Yes. People do illogical things when they don't want to be associated with hateful speech and actions. It's one reason why it's good not to do the things that alienate potential allies.
>the most hateful things i remember about the weeks after 9/11:
>1) the rounding up of arab/brown-skinned people in jails all over the US
>2) the killing of a sikh man in texas, and similar hate crimes
>3) the call for invading countries, raping women etc (ann coulter?)
>4) the different rates of compensation of WTC victims
>these actions/ideas were concrete, they affected the lives of others,
>and some of them were widely supported by the majority of the population.
And were thoroughly condemned by almost all progressives. The problem was that parts of the far left refused to also fully condemn the murder of the victims in the World Trade Center and instead labelled them "little Eichmanns" and such.
People bring up all the other things that should be condemned -- which most progressive do -- to excuse NOT condemning Churchill and his ilk for their hateful speech. It's basically of the same rhetorical quality as Bush evoking the flag to avoid blaming US policy for anything. How about being able to condemn BOTH actions by the US and actions by its enemies that kill innocents?
Nathan Newman