My Second “Outside the Tent” Piece in the L.A. Times
As I told you yesterday, I have an “Outside the Tent” piece in today’s L.A. Times, about the paper’s coverage of Cindy Sheehan. It’s titled Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom. I don’t write the headlines, folks.
As I also said yesterday, this is intended as media criticism, not as a personal attack on Sheehan. I hope that readers of the piece understand that.
Thanks to Sunday Opinion Current editor Bob Sipchen for the invitation and the excellent editing. I respect Bob greatly because he always works hard to make the “Outside the Tent” pieces effective — even when they harshly criticize the paper he works for. That shows admirable integrity.
Thanks also to Dafydd ab Hugh, Xrlq, and Armed Liberal for reviewing earlier drafts. Thanks as well to another blogger who gave me valuable advice, but who asked not to be thanked by name. You know who you are.
Let me know what you think. And if you’re new here, I hope you’ll bookmark the site and come back often. Bloglines subscribers can subscribe by clicking on this button:
P,
SoCal Lawyer (bd183b) — 8/21/2005 @ 12:21 amNicely done.
[…] Here is a snippet of Patterico’s commentary at the LA Times over the Cindy Sheehan coverage: For example, The Times uncritically reported Sheehan’s claim that the president had behaved callously in a June 2004 meeting with her and her husband, refusing to look at pictures of Casey or listen to stories about him. The Times claimed without qualification that Sheehan “came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry.” But the article failed to mention that Sheehan had previously described Bush as sincere and sympathetic in the meeting. According to an interview with her hometown paper, the Vacaville Reporter, Sheehan had said that although she was upset about the war, she decided not to confront the president — who clearly left a favorable impression: “I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis…. I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” Of that trip, Sheehan said: “That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.” In the 11 articles and columns about Sheehan that The Times had run on its news pages as of Friday, there is no hint of her previous praise for the president. Related Posts: OC Register Coverage of RecallThe LA Times has aCommentary by Anita Ramasastry on […]
The Southern California Law Blog » Patterico’s Commentary at the LA Times Questions Sheehan Coverage (36e489) — 8/21/2005 @ 12:23 amYour article is nicely done, accurate and factual. These attributes almost certainly guarantee that the L.A. Times readership will ignore it. Nice try, though.
Jim (0fdb16) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:05 amso good i am forced to mix some metaphors, so please bear with me:
this piece is a 105-yard runback grand slam home run 4 minute-mile hat trick from way, way, way beyond the three point line thats deep and i dont think its playable.
you belted the Times like a $10 whore who just stole your favorite mood ring, and you beat them like a redheaded stepchild on a rented mule wearing a dirty blanket.
bless the Times’ heart though for running this and appearing in a Sunday edition no less. too bad its unlikely to ever affect any change in reporting at the Dog Trainer, but…
outstanding piece of editorial smackdown, grasshopper. you have snatched the pebble.
ok, that’s enough.
cali white bear (4a7e69) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:06 amExcellent piece. I especially liked the comparison between the Times’ non-coverage of some aspects of the story and the coverage in other major newspapers. Really makes the point.
Congrats!
caltechgirl (cf5f61) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:38 amExcellent! I don’t suspect that the Times originally intended the “Outide The Tent” series to be the only avenue by which basic pertinent facts (not opinion) of a story can ever see the light of day in their paper, but if that’s the way its gotta be…
Randy P. (708871) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:54 amToday’s must read
Patterico has been invited to write a second “Outside the Tent” piece, which appears in today’s LA Times. In this week’s piece, Patterico takes on the Times’ coverage of Cindy Sheehan and points out the blatant omissions in the Times’…
Not Exactly Rocket Science (1483fa) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:56 amI haven’t had my coffee yet so I’m not sure if I’m dreaming or the LA Times actually did publish this. Oh you nailed them!!!
FunnyGirl (0f898b) — 8/21/2005 @ 3:41 amFunny part? You didn’t even include some of the most outrageous things she’s spewed. Like that we’re waging nuclear war in Iraq and contaminating everything. Or that it’s all the fault of the Joooooos. Or that our country isn’t worth dying for.
The uncovered face of the anti-American Left is ugly indeed.
jb (68f693) — 8/21/2005 @ 3:56 amBravo!! Great job.
Was it a conscious decision not to use her attacks on Israel and Jews?
RR Safety (d520d0) — 8/21/2005 @ 4:44 amWhat a refreshing surprise this piece is. I am spreading the word that the man who runs the peace house that is voluntarily hosuding and caring for the demonstrators is Hadi Jawad an op ed journalist for the Jordan Times. He specializes in anti American and anti Israeli columns.
I have see no one comment on that. go ahead google his name.
dot niklos (10ebe4) — 8/21/2005 @ 5:14 amCan’t add much to what the others are saying. Just a great, great job of exposing the biased coverage by the LA Times.
The truly saddening story is the Times probably thinks they’re doing a great job.
Luke (b7189a) — 8/21/2005 @ 5:42 amIt’s wonderful. Measured, effective, conciliatory. Effective, I hope.
m (2b7516) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:13 amAnd about to be widely read; I got to it via Instapundit.
Hadi Jawad lives next door to George Bush???
RR Safety (d520d0) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:22 amRe: Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom
Well, three cheers for the peaceniks.
I’m glad SOMEONE is opposing Mr Bush’s little exercise in military adventurism.
1800 dead and all we have to show for it is the possibility of still another Islamic state in the Middle East.
And yes, Mr Bush has thrown his lot in with the neocons.
Some Americans are paying dearly for his delusions about the Middle East.
Hopefully the GOP and their neocon and con allies will pay too–at the ballot box.
Carl W. Goss (d50b2b) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:49 amUnfortunately ad-hominem attacks against critics of the war do not justify the war itself. I would have supported the war if it had actually worked, but it’s been hugely expensive in blood and treasure and has only made things worse. Whatever Ms. Sheehan’s flaws, the war remains an utter failure.
Tim (4dd4df) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:59 amGood article Patterico. I thought it was very measured and well written.
I guess the previous 2 posters were posting in response to something else and just posted here by accident. /shrug
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:10 am[…] IF you can possibly stomach any more of this interminable story, go check out Patterico’s op-ed in the LA Times. […]
Balloon Juice (c62e7c) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:15 amWonderful job on that LA Times piece. Keep up the good work.
