Tuesday, February 08, 2005
I Was Going to Leave Eason Jordan Alone...
No really, I was -- but then Howard Kurtz published an interview with the man in the Washington Post. (HT: Powerline, Easongate)
In that interview, Eason reasserts his position that he was simply trying to distinguish between "collateral" and and other kinds of unintended damage.
Well, why didn't he just say so to begin with? As I posted yesterday, the military makes a distinction between "collateral" and "unintended" damage, but also admits that it is a distinction without a significant difference, except in the planning stages of a mission.
Mr. Jordan, if you were just trying to make this distinction, why don't you just apologize for the offensive manner in which you expressed yourself and we will move on.
In that interview, Eason reasserts his position that he was simply trying to distinguish between "collateral" and and other kinds of unintended damage.
"I was trying to make a distinction between 'collateral damage' and people who got killed in other ways,"
Well, why didn't he just say so to begin with? As I posted yesterday, the military makes a distinction between "collateral" and "unintended" damage, but also admits that it is a distinction without a significant difference, except in the planning stages of a mission.
Mr. Jordan, if you were just trying to make this distinction, why don't you just apologize for the offensive manner in which you expressed yourself and we will move on.
