History Forum / General / British History / January 2006

"Stein Stands by 'L.A. Times' Column on U.S. Troops That Drew Protest"

By E&P Staff

Published: January 25, 2006

NEW YORK Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein says he stands by his
Tuesday column after being what he called "bombarded" with email. Stein, the
former Time magazine staff writer, had written a column that began, "I don't
support our troops."

Stein tells Reuters he does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

The Times online site has put up a poll on the subject, in its opinion
sections, asking readers if someone can oppose the war but support the
troops, yes or no? It also offers a third choice: "I don't know, Why did you
hire Joel Stein again?"  ******

The article, which ran on the Times opinion page on Tuesday, was quickly
linked on conservative sites and others, and hundreds of letters poured in
to Stein and the Times. Bruce Pyle of Las Vegas, Nev., wrote to E&P that "it
is going to be hard to distinguish between Stein and Bin Laden when it comes
to their views on America."

One man posted at the NewsBusters site, "Stein should be bowing his head in
shame. Doubtful though." Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin quickly
nominated Stein as "one of the most loathsome people in America."

Stein, whose columns are often humorous in nature, commented to Reuters that
whenever a politician opposes the war but supports the troops "I just always
think they are covering their a.s."  ******

He appeared on the talk radio show of conservative Hugh Hewitt in Los
Angeles on Tuesday and said, "I don't want empty sentiments prolonging the
war."

Hewitt had written on his blog, "These are not illegal opinions, of course,
but they are deeply repulsive ones, and I don't believe the Los Angeles
Times ought to have run this column."

At the same time, Atrios at the liberal blog, Eschaton, dubbed Stein "w.nker
of the Day."  ******

A message board at the Los Angeles Times site was flooded with anti-Stein
comments, one suggesting that he was the "love child" of former Times
columnist Robert Scheer and Jane Fonda. There was some support, too, such as
this example: "Finally someone had the guts to say it. These soldiers are
volunteers and responsible for the deaths of more than 50,000 innocent men,
women and children and they should be held responsible, just like the people
who started this illegal war."

In his column, Stein wrote that "being against the war and saying you
support the troops" suggests that "the one lesson they took away from
Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest
but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

Stein added: "I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do
our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful."

Other points:

--"Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas
longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there - and
who might one day want to send them somewhere else."

--"Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They
need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of 'Laguna Beach.'
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for
voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other
than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day...."

--"After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the
soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were
deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to
object to a war we barely understood."

--"All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need:
hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------