Brian Chapin (a50fae) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:19 amSpot on!
MaDr (d28110) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:33 amPatrick, Congratulations.
Great editorial, and kudos to the Times for letting you write on their pages.
I have a question though – has the L.A. Times reported on the Sheehan “My son died for Israel and the PNAC/Neocon agenda” comments/email?
I’m a moderate Democrat – perhaps actually a conservative Democrat – but that’s where she lost me completely.
In fact, that’s where anyone who continues to back her at all has lost me.
Did you write about that in an earlier draft or just think it was unnecessary because there were so many other reasons to criticize her behavior? Or is it because the fact that she made those comments is supposedly an unsettled matter? I mean, there’s also her comments about how terrorism will stop if you get the “U.S. out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine.”
Thanks in advance.
SoCalJustice (0cef0a) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:36 amIts so typical of the Bushies. They cant find the WMDs they insisted were in Iraq and for which so many have died, so they attack the messenger. Many of the comments attributed to Cindy have been denied but smear and attack are the choice weapons for a administration that has gotten us involved in a war we cant win for reasons that keep shifting. Just ask Max Cleland, John Kerry, John McCain and so many others.
Regardless of what she supposedly said or did not say, the fact is she is a symbol of the death and destruction caused by an arrogant andminstration that rushed to war and has yet to find the weapons they insisted were there. But unable to find the weapons, Bush resorts to smear and distortion because Bush survival is more important than the survival of the USA. Dont believe it? Just look at the outing of Valorie Plame and you see their priorities.
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:26 amBush killed Cindys son and the sons and daughters of thousands of others and that is a fact that you find it preferable to ignore with lies and distortions and a fake brand of Christianity.
PS I will retract all this when you find the WMDs.
Vietnm era vet
Dignified writing today in the Times,how refreshing. I hope you will contribute on a regular basis.
barry mcphee (222467) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:30 amWell said, Mr. Frey. With “reportage” such as the LA Times and other major media outlets have done on Ms. Sheehan it is no wonder they’re losing market share.
midwest mama (3ed74f) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:36 amP.S. Just keep drinkin’ that koolaid, Charlie.
Good job Patrick (and thanks to your four draft reviewers). I’m sure it’s nice to have “four experienced editors” on your team when writing a piece like this.
Regret (27245e) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:48 amThank you for writing this wonderful piece. Thank you very much!
Greg (1307db) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:22 amI’m sure it’s nice to have “four experienced editors” on your team when writing a piece like this.
Heh. Good point.
Patterico (756436) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:24 amExcellent piece, Patrick. Don’t listen to the Charlies of this world. I’ve long since stopped trying to reason with the unreasonable. They’ll believe any lie that supports their pathological hatred of Bush.
I feel for her loss, but her method of grieving is honestly tarnishing the memory of her heroic son.
otcconan (bcda6d) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:33 amI have a question though – has the L.A. Times reported on the Sheehan “My son died for Israel and the PNAC/Neocon agenda” comments/email? . . . Did you write about that in an earlier draft or just think it was unnecessary because there were so many other reasons to criticize her behavior? Or is it because the fact that she made those comments is supposedly an unsettled matter?
Mostly the latter. Also, the precise point I was making was that including these quotes might explain why Bush wouldn’t meet with her publicly. Including the Israel comments would require some brief explanation of their relevance, and given the draconian word limitations we have in these pieces, I just didn’t think it would fit.
I really tried to keep the focus on the paper’s coverage and why it was important to include these facts. It was *not* a hit piece on Cindy Sheehan. Evidently a couple of commenters don’t understand that, which is a shame.
Patterico (756436) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:42 amNicely done! At least somebody is getting some straight talk out to LA Times readers. Shame the paper apparently isn’t up to doing that job.
Bill M (01e5a7) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:57 amPatrick,
Excellent job, nonetheless.
And I know this is an obvious point, but one of the best things about the blogosphere is that people can have their say, and still with an audience, beyond the confines of the 700-800 or so op-ed word limit.
Congrats again.
SoCalJustice (0cef0a) — 8/21/2005 @ 10:58 amCindy Sheehan and Lynne Stewart
This is big news – it shows Cindy supporting a woman who aided and abetted a convicted terrorist – and the failure of the media to report such an important connection is very troubling. Any attempt to blame Mrs. Sheehans peculiar actions on grief ar…
Lump on a Blog (6c4d5f) — 8/21/2005 @ 11:10 am[…] Patterico has an op-ed piece on Cindy Sheehan in the L.A. Times. If you read blogs, Patterico’s piece won’t tell you anything you don’t already know about St. Cynthia, but it will tell L.A. Times readers what they need to know, which the Times has conveniently left out. […]
damnum absque injuria » Training the Dog (38c04c) — 8/21/2005 @ 11:15 amTerrific piece, Patrick! Powerfully written and compellingly argued. Looking forward to more of your “Outside the Box” articles.
Diana Magrann (fcadda) — 8/21/2005 @ 11:47 amThanks, Diana. That means a lot coming from you. I still remember your eagle-eyed catch on the Eason Jordan mistake the L.A. Times made in February. You’re a valued reader; please keep coming back and commenting.
Patterico (756436) — 8/21/2005 @ 11:51 amSir,
in your op-ed, you mention how many people may have been killed by the Saddam regime, noting the:
‘Also missing is the perspective of Iraqis who lost loved ones to the bloodthirsty reign of Saddam Hussein, during which 300,000 to 1 million civilians were slaughtered. ‘
However, something missing in your article, is how many people have been slaughtered after the US invasion of Iraq.
At a minimum, it is shameful that our goverment is not tracking this. Of course it would be very bad publicity for the US govt, so we do know why it has not been done.
As of last year, a very respected study said that the invasion could have caused as many as 100,000 additional deaths in Iraq.
Also, you say ‘Rational people can disagree whether the war in Iraq is justified.’ However, i fail to see how rational people will be able to determine a rational conclusion, when so many facts have been either left out or twisted by our government for their own purposes. It is obvious, at a minimum that not all the facts were brought out before the war started, and we are only now beginning to deal with the effects of this policy.
