What A Contrast

There is a story over at MSNBC's web site regarding Jeffrey Starr's family's reaction to the New York Times' leaving out the most important part of his letter. Remember that? To recap, here is what the Times printed:

“I kind of predicted this. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”

Here is what they left out:

"I don’t regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq. It’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live, not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators, to do what they want with their lives. To me, that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark.”

Note the classy way in which the uncle handles this:

Well, I think our reaction was not so much anger as it was disappointment.

We really are not a bitter family. We are not a family that holds grudges. We want to honor Jeffrey, and so we wanted the rest of his story to be told. I did write to 'The Times,' and I asked them, I thought very politely, if they would run the rest of the story. I did not get a reply.

But the story did get out, and that’s what we are happy about. We are actually pleased that the rest of Jeffrey’s story is getting out.

See any difference between that and the way another well-known mother of a slain soldier is acting? Which do you think honors the dead hero in question?