[erw1]

The point of that wiki article (tu quoque fallacy) is that the critic's moral character is irrelevant. The whole point is that you don't need 'moral consistency' to critique bad behavior.

So then why do you feel the need to justify yourself by saying that you don't work in defense? :) You basically stepped into the same trap you warmed me against :) Maintaining moral high ground seems to be a vital need, something on the level of instinct it seems. 'Tu quoque' or no 'tu quoque' we like to feel morally justified.