See below...
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Philion [mailto:philion at hawaii.edu]
Sent: Sat 10/2/2004 1:57 PM
Cc:
Subject: [lbo-talk] Klein's response to the hitchens, coopers, etc.
Chip wrote:
I still think it is a bad idea to not explicitly
point out that some of the opponenets of the US are in fact theocratic fascists.
That does not mean that we support US imperialism, but that we see that others who are
anti-imperialist are just as bad, or worse. This is a nuanced analysis, not Klein's in
her original column--as Frank Smyh point out.
--I think that's what made me most irritated by Smyth (and Cooper and Hitchens),
namely that they ignored the very critique of Al Sadr in her initial article.
I think it's patently clear that she has no fondness for Al Sadr in her original and
subsequent article. Cooper, Hitch, and even Smyth chose to ignore that in their
rush to attack her. Admittedly Smyth was more evenhanded than Cooper or Hitchens
(though that's not a terribly difficult accomplishment). But he similarly misrepresents
the substance of her articles.
Steve
= = = = = = = = = = =
OK, that's a good point. I agree that Smyth should have been fairer to Klein. Ideally both Klein and Smyth would avoid painting with a broad brush. It would have been more interesting if Klein has responded to some of Smyth's valid points rather than lumping him together with Hitchens.
-Chip