I am all for having criticisms be legitimate. I think any criticisms have to be FAIR to be effective. If you have to resort to cheap shots, then it tends to indicate that you don't have anything legitimate to complain about.
I think the "Theocratic Warfare" strategy may be one of those areas where "apostates" take some liberties and make it sound like something it is not.
Here is my paraphrase of what the WT says, "You cannot lie outright but if someone does not deserve to know something, or if it is not in their best interests to know something, then the Witness can be evasive"
Now I do think that is less then the legal standard of the truth, which is "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
This legal standard is carefully worded to require the person to neither add, nor leave out any relevant fact that could be brought to bear in determining whether or not something is true.
The "Theocratic Warfare" doctrine does allow the witness to omit things under a rather vague case where the witness decides the person doesn't "deserve" or it is not in their "best interests" to know. I can't fault them for using such evasiveness to avoid persecution. I think that is a legitimate use for such evasiveness.
But to be evasive with a person, who only seeks to serve God, and who is therefore trying to determine if the jw is in fact God's organization, is frankly despicable. They claim to be open to all questions and examinations, but only to the extent that it is in "a persons best interest", which they believe is to only reach a single conclusion.
Keep in mind, a witness and the GB as well will think that it is not in your best interests to know something that might lead you to the conclusion that they are not the Faithful and Discreet Slave. This does mean they think it is ok to omit facts, no matter how decisive, damning, compelling, and conclusive, that might refute this claim.
I do therefore think the strategy puts a huge dent in their credibility, and the way they frame all topics and discussions are highly suspect and biased.
You always have to ask, "so what is the rest of the story"?
By their own admission, you'll get "nothing but the truth", but you won't get "the whole truth", therefore you are not going to get "the truth" from "the truth".