I am not offended by Brittney Griner’s freedom but I am by Mike DiMauro’s Dec. 14 column, “Why are you offended by Griner’s freedom?”

The trade of a naïve and perhaps privileged innocent (Griner) — while leaving another American innocent in jail (Paul Whelan) — for an international dangerous bad guy (Viktor Bout) is not so easy to accept at face value. Not being 100% overjoyed by the trade does not make skeptics “ill-informed, mean and happy to trade basic human decency for political posturing,” but to acknowledge that the issues may be more complex that they appear.

DiMauro’s statement that nobody in this country knew who Whelan was until recently is not true but does show that he is correct when he says he knows very little about international hostage trades.

And what would he have to say if the trade were for Whelan instead of Griner, leaving her to languish in a penal colony?

I view that as an equally offensive outcome. Would DiMauro view it the same or would his ignorance of international hostage-taking ameliorate his outrage?

I take offense to the author’s characterization of anyone who has a more complex understanding of the issues and disagreeing with him to be mean and ill-spirited. His attitude of agree-with-me-or-you-are-bad is the quintessence of the divide in our country.

Source link

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *