Letter: Columnists unfairly criticize opposing arguments

In his column, Bill English makes an attack on the anti-war movement that I find almost as offensive as it is absurd. I cannot fathom the arrogance behind English's statement that the left's opposition to the war can be reduced to "moral idiocy." In two days in February, 30-million people in 600 towns and cities of the world marched against the war. While I do not intend to equate numbers with rightness, this enormous global outpouring of anti-war sentiment at least merits a fair and respectful evaluation of the arguments against the war. Instead, English belittles the movement as being "in outer space" and makes the absurd claim that "the most genuine reservations regarding U.S. policy currently come from the right." Does English truly believe that these protesters, not to mention venerated political figures who oppose the war such as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan, are moral idiots? Furthermore, I can assure English that the left's reservations about the war - the damage it does to America's relationships with its allies, the anti-American sentiment it generates in the Arab world, the dangers posed by preemptively attacking another nation - are just as genuine as those coming from the right.

Equally absurd is Tal Hirshberg's column "Anti-War? Are You Serious?" in which he belittles the anti-war movement at Duke as "the latest trend." How can Hirshberg witness the powerful, emotional protests happening in Durham and throughout the world and label the anti-war movement a mere trend? I, for one, can attest to the deep moral conviction of Duke's anti-war activists and can say with sincerity that their opposition to the war is no trend. Instead of belittling the anti-war movement, I challenge English and Hirshberg to show the movement enough respect to give a fair, thorough critique of the arguments against the war. Your ridicule of the anti-war position contributes nothing to the campus dialogue, and, frankly, I find it insulting.