Tuesday, June 30, 2009


Putz, yesterday:

“TRAITORS:” I remember when calling people treasonous was wrong.

March 2008

They’re not antiwar. They’re just on the other side.

September 2007:

NOT ANTIWAR, just on the other side: “Disturbed anti-war protester can’t find soldier, kills civilian with axe instead.”

March 2007:

“Anti-war?” Or just on the other side? Your call.

March 2006:

ANOTHER UPDATE: More photos here. They’re not so much “antiwar” as just on the other side.

May 2005:

I WARNED EARLIER that if Americans concluded that the press was on the other side, the consequences would be dire.

May 2005:

As I've warned before, if Americans conclude that the press is, basically, on the side of the enemy, the consequences are likely to be dire.

September 2004:

THE NEW CLIMATE OF FEAR IN AMERICA seems to have claimed another victim:

A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4’s Nancy Burton reported. . . .

According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn’t know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

Not anti-war. Just on the other side.

UPDATE: In response to a later link back to this post on August 8, 2006, Reader Ted Gideon emails that this report turned out to be false.

May 2004:

THEY’RE NOT ANTIWAR: They’re just on the other side.

April 2004:

Note to Kristof: They’re not “well-meaning,” and it’s odd that you’d think so in light of these sentiments. And they’re not anti-war. They’re on the other side, and they’re admitting it.

March 2004:

And, once again, it looks as if another “peace” group isn’t really for peace, but simply on the other side. And, apparently, on Kerry’s side as well.

January 2004:

This, of course, is why the Bush Administration’s efforts to keep the UN relevant were a bad idea. The Security Council was — and is — packed with people who were on the other side.

No comments: