"There were three citations. One may have been in error. So what?"

We handle errors one at a time. Whichever one I chose to address first, you would always be able to say, why didn't you do the OTHER ones first? Gawd, your trickery is so darned predictable.

And what is this "may have been" dodge? Can you determine if it WAS in error, or wasn't? Please do so and report back to the class.

The big picture is made of pixels, and you clean up the errors one at a time until a new pattern is established.

There's a lot more. When AP says, in every story this week on Putin's call for no weapons in space ("absolutely" -- which is not, by the way, the way his negotiators at PAROS put it, they have a list of exemptions they demand for the weapons they WANT to allow in space -- did you know that?), that the US has had the ability to kill satellites since 1985, they are fibbing. The US ability was cancelled under Congressional edict and does not currently exist.

Let's establish reality, and make generalizations from there -- not, as you seem to be doing, establish the generalizations and then use THEM to determine your version of 'reality'.

Why is Putin getting so upset? Is it due to REAL U.S. space-weapons abilities, or is it due to the toxic misrepresentations by political hacks in the media, that you seem to prefer. Do you WANT to spark a 'space arms race' so you can then triumphantly claim, "I told you so," when your favorite opinionators were the ones to set it off?