A little more reading:
hughesforamerica.typepad....n_the.html
Quote:
While so many questions remain, what's clear is this: The right-wing needed a distraction to convince some people - including a servile Washington press corps - that the anti-war (and anti-Bush) sentiment in this country isn't at an all-time high. In Sparling, clearly a Republican operative (whether he realizes it or not), they got one. In a remarkably economic trade-off, all it took to nullify the actions of 100,000-plus protesters - and distract the media - was one man, a veteran long at the center of dubious "controversies". What's also clear is that no manner of media self-correction will stop the train now steadily rolling down the right-wing noise machine tracks. The story - "peaceful" protesters spit on and therefore denigrate our troops - is out there. What's not out there and likely won't soon be is Sparling's history of questionable run-ins or his ties to some very lofty corners of the Republican Party. Also as yet unseen is the true nature of the right-wing counter-protesters at Saturday's march.

To wit: Take a look at this picture, which we'll discuss in a moment. My girlfriend happened to take it while we took part in the pre-march CODEPINK rally where Sparling first made his presence known. There, though his group forced their way to the front and verbally confronted both the speakers and audience alike, Sparling was treated with the utmost respect by the anti-war gathering. In fact, when a fellow veteran and CODEPINK protester spoke about honoring his service, Sparling received a lengthy ovation. A far cry, to be sure, from the unconfirmed account of his being spat at by a protester. While Sparling booed the speakers and generally caused a distraction, across the street were 30 or so right-wing counter-protesters, which the Washington Post reported represented the Free Republic Web site. There, and in the aforementioned photo, protesters staged a hanging of a stuffed dummy bearing a photo of Jane Fonda, who had joined us at the CODEPINK protest. Around the effigy's neck was a sign that read "JANE FONDA, AMERICAN TRAITOR, BITCH". Nearby, members of the small crowd held signs that read, among other things, "Anti-American peaceniks think sedition is patriotic" and "We gave peace a chance. We got 9/11".

Nowhere in the New York Times article was a mention of the nature of the counter-protest (or, of course, the nature of Sparling himself). Nor was it mentioned in the Washington Post article, which only detailed the presence of a sign reading "Hanoi Jane, Wrong then, wrong now." A far cry, to be sure, from people hanging an effigy of Fonda. Then again, the media never let the truth get in the way of a good frame. That frame, the one portraying the anti-war movement as a sideshow populated by ex-hippies, dreadlocked potheads and militant communists who also happen to hate our troops, is as useful to some reporters as is their Rolodex. It allows the stories like those reported after Saturday's march to write themselves. Simply pluck a few choice quotes from the prominent speakers - extra credit if they represent Hollyweird - colorfully describe the marchers in an effort to ridicule their efforts and blindly report the dubious claims of a veteran whose equally dubious past fails to make it into the article. In three short steps, you could very easily fill the available column inches. And, at the same time, you could very easily breathe added life into a Republican fairy tale as old as war itself.


So, as a guy who was there and saw the march and the Freepers himself, I'm telling you that that the caricature you have drawn is a load of manure, Ron. Anyone thoughtful and fair would have seen that veterans were honored at the rally. We all want to keep more troops from injury and death. How does it happen that the guys who want more of them dead get to pose as the defenders of the troops? It makes no sense. I have no problem looking a disabled Iraq veteran in the eye. I did what I thought I could to prevent his injury. It seems to me that those advocating the invasion and occupation would be less willing to blather about support for the troops, seeing as their support translates to more dead and wounded American troops. I don't call you guys anti-American just because you support policies that hurt America. I know you're just misguided. But you immediately play the patriotism card and embellish every incident to give the false impression that those who are antiwar hate veterans, even I suppose the antiwar protestors who are veterans. I don't respect that, Ron, not at all.