Mark Bowden's article ("The outrageous art of high-level punditry," Sept. 26, Page B-7) characterizing Ann Coulter's writing as "not taken seriously by serious people," "adolescent," "outrageous," "idiotic," "wildly wrong" and "free of ... even modest research" omitted the words of Bowden's own essay to which Coulter referred.
In his original essay, he wrote: "Nevertheless, fighting it out with Hussein on the streets of Baghdad would exact a terrible cost. Rosy pre-battle scenarios rarely prove true. The Russians are estimated to have lost 200 tanks assaulting Grozny in Chechnya in 1994, a battle that left an estimated 100,000 dead. ... Hussein will employ whatever weapons he can to kill the Americans, and he may find ways of killing civilians in Israel, neighboring countries and possibly in the United States. ... A nation should always consider the worst. An all-out attack on Iraq will entail a level of risk and sacrifice that the U.S. has not assumed since Vietnam."
Can anyone read this and not find every element that Ann Coulter refers to: a warning about massive troop losses, the possibility of WMD use and a reference to Vietnam? Instead of name-calling and purposeful omission, it would be refreshing to see a bit of "we report, you decide" objectivity.