If you haven’t heard by now, Joel Stein wrote an article published by the LA Times entitled “Warriors and Wusses“. In it, he admits that he does not support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you can imagine, this has created quite a stir in the blogosphere.

I’ve got to admit to mixed emotions on this one. On one hand, I respect Mr. Stein for telling the truth and saying he doesn’t support the troops when it’s my belief that most of his lib counterparts are lying and saying they do support the troops. On the other hand, he doesn’t support the troops.

By Tuesday afternoon the Times was already reporting on the uproar created by the column:

A Los Angeles Times columnist who infuriated conservatives by writing that he does not support American troops fighting in Iraq — and calling those who do “wusses” — stood by the article on Tuesday.

Joel Stein said he has been “bombarded” by hate mail over the incendiary article — which was headlined “Warriors and Wusses” and held that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were “ignoring their morality” — but does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

Irish Pennants sums up my feelings perfectly:

Joel Stein is slime. But at least he is straightforward slime.

The American Thinker posts a soldier’s response:

While most of Mr. Stein’s commentary is indicative of a man who has enjoyed our freedoms with none of the responsibility (by his own admission), he has at least one point of merit. He does not conceal his true conviction. When one considers those that say they support the troops but not the war, it is hard to distinguish which is more harmful to the soldier.

Demediacratic Nation has a review of Stein, the Times, and Stein’s interview with Hugh Hewitt:

The Left might say, “wow, those questions are so stupid, redundant, and picky; couldn’t you have at least asked him something substantial?”

They wouldn’t understand or would choose not to understand that in order for an interview to go anywhere the interviewee must have a clue. No of the questions were difficult in any way, shape or form, but they were for Stein. The interview drove home the fact that this guy had given absolutely no regard for what he was saying and what it meant.

Radioblogger has an MP3 and a transcript of the interview.

Perhaps Holy Coast sums it up best:

As reported earlier, he was eviscerated in yesterday’s radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, and was supposed to appear on Mark Larson’s San Diego show at noon today, but wimped out with an email cancellation. I think perhaps his handlers at the Times have begun to realize that he isn’t doing them any favors by appearing in interviews.

TD