It is very easy to be critical of the media, since they publish information every day that is readily available. It is more difficult to criticize our government (for the people, by the people), since they have (in your words) omitted facts and perspective to justify their decision to go to war.
A critical examination of our government and its policies would be for more useful to the citizens of the USA, than your piece, critical of peaceniks.
I think this world could use many, many more peaceniks, and much fewer warmongers.
jason (a56a87) — 8/21/2005 @ 12:05 pmGreat editorial, and kudos to the Times for letting you write on their pages. (#21)
Why look for another way to say it? You did a great job (supereditors are always helpful) and it was stand-up of the Times to print it. My local liberal excuse for a newspaper would not.
mrmurph (e1972e) — 8/21/2005 @ 12:07 pmDozens of op-ed’s and newspaper stories and blog posts– by now probably running into hundreds of thousands of words– have been written about Cindy Sheehan. (So many words and so much airtime that I, for one, can get behind Christopher Hitchens’ comment on HARDBALL: “And she should strike her tent and go home and the president should ignore her and so should everybody else.” [read the entire interview at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8997294/%5D) While I haven’t read them all, I’ve read too many of them. And by far the best of the lot have been Steyn’s SunTimes column, Hitchens’ piece in Slate, and now your op-ed in the L.A. Times.
Your piece is measured and rational and persuasive. Lawyerly, in fact. And, of course, I mean that as a complement. Bravo Zulu, as we say in the Navy.
craig mclaughlin (51c06e) — 8/21/2005 @ 12:07 pmJason:
Bullshit. As of last year, the self-parodying Lancet “study” produced an utterly meaningless finding that the invasion probably caused somewhere between 8,000 and 192,000 lives, and scores of credulous moonbats like you happily conclude that this must mean the real number was around 100,000.
I think this world could use much, much fewer people who hold strong opinions on topics they don’t know a f’ing thing about.
Xrlq (ca1ad5) — 8/21/2005 @ 1:53 pmReally well done, P!
You really struck it home in the last few paragraphs, too.
Great job.
Infoguy (55b389) — 8/21/2005 @ 2:06 pmWow! Very good article; fair and balanced presentation of this news story.
Betty Richardson (e2c84e) — 8/21/2005 @ 2:12 pmExcellent article. The information cointained in your piece should have been reported in the NEWS section, page 1, of the LA Times. Thank you for your report.
Dr. Robert N. Cleaves (401942) — 8/21/2005 @ 2:28 pmThe information you provided have led me to wonder what other important facts the LA Time is not reporting. Please advise what LA area newspaper(s) do report all facts. I want to know all facts and not be led in my thinking.
Hahn (b684a2) — 8/21/2005 @ 3:22 pmSO I am ignorant, right? Pathological?? Well so far not one of you Bush loving name callers has explained where the WMDs are…and not one of you name callers has explained how you support a war for WMDs you cant find..and connections to terrorism that did not exist…and to what extend you hold Smirky responsible for the war we that will bleed us dry. To me that is pathological
.You are right about one thing however.. I cant stomach Bush. He is a liar and an actor in the first degree. The man cant even appear in front of a genuine town audience. Only hand picked loyalists will do…!!
58,000 of my generation died for a lie but if you dont care about your own kids then that says everything there is to say about you.
Meanwhile, unable to face your own selves in the mirror as held up by Cindy, you close your minds to the obvious but painful facts and instead resort to vile lies and smears. Instead of attacking this woman why dont you drop your arrogant ignorant rants and demand some answers. Too painful to admit you were lied to?? Or do you think Bush is Jesus reincarnated? Jesus with a gun..
You say you support our troops..I was in the military in the Vietnam era and let me tell you ignorant chickehawks that the greatest thing you can do to support your country and your troops is to be damn sure they are not sent on a mission except as a last resort and for a good cause and if they are wasted for some politicians dream of being a “Wartime President” then the person that sent them should be held accountable. But that is asking too much isnt it? So much easier to put flags on your house and pins on your lapel and stickers on your cars and ignore the useless deaths and lies brough on by this vainglorious self-styled “War President”
If I am pathological the only pathological problem I have is continually trying to enlighten hate-filled morons who refuse to see that this country that I am not ashamed to say I love, is being destroyed and the generation of young people that I care about is being swept down a path of disaster by a man who on top of everything has the gall to call himself a Christian!! God forgive us for such blasphemy!!
So go ahead with your rants and smears but to those who have a wit about them just notice how little actual facts these Bush-bots use to defend this chimp. WHERE ARE THE WMDS, MR PRESIENT AND WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR.. Is this to much to ask? Apparently so. God Save Us from this Evil Administration!!
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/21/2005 @ 3:46 pmIt really doesn’t matter if Sheehan contradicted herself. None of this was a case in court. And I don’t think she is a lawyer making some technical legal claim.
Dubya couldn’t face Sheehan because of one simple fact: he has no answer to here simple question; What is this great cause for which my son died?
The President both depend heavily on the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. It is very difficult to accept that a sacrifice such as Mrs. Sheehan’s son, may never come to any good ends.
It has become increasingly apparent that this Republican administration wants to significantly lower the expectations for the war’s outcome in Iraq. It has become too obvious that failure has been achieved, and repetitive optimism is no longer fooling anybody except those who wish to be fooled.
The Bush Administration has bungled every aspect of this war, and is suffering the consequences of short sightedness and incompetence. And, it shouldn’t have been a surprise. There have been an entire litany of criticisms provided by professional Military and Diplomatic people long before the war, with respect to both the consequences, the weak planning and bad assumptions.
Good professional soldiers tend to soldier on, and honor those lost for their valor and courage. Americans soldier on too, acknowledging the ultimate sacrifice and courage of our military people.
However, there is another type of courage that we all, as Americans, must find within ourselves. That is the courage to speak truth to power. In order to do that, we all have to reflect on what is reality, and what is merely our own self- deception; our inability to face the unpleasant evidence of political misleadership, even as our sons and daughters show perfect heroism and courage in the face of the ultimate adversity.
Bush should have listened to General Shinseki, General Zinni, General McPeak, Admiral Crowe, Brent Ashcroft and all the others. It was difficult to ignore their experience and wisdom when they gave their warnings. It is impossible to avoid the truth in what they said now that their prophecies are coming true.
