LA Times Editorial: Beneath Contempt
By Sara Pentz

The 'editorial' written January 21, 2007, by the LA Times writer Paul Whitefield (who supervises the editorial pages' copy desk), entitled "Apocalypse Again..." is an insult to all Americans and all mankind. His article is corrupt and vindictive. It is mean-spirited, shocking and beneath contempt.

See the article here:

Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets

Where else can Bush get 21,500 trained soldiers for his 'surge'?
By Paul Whitefield, PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.
January 21, 2007

LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles - Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth - because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes - lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal21jan21,0,1717035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Mr. Whitefield, who holds a very important position at the LA Times, chooses to betray the memory of soldiers who fought without choice and so bravely in Viet Nam. They died for their country. Mr. Whitefield mocks them. He insults them. He abuses them.

He writes that they must still have guns as though owning a gun was somehow vulgar and offensive. He insultingly calls them “long in the tooth (or don’t have teeth),” he says, citing Agent Orange as if it were the culprit for the mere act of aging. He calls them out of shape geezers hungry for revenge - another ugly slur.

He throws every insult he can at the American soldier under the pretense that he has found the solutions for President George Bush’s Iraqi ‘surge’ plan. It is obvious that Mr. Whitefield has some kind of bitter hatred toward this President and he has chosen to take it out on him in a very mysterious way because his vindictive is so far out of proportion to the issues involved.

Mr. Whitefield betrays his rage. His article is not funny and it is not satire. It is rude and blasphemous, and revealing of a deeply twisted psyche. Perhaps he would be well advised to seek a counselor instead of writing vengeful articles for a newspaper which is speedily descending into a mockery of journalism.

To choose to write in the LA Times about the Viet Nam veterans in this manner is beyond comprehension. It is irresponsible and sacrilegious. He has gone over the line in this article by using his position of power in the media to attack those who have the courage to fight for American values and principles. It is easy for him to vent his spleen, unlike those who go to battle for Mr. Whitefield's freedom to slander them.

His article is currently (1/23/07) making the rounds on the Internet with negative comments - as it should. The collective response is that this kind of editorial by the LA Times is the reason why so many people refuse to read the newspaper.

Shame on Mr. Whitefield. Greater shame on the LA Times for allowing this article to be published.

It is beneath contempt.