It is hardly surprising that John Bush's way of framing the issues presupposes much of his reaction to those issues. Take his description of the conflict in Iraq: American troops "liberated the people of Baghdad" and "three-quarters of the [U.S.] population supported the military strikes." Putting aside for a moment the description's lack of subtlety, it's easy to understand why someone who accepts Bush's view might characterize the war's opponents as "militant" and "aggressive," as "blockaders" who hand out "paraphernalia" and "impose" themselves on others.
One can almost forgive Bush - given his blunt characterization of the war - failing to note the absence of international political and popular support; the dubious legality of the invasion; the sanitized US media coverage; the dead and wounded Iraqi civilians; and the flimsy justifications, which remain unsupported by evidence, offered by our government. After all, such matters take the shine off our glorious victory over the forces of evil.
Bush would prefer that these discussions stay safely tucked away in The Chronicle's editorial pages, that we view the newspaper as "the primary outlet for campus dialogue." Are we really meant to accept this tragic idea? Do we simply condense all of our civic and political energies into the occasional letter to the editor? Take a moment to remember the activists in this country's history. Would they choose the editorial pages or the streets? They would do both and more.
Damon Seils
Research Analyst, Duke Clinical Research Institute
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.