And example:
Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks’ approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.
When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn’t need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.
When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don’t know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
Bush knows the truth. Allowing a visit from Mrs. Sheehan would mean facing it.
Someone recently said in the media that the MSM should spend as much time dissecting and analyzing the utterances that have come out of the Bush administration as they have Mrs. Sheehan’s.
I think one would find far more incongruencies, with much more catastrophic implications.
Ghost Dansing (8e49e0) — 8/21/2005 @ 4:00 pmWhat does Sheehan herself say, in a conference call with Reporters? This has a few more of her somewhat … out of the mainstream statements included. OK they are insane. Naive. And stupid, frankly (her response to terrorism being … “peace”)
From the Conference Call Transcript:
http://www.kansascity.com/multimedia/kansascity/archive/opinion/Sheehan_transcript.pdf
So there you have it. Response to terrorism is non-violence (in Afghanistan and Iraq). Iraq and Afghanistan are endless wars of Imperialism. She has no animosity towards her son’s killer but plenty for Bush. Iraq is illegal and immoral and she seems to me to halfway justify her son’s murder. She can’t bring herself to oppose Sadr in the Iraqi Govt.
Basically, a disaster for Dems if the Media filter for her comes off.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 8/21/2005 @ 4:44 pmHey Ghost,
Read General Frank’s book. I don’t think he would lie, but hey, I don’t know him personally. He says that he was the one that laid out the battle plan for Iraq and he got EVERYTHING he wanted. The only monkey wrench was Turkey refusing, but being the fine soldier he was, he adapted. Adapting is what you do in war.
The best war plan you can draw up follows the script ONLY if the enemy has the exact strength you anticipate, the exact armament you anticipate, moves in the exact direction you anticipate and your troops perform exactly how you anticipate. Unfortunatly, war is an inexact science.
rayabacus (0516f0) — 8/21/2005 @ 5:25 pm#44
I was going to go through all of your rant and tear it apart and then I thought, why take the effort. Obviously you hate Bush and wouldn’t be open to listening to any kind of reasonable argument.
However I will take issue with your chickenhawk meme. I was in Nam in ’68 and ’69 and have a REAL purple heart. My son was in Desert Storm, my son-in-law was in Iraq for 13 months and there are several people I know that are currently in Iraq.
You people seem to forget that the military today is an all volunteer military. They know what they signed up for and the overwhelming majority of them support the mission in Iraq and support the Commander in Chief.
Sheehan got her answer; she just did not get the answer she wanted to hear.
rayabacus (0516f0) — 8/21/2005 @ 5:37 pmPatrick, the essay rocks. However, the headline which we know you had no control over, really sucked. It had the effect of mocking and marginalizing at the outset what you had to say, no doubt preventing some people from even taking the time to read your piece. Unfortunately, those were probably the LA Times readers who most needed to read it to gain additional context. I hope that as you continue your dialog with the LAT you will help them examine their headline writing biases as well, using this as only one of many examples.
Li (2cde24) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:41 pmCindy S. forgot to mouth off about abortion and raising taxes on the rich – but no doubt that will come later.
Charles O'Connor (f9c6c5) — 8/21/2005 @ 6:44 pmGreat article, Patrick. I was surprised that they published it.
Gary Aminoff (c217f4) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:00 pmPatrick,
Bill Hinton (69a7e8) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:03 pmAbout your Sheehan column in the LAT, the question I have is now what? You’ve accused their news room of reporting only the facts of this story that advance their poltical agenda. I think that is called propaganda. I don’t mean to say that the LAT putting out left wing propaganda is news, but it seems odd that they would print your column that pointed out in detail their dishonest news reporting with out any response or explanation.
Bill
In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.
In other words, this peacenik that has been held up by the left as the face and voice of the anti-war effort has had no discernable effect.
Insider (8feb2b) — 8/21/2005 @ 7:56 pmCindy Sheehan and her son expected that the Commander in Chief would tell the truth about why they were being send into battle. That is what our troops expect but Bush did not give them that much but you dont care do you??
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:09 pmAfter the first few/many posts I thought i would need to remind you that you still can’t walk on water. 😉 Even when the negative posts came they merely spoiled the mood, as they were at best tangential to what you were writing about and not really a criticism of your piece.
Xrlq, thanks for taking shot #1 at the Lancet “article” reference. In addition to your point, if one looks at the way the “study” was done and their calculations, one would find that pre-invasion Iraq supposedly had a better life expectancy than the US (so much for claims that children were dieing because of the, uh, sanctions).
Charlie, if you want to know where the WMD’s are, read all of David Kay’s testimony. The ILLEGAL long range missles to deliver said weapons were present and under development. The Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever virus was in a vial buried in the backyard of an Iraqi scientist. The WMD named Saddam is in jail, the WMD’s named Husay and Qusay (sp?) are dead and have found out what their “reward” was.
And for those who insist on telling us how Bush Bungled Bigtime, it is amazing how well he could have done if he didn’t need to overcome problems from supposed allies undermining his efforts, a military weakened by 8 years or more of cutbacks before he took office, political opponents equating him and his (our) troops as the equivalent of Saddam and his sons (as well as Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot), and a media that sounds like a parrot with a limited vocabulary trying to set up a bad joke (Well, the war in Iraq was really bad today… Oh yeah, how bad was it today?…Worse than yesterday, not as bad as it will be tomorrow…)
By no means do I think President Bush is perfect. But I’m tired of people who would prefer to hug a rattlesnake than kill it, and then complain about how many shots were used to kill it before it struck.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:19 pmMy father got a purple heart and many of his friends died in WW2. I have no doubt that if someone asked him if it was worth it he would have said “Yes’ tragic as that may be. And I would sadly say that my son,if he or I had died, would have died for a worthy cause. How many of you disgusting Chicken hawk Bush lovers can honestly say if your son or father died in Iraq “It was worth it” ?? I await your answer..We found WMDs?? We stopped international terrorism? We brought freedom to the people we didnt give a shit about earlier?
And you who support this liar.. Dont you get it?? Iraq had nothing to do with international terrorism. Ask the CIA. Your kids are dying becaue Bush is lying..Dont you get it? Or you dont care??
