I wrote Ms. Malkin and requested she respond to your question.
Thanks
- Scott
Thanks, Scott.
I'm sure she'll get right on that. NOT!
You've blamed the wrong people. Michelle Malkin wrote her piece at my urging. That is, to please tell the rest of Jeffrey's story since the NYTs would not respond to my request that it publish the rest of the letter. The Whitehouse requested of the family permission to read "parts of the letter" which was granted. The family feels that the part that the President read captured what Jeffrey wanted said about the war. The parts not read had already been made public by the NYTs. It cannot be said that the President was trying to hide that part because it was already published. We also feel that Jeffrey would have approved of the part the President read.
If you do not like the President or his actions that's fine. But do not blame him for what he read. It was an honor to Jeffrey to have the President read parts of his letter to have people write things as you have done takes away from that.
We grieve for not having Jeffrey with us, but we know he died for something he believed in. He also lived for what he believed in. Most people can't say that.
It's not for Ms. Malkin to explain. It is I who encouraged the piece she wrote. Blame me if you must. Tim Lickness, San Diego, CA
Mr Lickness,
I'm not blaming Ms. Malkin for what Bush said or didn't say. What I'm blaming her for is her double standard of holding one person (in this case the NYT) to a different standard than she would hold another (George W. Bush) based on what looks to be a political bias. I think this is a case of IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're A Republican). Were Ms. Malkin to explain why she feels it's okay for Bush to "selectively edit" what your nephew said, when it's not okay for the Times to do the same thing, I probably wouldn't have made an issue of this. It would have been very easy for her to say the exact same things that you have said right here in the comments.
As for Bush, I do blame him for what he read. He could have just as easily read the entire text of the letter. As was your original complaint with the NYTimes, not quoting the letter as it was written portrays a much different mood than the writer intended. Granted, I did not know Cpl. Starr and I have no idea what his intentions were nor do I know his feelings about the war. All I know is that it is dishonest of both the Times and the White House to selectively quote what makes their case look the strongest.
As for the NYTimes, I don't know when it happened, but when I came upon the article in question, there was a link to the entire text of your nephew's letter. Maybe it came later, I can't say.
Now as for you, Mr Lickness, if you are who you claim to be (see next paragraph), I offer you my deepest condolences on the loss of your nephew. I thank him for his service to our country. Although we may not agree on the necessity for this war, I have nothing but respect for anyone who is willing to lay their life on the line for something they believe strongly in.
Unfortunately, Mr. Lickness, nobody from San Diego visited my site at the time this comment was posted. Therefore, I have to question whether or not you are who you claim to be. Maybe you could explain where you are or where you were when you posted your comment and then I could give this a little more credence. You can contact me here in the comments or you can send me an email at the address provided on my blog.
Commenting by HaloScan
