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.