(PS dont bother responding to me if you cant tell me you think you would think the death of your son would be worth whatever it is we are fighting for in Iraq.
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:19 pmWhat the hell is blinding you so??
The biggest WMD is GW Bush. No Wmds were found in Iraand not even the means to produce them. Not only that but the UN and the International Atomic Agency were on the ground inspecting every area Bush said there were WMDs but he attacked anyway!! He wanted this war and God almighty I wish with all my heart that Jesus would return tomorrow and deal with those that kill and murder in his name..God Forgive me but I just cant find it in my heart to forgive Bush.
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:27 pmDear Charlie,
Get help.
Love and kisses,
Xrlq (ca1ad5) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:47 pmXrlq
Patterico Brings Perspective To Sheehan Nonsense
The Los Angeles Times has, to its credit, once again published its greatest Blogospheric critic, Patrick Frey (aka Patterico). This time, Patterico takes on the media sensation that is Cindy Sheehan. Read It All.
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS (b55965) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:49 pmCindy Sheehan & Her Moonbat Friends, Update VII
While the moonbats believe Cindy is the catalyst for a tied dyed love fest just like the 60’s I believe they will be very disappointed.
Flopping Aces (59ce3a) — 8/21/2005 @ 8:58 pmCharlie,
I can answer for myself. Yes it is worth it–that’s why we volunteer. Sorry you can’t appreciate the sacrifice we make for your and others well-being. Its not because we like you–it just the right thing to do.
After 9/11 chances are that you supported sending our troops in harms way. The polls are testiment to this. Now you probably are not as afraid as you were then. You probably think that it is OK to wait until whenever and then support sending others to an even greater catastrophe long past the time when we could have more safely nipped the problem in the bud.
I’d rather not rely on your judgement as you are not the one that bears the cost when such rosy thinking doesn’t bear itself out. However, if you wouldn’t mind signing a conditional enlistment — i.e. join the National Guard in an infantry unit, I’d reconsider your sincerity and the wisdom of your position.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/21/2005 @ 9:23 pmOn a more serious note, Charlie, you should also notice that your reasoning is reactionary, i.e. “this is what someone would believe if XYZ happened ..” It is not deductive, i.e. the action folows from the preexisting reason.
In short, it seems that you are thinking in rationalizations (explanations after the event). This sort of thinking carries no weight.
Try instead to create a case that agrees with the actual facts and then proceed to describe what should be done based on certain stated principles.
Note that Sheehan’s complaints are also reactionary. Obviously, Casey thought better than Cindy when he reenlisted. The question to always ask is, “What should we do to save/help unspecified others in the future?” Of course, then we would have to face the risk/consequences in our calculations without the benefit of an imaginary “everything would have been perfect if…” crutch.
Give it a try.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/21/2005 @ 11:38 pmYou can nitpick about Mrs. Sheehan all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Bush lied about the rationale for war. Going on 2,000 Americans have died for no discernable purpose. Anything that she or anyone else can do to underscore this fact is a service to our society. And so what if the mothers of many other dead soldiers still support the war? Millions of Soviet citizens beleived their government’s lies. Look where that took them.
Erik Stypulkoski (ee3eb6) — 8/22/2005 @ 7:31 amErik,
Please read some of the intel assessments. We do, and we vote.
Paul Deignan (ff8a33) — 8/22/2005 @ 7:40 amThe question is whether the L.A. Times shares your view that anything she does is a service to society — and thus concludes that people shouldn’t be told facts about her that might undercut her message.
Patterico (756436) — 8/22/2005 @ 7:41 amGood morning Patterico!!
I don’t know if you checked out the gibberish (and obnoxious gibberish at that) disguised as a post at #62.
Aside from leading me to check out Malkin’s site this am (where I found out what happened to the “human shields” and learned that Dr. Doom defeated the Fantastic 4 when Reed was questioned for being a neocon- Erik should check it out) there is little to commend it, in my opinion, FWIW.
thomas is correct that the anus web site is blocked by my filter, but that’s about it.
His definition of nihilism is much too long, but it doesn’t matter anyway…
If Dr. Freund is from “Eastern Phliadelphia”, then the good doctor is either floating (?) in the Delaware River or is actually in, ah, Camden.
Other than that, the crew sitting in while Michelle and family enjoy a little time to themselves apparently did encounter some unwanted links. Perhaps your skills teaming up with Hewitt’s blogging interests you could find a way to slap the hands (or more) of those who do such impolite things. (And I thought everyone in SF was smiling with flowers in their hair.)
Xrlq, once again I endorse your fine suggestion.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:03 amMD,
Don’t you think that the post has to be a prank? After all, the acronym is ANUS.
Paul Deignan (ff8a33) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:10 amPaul,
I’m sure it is a prank of sorts, but the web site does exist and is appropriately named. Malkin’s site has had an attack of unappreciated links, and the quote attributed to Betsy is off of Michelle’s site. As to the validity of what it says about Michelle and her husband, like I said, Dr. Freund is either in the Delaware River or Camden, as those are the two best descriptions of “Eastern Philadelphia” that I’m aware of (having lived here for 21 yrs).
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:32 amErik: contrary to popular opinion, simply labeling an inconvenient fact as a “lie” does not make it so.
Paul, MD: that Thomas guy is a piece of work. Lately he’s been spamming the same idiotic message all over the place. After finding his drivel first in this thread and then in this one that linked to it, I figured I was probably next, and tried to ban him preemptively. That didn’t qutie work since Spam Karma 2 apparently overrides the regular moderation settings, so he got through anyway. No matter, his post lasted all of 5 mins. before he was rebanned. I’d urge others to do likewise.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:48 amYou know, as Charlie was saying, its a good thing that these people come out and inform us of their presence (and dysfunction). Otherwise, we could go about our daily lives thinking that institutionalized mental care was an unnecessary component our government regulated heath care plans.
(Or that drugs are not a problem).
I look at it as a public (dis)service.
Paul Deignan (ff8a33) — 8/22/2005 @ 10:17 amCharlie
lincoln (ff6f8a) — 8/22/2005 @ 11:23 amYou’re being coyin using “VietNam era” vet.Of couse,there’s nothing shameful about not being in VietNam.But there is something a little off putting about your qualifiers.So,in the words of an old radio comedian,”Vasyou dere,Charlie”?
