5 Comments
User's avatar
Francisco J. Bernal's avatar

Thanks, Diana.

I hadn’t read your article until now. I’ve found even thinking about Frances Coppola mentally draining. Still, eternal optimist that I am, I don’t regret trying. What I do regret is believing that dialogue was possible in the first place.

Not content with avoiding the substance of the exchange, she eventually published an entire article in reply:

https://coppolacomment.substack.com/p/the-five-commandments-of-writing

But tellingly, she did not link to my original note:

https://substack.com/@kfitzat/note/c-112002244

That omission tells anyone everything they need to know.

Diana Murray's avatar

You’re welcome!

I’ll scan her article later…. but I’m not going to go out of my way to read it. Or respond.

Fr. Wah's avatar

The people complaining about Israel's response to Hamas were silent during Obama's extensive drone-bombing campaign, which cost countless lives in "collateral damage" (they gleefully endorsed the "surgically precise" lie). They also remained silent when he destroyed Libya *after* KaDaffy's celebrated decision to foreswear WMDs -consequently making collateral damage of the non-proliferation movement. Anyone who now wishes to avoid the whimsical violence of the next Obama knows it is essential to be armed with the crazy stuff.

Diana Murray's avatar

Actually the hard left did oppose this. I remember it.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 29, 2025
Comment removed
Diana Murray's avatar

Bingo.

Any good faith criticism of war tactics must take into account what the realistic options of the men in power had. At that time. Not after the fact. Then.

Period. End of story.

To read about the sustained horror visited upon Japan in the final year of the war is harrowing.

But what could Truman do?

In fact - we offered graceful concessions to Japan several times. They refused.

Sound familiar?