was there, the only way to complete the mission was to kill Bin Laden. I'd think your argument is with him rather than with the United States.

And I believe that the good fath of the SEALs is beyond question. Why? Because they reported that Bin Laden was not holding a gun. It would have simplified everything if they'd just lied and said he'd been armed or even fired at them. Who could prove otherwise? As honorable men, they didn't.

Beyond all else, Bin Laden's own history and creed imply that, faced with enemy soldiers, he would choose martyrdom rather than surrender.

I can't see that it makes sense to blame anyone for that.