I say Vietnam Era Vet because I am being honest. I was in Vietnam for all of 30 minutes on a stopover from Thailand. I spent three years in the Phillipine Islands, and before that one year in California. USAF But I lived through those years and they were not pleasant..
Here is the deal folks. Bush told us the reason for the war was WMDs. Well it turned out he was wrong. The UN and our allies also urged us not to invade but we ignored them and Bush invaded anyway. NO WMDs FOUND. He could have been more cautious and given the UN or the IAEC more time as they were inspecting every place he said WMDs were with no notice…yes after a long period of bullshit by Sadam Bush got the inspections he said he wanted. Both the UN and International Atomic Energy Commission said that. It was a great victory for Bush at that time..we had inspectors on the ground everywhere we wanted but he invaded needlessly and then shamelessly told a lie about events leading up to the invasion during the Republican national convention. But they didnt care. Bush is god to them!! Hell with the facts just have faith in Bush. What I cant figure out is so damn difficult about holding him accountable for this recklessness?
Bush said then and still says there were connections to AL Quida and that too was wrong. Now he says we are creating a democracy but already the government of Sheeites is working with Iran. About a month ago the Prime Minister of Iraq went to Iran and laid a wreath at the tomb of Iatolla Kohmeni. Is this what you are willing to die for? A giant Sheite state? Even Michael Savage sees this disaster in the making.
Now we can see why Bush Sr did not topple Hussein. He did not want one giant Sheeite state stretching from Iraq to Iraq but that is exactly what is developing….the very thing his old man feared. You think you are dying first for WMDs then for terrorist connections and now for Iraqi freedom!!!??? You must be kidding!!!
And why this sudden concern about Iraqis?
Be honest and admit you did not give a damn about them in the past and that this is only some new found concern now that there are no WMDs to be found.
So now you are in a war you cant win. Outside insurgents know that with a one hundred dollar bomb strapped to their backs they can destroy a one million dollar refinery.. and go to heaven as a bonus!! And there is an endless supply of them.
You believe the very same people that told you Major Combat Operations were over two years ago..that told you it would cost less than fifty billion dollars and would be paid with Iraqi oil, that this war would last less than six months at most, that we did not need more troops and that we would be welcomed as liberators. We were told capturing Sadam would end hostilities, then the voting would end hostilities
Now the 50 billion bill is 300 B and rising, they now talk about 12 years, we dont have enough troops, its a clear training ground for terrorists according to the CIA, we are internationally hated, the coalition is falling apart, combat deaths are higher than ever, the Iraqis are fighing among themselves, we are engaged in nation building ( something which Smirky opposed during the 2000 election) and you still cant see this for what it is?? You impeach a President for lying about consentual sex but this you support and call Anti American those that disapprove? This is insane!! I dare anyone who supports Bush to tell me they would have gone along with this is Clinton has done exactly the same..
If Osama Bin Ladin had planned this himself he could not have done better. Arrogance and ignorance! If you want to die for this then go ahead. Sorry to see you do it but its your choice..
Is your love for Bush so great or your hate for the opposition so intense that you would support him until the entire country collapses and untold thousands of our soldiers die rather than admit what the world already knows? Bush is a liar and an opportunist who is leading us down the path to destruction because of his arrogant ignorant ways? That he is just a Rove creation who started this war for flimsy reasons and covers his errors with big talk and flag waving while afraid even to meet with unscreened citizens in town hall meetings and answer questions that he has not screened before hand? If Cindy Sheehan were a big donor is there any doubt he would meet with her time and time again? Is there any doubt that, if he could he would take the wind right out of her sails, by showing up and answering truthfully “What is so noble and honorable about this war??” He doesnt because he cant..and if you cant see it by now then I dont know what else I can say to get you to open your eyes..
Bush blames everyone but himself. President Reagan accepted full responsibility for the Iran Contra episode saying he knew nothing of it but as captain of the ship he must accept blame for what goes on on his watch. How much blame does Bush take for this? None and he never will..
Where are the WMDs our sons and daughters died for, Mr President? Dont you think you owe those that died looking for them an apology? I do..
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/22/2005 @ 5:38 pmHey Paul does this fit your logical construct. Fact. Bush said there were WMDs in IraQ. Fact: There were no WMDs in Iraq.
Principle: Those who tell untruths are liars. Observation” Bush told an untruth.. Tell me Paul..what is the logical conclusion?
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/22/2005 @ 5:54 pmThanks for staying on the MSM about the Sheehan coverage. I can’t decide whether the reporting or the editorializing has been more irresponsible, but I blog in detail about the shameful Ellen Goodman piece from this past weekend.
Scott (6c1a38) — 8/22/2005 @ 5:55 pmLincoln To make it clear..as I am sure you are an honest seeker of truth… I an not a Vietnam Vet because I didnt serve in Vietnam and actually only landed there for 30 minutes. I am however a Vietnam Era vet because i served from 1969-1972..during the Vietnam ERA. I dont think I made that clear..
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/22/2005 @ 6:01 pmand to the moron that questioned my fathers purple heart, we was in a B17 over Germany and got hit over Bremmen bombing submarine pens. Spend 14 hours on the operating table and was classified 90% disabled. Died about 15 years ago. He was damn proud of the years he served in the old Army Air Corp and so am I..as I am for all the men and women that served and still serve this country. But Bush is no Roosevelt..that is for damn sure
Translation: Chucky no espeak English so good.
That Bush was mistaken about WMD, as was George “Slam Dunk” Tenet’s CIA and every other major intelligence agency in the world, including those of countries that urged us not to invade. Were they all “liars,” too?
Xrlq (816c74) — 8/22/2005 @ 6:36 pmRe: Post 56
Dont you get it?? Iraq had nothing to do with international terrorism. Ask the CIA.
What are you talking about? The CIA never said any such thing. Are you psychotic or a liar (or both)? There are numerous indisputable links between Iraq and terrorism, including links with several 9/11 perpetrators. We don’t “get” anything loons like you say because they don’t make any freakin sense.
