The Boston Herald editorializes on the anti-war protesters.
(Thanks for the link, Dave.) They were marching in the streets of Cambridge and Boston—again—with their giant papier-mache likenesses of President Bush and the self-righteousness of youth. It is perhaps not surprising that these academic children of privilege should engage in this rite of spring. (In the absence of war there is always a righteous cause like fighting for the right to overpay janitors.)
What is astonishing is that these young marchers from Harvard and MIT and Tufts should be so totally clueless about the plight of the Iraqi people. Do they not read newspapers and books? Have they no sense of history? Surely they couldn’t all be sociology majors (like one of today’s letter writers).
That’s the thing that strikes me about almost all anti-war protesters. First is their lack of criticism of Saddam Hussein and lack of concern for the Iraqi people who are even now cheering our troops as they are liberated. Secondly is their lack of alternative solutions. If not this, then what? More diplomacy? What makes you think that another month of diplomacy would accomplish what 12 years did not? Remember the old definition of diplomacy: the art of saying “nice doggy” until you can find a rock. That can go the other way as well and Saddam could draw out diplomacy for months and years until he has a nice big nuclear rock to throw at us. That isn’t going to happen now.
Besides the threat to us, going in now also removes the booted heel of Saddam and his cronies from their necks and soon they will be free and prosperous.
