Simplistic views spiced with slur on war hero

She states that the rebuttal is an “insult”; it is emphatically not, it is merely my considered view in the context of international relations. She states that neither Robin Grant nor I is “capable of accepting a different view without feeling the need to insult the writer to prove their point”. That is unmitigated nonsense. I, for one, am on the record in The Nation as accepting that the opinions of others (if sometimes inaccurate) are as valid as mine, and that is as it should be. 
The principal issue here is that Holzer made patently naïve assertions in the contribution in question, and I pointed that out. Moreover, Holzer stated that Mr Grant and myself “[feel] the need to insult the writer to prove their point, and [lace] their letters with pedantic language as if it proves them smarter in matters of politics.” Tripe. The language is not in the least pedantic, and the matter of “proof” is not required, as I know that The Nation’s readers are intelligent enough to think for themselves, without having to be force-fed the facts.
Moreover, Holzer’s artless offering includes what I believe to be contextually irrelevant invective directed at the Vietnam War hero John McCain, with not a bone spur in sight – the operative phrase. The truth here is that Holzer’s flawed “analysis” is seen for the unsophisticated rhetoric it surely is, and that now she has sharpened her spade, the better to deepen the hole she had already started digging for herself. 
Dr Frank
Bangkok