Gerald A (f47de2) — 8/22/2005 @ 7:52 pmGreat column in the L.A. Times.
Keep up the great work.
Recovering Democrat (c1d0b8) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:01 pmof course not…
they were, (hush) drugged… by Ari Fliescher (and we all know from which people that name comes)
He’d give these so called “press briefings” where he’d secretly secrete mind-altering saliva, the kind that adheres to clothing and then jumps off when the unknowing correspondent meets later with the righteous peace loving (and anti-Bushitler) leaders of state. Thus, all governments were brain washed, well except for those that (whoa, what was that…) already had the anti neocon-Halliburton-cabal venom booster shots, such as George Galloway. So when McSchrimpy lied in his “State of the Dominion” speech that Sadaam possessed MIRVs targeted for Dollyland, Wall Street, the Ball Park at Arlington, and his daddy, naturally, they believed him.
bains (8ffb96) — 8/22/2005 @ 8:45 pmGreat column in the L.A. Times.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks. All I ask is that you become a regular reader and commenter.
Patterico (756436) — 8/22/2005 @ 9:25 pmFact: Charlie, please read the Kay report. Fact, you have not.
Paul Deignan (664c74) — 8/22/2005 @ 10:12 pmTo Charlie and company,
1. Saddam Hussein waged a war against his neighbor Iran, using WMD’s against them as well as against those in his own country.
2. Saddam invaded Kuwait and brutalized it. Had the U.S. and company not intervened, maybe Saudi Arabia was next. Now, maybe some would prefer an isolationist policy and let countries “over there” beat themselves up, but that is not a realistic policy in general at least since 1940, and certainly since 9/11.
3. Saddam and Iraq was militarily humbled in GW I, yet Saddam did not see it as such. President Bush 41 and the Coalition made the decision to limit the war to freeing Kuwait and putting constraints on Iraq to prevent further aggression. This could not have been done because of inability to pursue the utter defeat and unconditional surrender of Iraq, but somewhere in the midst of international diplomacy this is the decision that was made. I wasn’t there to understand more than this.
4. Saddam did not cooperate with weapons inspectors ever, kicked them out in 98, let them back in only when President Bush was already staring him down (after ther UN doing nothing for years). In addition, he had two sons-in-law executed after coaxing them back into Iraq, because they gave info on how he was hiding stuff from the inspectors.
5. Iraq consistently fired upon US jets patrolling the “no-fly” zones. Each incident would have been reason for a major military strike.
6. OBL’s call for jihad against the US was in part due to our continued presence in Saudi Arabia (to keep Hussein in check).
7. We now know that the “sanctions” against Iraq were a joke, with the “Oil for Food” program corrupted, allowing Saddam to get funds for weapons, etc., from the countries who were supposed to be our allies.
8. The efforts of working with the UN as long as we did to bring pressure on Iraq was a mistake in that France and Company were NEVER going to have the decisiveness to ENFORCE the consequences of all of the broken UN resolutions. One does not stop a bully, either on a plaground, in Europe, or in Iraq by saying over and over, “Next time we’ll have to punish you…” All that time did was to allow Saddam to buy time to play more cat and mouse.
9. Saddam was not given the ultimatum to let inspectors in, he was given the ultimatum to give an account for what had happened to all of its WMD’s, which they NEVER DID. It was not up to us to find things, it was up to him to show us how he had gotten rid of what we knew he had.
10. Every intelligence service this side of Mercury said Saddam had WMD’s. The “Downing Street Document” even reveals private discussions concerning “what would happen if Saddam used his WMD’s”.
11. Stockpiles of WMD found or no, the weapons inspectors clearly stated Saddam was in significant violation of sanctions in many ways, was a threat “worse than we thought”, and was prepared to resume production of WMD as soon as they had opportunity.
So, two options:
1. Allow Saddam to stay in power, in continued violation of a cease-fire for over 10 years, with those supposedly invested in keeping him under control actually enabling his continued defiance. This would require indefinite presence of US troops in the Middle east, itself an expense and provocation, attempting to do an impossible task.
2. Bring Saddam’s reign to an end.
If the UN had been united and not corrupt, the US politicians above partisan bickering, and the US press above being anti-Bush “just because”, the resolve of the terrorists would be weakened and the ease of US and allied operations increased.
And yes, there were links between Iraq and AL Quida (sp), as said above.
Hey, I voted to reelect Jimmy Carter, and did not vote for GB #41, I’m not a congenital conservative. If I thought Bush was purposefully deceiving I wouldn’t support him. You can’t allow agreements for the cessation of hostilites to be ignored indefinitely, especially as enemies begin to mount.
My grandfather survived getting gased in France in WWI. I appreciate your father’s service. Had France honored it’s treaties in 1939 in the early stages of Hitler’s aggression, perhaps your father would not have needed to fly in those B17’s. Likewise, stopping Saddam earlier than later may be the course that saves lives in the end.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/22/2005 @ 10:38 pmPat — great work and superb article.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 8/22/2005 @ 11:04 pmGood job Patterico.
It’s a meaningful correction and they would be wrong not to print it.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/23/2005 @ 9:32 amMD in Philly, don’t forget the Iraq Liberation Act of ’98.
LH in CT (b684a2) — 8/23/2005 @ 11:59 amOk Philly
You have taken the time to present a very well presented arguement with a reasonable tone to it and not a lot of name calling. I will therefore take the time to reply.
and let me say thanks for the complement for my father and likewise from me to you about your grandfather.. If that poster who said he was in the military is reading this..thanks to you too and I appreciate you efforts …
However..
First of all your points one through six are fine, and no one disagrees with them although you might point out that it was the US who helped Saddam with these WMDs which he used against Iran and his own people and that Donald Rumsfield among others had no problem doing business with him at that time. This is just a side issue but it shows the total hypocricy of the US lament about how awful Sadam was for using gas….
Now to the other points..
In some respects the sanctions were a joke..a sad joke in that Saddam was not hurt..only the Iraqi people and that many companies some US based were doing business with him through subsidiaries. I agree..
Yes it is also very true that for years there was a lot of “bark and no bite’ against Saddam and he was playing a game and no one calling his bluff. Again we agree. You are wrong however in saying that the sanctions did not work against the WMD programs he was supposed to be developing. David Kay..a big Bush supporter ..said in the middle of his report..
