Saturday, September 03, 2005

Patterico replies

Let me say up front, that I actually like some of Patterico's work. In fact, I've linked to his posts at Last One Speaks, but his inexplicable vendetta against the LAT has always confounded me. In any event, he replies to this post.
No I don't. That's what you read into it. She described him as sincere and sympathetic. She also disagreed with the war. I have written a lot about this and have always been completely up-front about all of it. I didn't say anything false. The L.A. Times did.
Not much of a defense, as by his own admission the LAT also had previously made clear that Bush had met with Cindy once before and the Patterico post in question did not add the qualifier that Cindy disagreed with the war at the time she made those statements.

My criticism stands. Patterico cannot hold the LAT to one standard and then follow a lower one himself and call it a fair comparison. Besides, how bizarre is it that what we're basically arguing about here is to what degree is Bush callous?

Our president has amply demonstrated his callous disregard for the impoverished, time and time again. His disdain for the downtrodden is painfully apparent in numerous policy decisions in which the death of poor people is considered acceptable collateral damage in advancing his agenda.
Bookmark and Share

2 Comments:

Blogger Patterico said...

Not much of a defense, as by his own admission the LAT also had previously made clear that Bush had met with Cindy once before and the Patterico post in question did not add the qualifier that Cindy disagreed with the war at the time she made those statements.

Dude, they only made that clear because I harassed them about it. I had an op-ed published on their pages complaining about this very thing, before they ever mentioned it once.

You're still not understanding that the four words they left out caused their story to be flat-out untrue. What did I say that was untrue? I didn't even imply that Sheehan agreed with the war -- just that she had met with Bush previously and described him as sincere and sympathetic. All quite true.

I am going to go back and update the post with a link to my previous discussions about this so that people like you, who enjoy reading things into text that isn't there, can't possibly have anything to carp about. But nothing I said in my post is the slightest bit inaccurate, at all -- whereas the L.A. Times changed text to tell a flat-out lie. It's totally different, something only a partisan like yourself could fail to understand.

2:28:00 PM  
Blogger Patterico said...

I have added a link to my LA Times op-ed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-tent21aug21,1,1452447.story

2:31:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home