I'm not saying that Smiley's statement was as offensive as that statement
Well, I had to go back and read the article. I haven't been reading most of the pots and kettles discussion that has been consuming the thread and, having have been full up on Viet Nam for at least a couple of decades, I automatically passed on a post where that name popped out. Having read the piece now, though, I must say that I can't even identify which statement you have in mind as being so shocking. Her point of view on Viet Nam and on war, in general, is hardly novel. I haven't heard anyone express it in a long time, but it's not new news. So I'm having trouble identifying what is so shocking. Maybe you were mostly startled to see it pop up again in the context of Ayers vs McCain.
As usual, I have difficulty "getting" what has the Great Umbrage Machine cranked up.
Generally I wouldn't automatically assume that someone shared the opinion of someone they quoted, however if someone posts something really offensive without comment (or worse yet with positive or supporting comments), it really strikes the wrong cord.
I recognize that it hit a hot button. However, I don't see any "ergo" between a strike to one's hot button and attribution of the content to the poster. I don't think you can rationalize it, at least not that way. |
