> Are you playing the Olympian Impartialist, then?
Not really. I thought of appending a disclaimer at the beginning of the message you objected to to make it clear that I didn't at all agree with US policy regarding Chile, but decided it would be superfluous. Retrospectively, I guess that was a bad omission on my part.
> Because it reads like you'd rather get inside K&N's heads than think
through the consequences of
> whatever their motivations were.
Chomsky, Estabrook, and Dawson share a particular view of what motivated US Cold War policy. I'm claiming their view is skewed.
-- Luke