Guys, I'm pretty sure he means it. He is apparently a "humor writer" for the Times, but it looks like he is standing behind the piece. Quote and link below:
NEW YORK Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein says he stands by his Tuesday column, after being "bombarded" with email, as he put it. Stein, the former Time magazine staff writer, had written a column that began, "I don't support our troops."
Stein tells Reuters he does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.
The Times online site has put up a poll on the subject, in its opinion section, asking readers if someone can oppose the war but support the troops--yes or no. It also offers a third choice: "Why did you hire Joel Stein again?"
The column, which ran on the Times opinion page on Tuesday, was quickly linked at conservative sites and others, and hundreds of letters poured in to Stein and the Times. Among those who have written to E&P, Bruce Pyle of Las Vegas, Nev., wrote that "it is going to be hard to distinguish between Stein and Bin Laden when it comes to their views on America." Others praised him for his honesty.
One man posted at the NewsBusters site, "Stein should be bowing his head in shame. Doubtful though." Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as "one of the most loathsome people in America."
Stein, whose columns are often humorous in nature, commented to Reuters that whenever a politician opposes the war but supports the troops "I just always think they are covering their ass." He appeared on the talk radio show of conservative Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday and said, "I don't want empty sentiments prolonging the war."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001918137
The real question to me is not whether or not this guy meant what he wrote or being surprised that there are people out there who think this way. The real question is:
Why in the hell would the LA Times run this piece? It's obviously inflammatory...I guess all publicity is good publicity?