“”Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed—during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox [Clinton’s 1998 airstrikes], 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” It adds ”
“These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions.” READ THAT LAST LINE..AGAIN
In other words, Saddam might have restarted his nuclear-weapons program—except for the U.N. sanctions. So the sanctions were working…ACCORDING TO KAY..
Furthermore..The International Atomic Energy commission and the United Nations inspectors both reported that they were allowed to inspect every site the US claimed Saddam had weapons and found none and inspections were proceeding but both say it was the US that in the end demanded they leave and then attacked.
This is in total contradiction of what Bush said when he said ” Saadam had a choice of defiance or complaince and he chose defiance” No only does this contradict the facts but it is assinine on the face of it. Defiance after the US had attacked once before with Bush father as President and was under sanctions and had no air force and economy in shambles>>????
So sanctions were working and inspections were proceeding and nothing was being found but Bush invaded anyway and to date no programs have been discovered.
You mention an ultimatium to Saddam to give an account of the weapons but of course that is something Saadam could never do and that was Bush clever ploy. Of course he could not give an account just as no one can give an account of the eight billion dollars missing in Iraqi construction money. The UN destroyed those weapons after the last war. Now think for a second. Why would he not give an accounting, if he could? And what kind of accounting could he give? If he produces documents saying he destroyed X amount of material they will simply say the documents are lies. Then they will say “Now prove the documents are not lies..” Try to prove to you wife you were not cheating on her last year at this time? Especially if she is out to “fix the evidence around a policy to divorce you..”
Another point..It is true every intelligence agency believed Sadam had WMDs..AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST GULF WAR..BUT NOT THEREAFTER. The French and Germans did not..and you cant dismiss that by simply name calling.. And what those who make this claim forget is that those same nations also ADVISED NOT TO INVADE AND TO GIVE INSPECTIONS TIME TO WORK. That part of the equation seems to be forgotten.
and your final point eleven actually makes mine. Saadam was prepared to resume production as soon as he had the opportunity. The point is exactly that. He had no opportunity. UN inspectors and IAEC inspectors were everywhere, our planes were in the air, the country was under a microscope..and he could do nothing..so why the rush to invade?
I will tell you..
If you read the Project for the New American Century you know the neo cons wanted this war back in the late 1990s and the neo cons consisted of Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Richard Pearlman, Richard Bolton..sound familiar? And we have the testimony of Richard Clark and Paul O Neil both of whom have said Bush wanted war with Iraq.
Let me just sum this up and try to agree with you as much as possible because this divide is really damaging this country.
Saddam was an evil man no doubt about that. The UN and others were weak in dealing with him in certain regards. Bush did a wonderful job of getting him to agree to full unfettered inspections and that was right and I approve. But the facts are there was conflicting evidence about whether or not Saddam had WMDs and instead of pushing for more intrusive inspections he invaded. That is my complaint. The war was not a last resort but something he plannned all along and its plain he disregarded evidence to the contrary, smeared those that disagreed, and has thoughtlessly led us into a tragic war that I cannot see how we can possibly win.. I think he thought this would be a cakewalk like the first Gulf war but its not.. We have found no WMDs, no connections to international terrorism and we are fighint and dying for nothing more than what is soon to be the Islamic Republic of IraQ
Charlie (8ea405) — 8/23/2005 @ 12:57 pmWow, what a load of right-wing pontificating. Or should we say, exercise in right-wing reality making?
We should just cut Charlie out of this thread and let you folks continue congratulating yourselves for being so thoroughly duped.
And before you attempt to devour me, I’ll simply remind the bunch of you that over 60% of this country disagrees with your ilk. And the number grows daily.
Yeah, you’ve duped by the Duper-in-Chief.
Ready, set, pontificate!
Brent Mack (97dd7b) — 8/23/2005 @ 3:54 pmBrent Mack you ignorant leftist moron. I am one of the 60% that doesn’t appove of the way President Bush is handling the war. I think he should take the gloves off and finish the job on these murderous towel heads! He is not doing enough to kill the very last one of them!!
SAVET (aa4c81) — 8/23/2005 @ 5:25 pmOhh, SAVET, you’re such tough guy… maybe Pat Robertson could use you in Venezuela. Pat says that they’re quite a threat. The fact that they’re sitting on a bunch of oil doesn’t hurt matters either.
By the way, don’t flatter yourself. Your share of that 60% consists of you and a couple of dozen other wackos. But I will give you credit for not being completely duped.
If that damn liberal media would just let Bush be Bush – everything would be all right. That seems to be your position. Wrong!
You guys forgot that the real “murderous towel heads” aren’t in Iraq. Oops!
You missed, SAVET.
Brent Mack (97dd7b) — 8/23/2005 @ 5:38 pmSavet made a good point. It is more than just a few of the 60% don’t like the war because enough is enough already.
The testimony of Richard Clark is less than meaningless. He claimed that in his first discussion with Condi Rice she appeared not to know who Al Queda was. Right, and someone did a good Condi impersonation in October 2000 before the election in that detroit radio/TV station.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/23/2005 @ 8:24 pmFactual, respectful, masterful. I wish I had written that, but it’s better that I didn’t because I couldn’t resist being at least a little snarky. But you didn’t need to twist the knife; just telling the truth straight no chaser did the job just fine. And squealing stuck pigs like Charlie and the others reduced to regurgitating Kerry campaign talking points are evidence that your piece hit its target.
I notice that Charlie referred to himself as a “Vietnam era vet.” I guess he doesn’t realize that W could make that same claim, but that he would have a coronary if he tried it.
L.N. Smithee (692158) — 8/24/2005 @ 10:55 amWas, or was not, Cindy Sheehan, occasionally housed in a motel near Crawford, returning clandestinely before sun-up to give the impression that she had spent the night “roughing it” in a roadside tent?
bureaucrat (825e78) — 8/24/2005 @ 10:07 pm[…] It’s a far cry from the days when folks like myself were actually invited onto the paper’s own op-ed pages to make our criticisms heard. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Baquet on Using the L.A. Times to “Push Back” Against Blogger Critics (421107) — 7/8/2006 @ 12:06 pm