After reading Digby's
latest update on the spitting "incident" involving Joshua Sparling at last Saturday's
anti-war march, I feel compelled to comment further. One, Sparling needs to get his story straight. Two, he needs to move his rhetoric into the 21st Century. Regarding the first point, you have Sparling on "Hannity & Colmes"
talking about how an unidentified protester (wearing an 82nd Airborne patch) "said I was a disgrace, basically, and that I was - that I had blood on my hands and that I had no right wearing the uniform, and he spit at me." Meanwhile, a day later on "FOX & Friends", you have Sparling escalating the confrontation, telling the hosts that, "for the most part, there was just people lining the fence just screaming and jumping over it trying to get at us. A couple of folks actually were waiting for clubs to meet with me after it was over with, and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk."
I find the latter claim interesting because it raises further questions, considering the New York Times's
report, which stated, "Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back. Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters." If the police forced the protesters farther away from Sparling's group, surely they would have been close enough to this apparent powderkeg to not miss people with clubs or people jumping the just-erected fence. Did, as Digby asked, the reporters see these club-wielding protesters? Could the police confirm any of this?
Regarding the former claim, Sparling's appearance on "Hannity & Colmes" raises
even more questions about the Times's reporting - and the veteran's story. After Sparling recounted the spitting incident, Alan Colmes asked, "And you spit back?" Contrary to the Times story ("he spat back"), Sparling said, "Of course I did not." Colmes pressed, saying, "That's what was reported. That did not happen?" Sparling replied, "No sir, it did not." Well, did he spit back or didn't he? Also, exactly how many people spat at Sparling? Contrary to the Times story ("one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling"), Sparling said on Fox, "And he wasn't the only person to spit at me either. There was others, but this fella here was actually on the sidewalk with me, whereas all the other ones were about 10 yards away on the other side of the road, and they weren't just spitting. They were throwing cigarette butts, they were flipping us off." This doesn't sound like one protester to you, does it?
Also, his appearance on "FOX & Friends" was
quite different than it was Saturday. On television, before a friendly audience of fellow partisans, Sparling was quiet and somber. Saturday, I remember Sparling to be loud, gregariously emotive and profane in his dealings with the anti-war protesters. A typical right-wing tactic among those looking for trouble, Sparling's sudden change reminds me of the football player who viciously hits the quarterback after the whistle, only to throw his hands up in shock and amazement when the referee calls him for a personal foul. I'm afraid the real Sparling is a lot more like the one we saw Saturday than the one on television.
Getting back to my point about rhetoric, another red flag about this entire episode is Sparling's description of the things yelled to him during the march. Sparling, for instance, told Sean Hannity on his radio show that protesters were calling him a "murderer" and "baby killer". I find it ridiculous (as ridiculous as the alleged spitting) that these '60s-era insults found their way to Saturday's march, where, to a protester, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single example of anti-soldier sentiment.
A single one. There were as many different kinds of people there as there were marchers overall, but one thing tying everyone together was an anti-war philosophy. This, no matter what the Republican Party wants you to think, isn't to be confused as being anti-soldier. In fact, those in attendance on the Mall applauded the service of our young men and women on more than one occasion. Sparling himself received an ovation at the CODEPINK rally. Not from his Freeper friends, but by us, the protesters supposedly calling him a "baby killer".
Look, as has been said repeatedly, both here and across the progressive blogosphere, it's obvious Sparling isn't
just a veteran. He's someone with a
track record of alleged run-ins that have served to become rallying points for partisan war supporters and the right-wing media. Average veterans don't become Fox regulars. Average veterans don't appear at Oliver North's Freedom Alliance concerts and
have their picture taken with Ann Coulter. Average veterans don't get invited to the State of the Union address as a guest of the then-Speaker of the House. A simple Google search could have given any reporter the background needed to come to this conclusion. That a paper of record like the New York Times ran with such a
questionable story is, to say the least, a shame, especially considering the paper's story has given mainstream legitimacy to a story that likely otherwise would have caromed around the typical right-wing haunts.
For that offense, this story takes on added importance. Without the Times report, it seems clear that Sparling would have still enjoyed yet another 15 minutes of right-wing fame. With it, however, serious journalism takes a hit. I find story author Ian Urbina's reporting, given what Sparling has said on television, riddled with holes. For instance, exactly how many people allegedly spat at Sparling? Did Sparling spit back? Also, can Urbina substantiate his account? Did either he or the other reporters who helped with his story, Sarah Abruzzese and Suevon Lee, actually see these incidents in question? If they did, why did Abruzzese tell one protester that she witnessed another protester spit on Sparling, when the finished story characterized the protester as spitting "at the ground near" him? If they didn't, who fed them their information? Was it Sparling and Sparling alone, a man armed with an agenda and a jumbled story? We as Americans deserve answers.
One final note - for now - on Sparling. While so many questions remain, this much is apparent: He is an obvious opportunist. To be sure, I respect his service and the health struggles he has gone through following his injury, but Sparling has clearly chosen to become a lightening rod for suspicious encounters used by the right-wing echo chamber to disparage progressives. Take his "FOX & Friends" appearance, for example. There, after Sparling's father bemoaned his son's financial troubles (perhaps
Dinesh D'Souza could let him stay over), the younger Sparling took the opportunity, on live television, to propose to his girlfriend.
Charming. Too bad he's already wed to the Republican Party.
ACTION ALERT: To send New York Times reporter Ian Urbina an e-mail about his questionable reporting, please click here and follow the link. I would also suggest getting in touch with Byron Calame, the Times's public editor, who can be reached by by phone at (212) 556-7652 or by e-mail through this Media Matters sidebar, which also includes other pertinent contacts.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(504 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
