Now that's more like it. I just finished reading your response to my mail to you in the June issue of LareDOS. While I still do not agree with you on many of your points, this is the tone rational discourse regarding issues should be conducted in. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as I stated before, and I certainly welcome substantive, issue-driven debate. This time you addressed actual issues and put forth logical arguments rather than merely degrade and insult Border Patrol agents. I can debate these issues with gusto, whenever you like. My problem was being insulted. Ad hominem attacks do not accomplish goals -- they only incite. Approach begets response, as it were. Your approach was insulting; so was my response. For that I must apologize, as I had no excuse, regardless of how ticked off I was at your article and, accordingly, at you. I should have waited some time to digest your article and respond at a higher, more professional level, but I didn't. So, I am sorry that I besmirched your name as a journalist, as I do not know you. However, I still feel your piece could have addressed the issue far more constructively and substantively than it did and you could have left out the petty insults.
It may be hard for you to understand, but, like us or not, we still put on a uniform that, in essence, makes us targets. Most of us have had violent confrontations along the river where our lives were at risk. Daily we place our lives in harm's way. Just this year we have had two agents killed in the line of duty. Your harsh attacks, made in a personal manner, demean their memory. I knew both agents and one was a good friend of mine. So, while I can debate the need for immigration laws or whether or not drug efforts should be more user-oriented, I cannot stand by and have someone insult me or my colleagues ("ineptitude," "ineffectiveness", "God help us all", "I pray", etc.) while we are risking our lives daily in service to this country. You may not agree with the necessity of my job, but please don't belittle and insult me in the process.
My only other point is to note that I HEARTILY disagree with your assessment as to why people along the borderlands are so hostile to Border Patrol agents. I am sure there have been numerous incidents where Laredo Police officers or Webb County Sheriff's officers were discourteous or had some type of run-in with some of the citizenry in Laredo. Yet I know that officers in these departments are not so vehemently disliked and that no one is calling for the abolition of these agencies, as some do with Immigration. You state that USBP management needs to address why our image is so tarnished, apparently because we agents or the USBP as a whole are so abrasive. The real cause, I believe, is because immigration itself is extremely unpopular along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol is unpopular because many Laredoans don't want Immigration laws here. There exists too many and too close ties between Mexico and the U.S. here in Laredo. That is fine. I can handle people believing my job unnecessary. What is unconscionable is the manner in which some people choose to express said displeasure. That was the point I was trying to make.
So, here we are. I disagree with your opinions regarding immigration matters and you disagree with me, but that disagreement is what makes this country great. Please, though, let's keep our debate focused on the issues at hand and leave the name-calling out of it. Agreed? That goes, by the way, for me as well as you.
Additionally, FYI, I have read several issues of LareDOS and have generally thoroughly enjoyed them. I have also been stationed here in Laredo for the past six years, as well, so your assessment of me was incorrect. My name, as well, is spelled Montie, not Monty, as you printed but hey, no hard feelings. Also, the offer of a ride-along still stands, and I promise to be civil.

Montie Guthrie
Senior Patrol Agent

P.S. I would appreciate it if you would print this as a way for me to apologize for being so heavy-handed as well as explain myself. I realize that being printed two times in a row in your paper may be asking a lot, but I would appreciate a chance to respond. I did not engage you on any of your points, other than our image, so I leave you unchallenged in those areas. I merely wish to end this little debacle on a higher note than when we began it. What do you say? Can we agree to disagree and maintain at least a modicum of civility? I hope so. And I promise, if you do print me two times in a row, not to let it go to my head. Thanks.