Some more thoughts...

Class today and a closer look at Churchill’s response helped to clarify his purpose in writing. He makes three very clear points:

1. The U.S. government has "engaged in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights." His point is to say that the government’s foreign policies have reaped "expected" consequences.
2. In referencing MLK and Robert F. Kennedy he says, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." In order to end violence, he seems to say we must promote peace by taking responsibility for and putting an end to "the slaughter perpetrated" by the U.S.
3. Finally, he says in order to prevent such attacks as 911, American citizens must "compel their government to comply with the rule of law."

His response took quite a different approach and tone from his original article. One can, perhaps, read this in its entirety without cringing or balling fists. And there seems to be a slight echo of the Golden Rule running throughout. However cheesy that may sound, it’s what I thought. "Do unto others…" Expect to be treated how you treat others. (Or maybe I just read that into it?)

All in all, his response, I thought, was quite effective. He addressed the criticism with clear information. He did not simply mention that what he had originally said had "been lost," but he went on to explain how it was by providing viable facts. I felt a great deal of his credibility was restored—or maybe for the first time really established. The only thing that could have possibly been added would have been a brief apology for an offensive approach. He does not have to recant his argument to sympathize with those he offended because of misunderstanding (as he seems to suggest).