In the Feb. 10 edition of The Post Tim Boggs wrote a column (The anatomy of a modest über-patriot) explaining why he is an immodest Captain America. In addition he confirmed that he is just another neoconservative looking for ways to impose his beliefs upon others
contradicting his statement that he isn't. Boggs says that he does not blindly support all causes conservative, but based on just about every column that he is written in The Post he agrees with George W. Bush on everything. There has been no personal insight or views written in his columns other then what our president says or believes.
Furthermore, many of the arguments that he suggests are inaccurate and really should be further examined before being published. For example, Boggs answers one of his own bold questions in his article. He asks if anyone would question the validity of democracy in the states. Responding to this question with a simple no reassures me that Timothy failed to turn his attention to the presidential election in 2000 -because if he did, I think he would have recalled that the validity of democracy was called into question by thousands or even millions of American citizens. So let me reassure everyone that democracy can be called into question even in one of the greatest most powerful democratic nations on the globe. If democracy in America can be questioned then maybe, just maybe, it can be questioned in Iraq. I may not have voted if my life was in jeopardy, but on the other hand, maybe I would have if I faced the same difficulties and challenges that Iraqi citizens have had to overcome.
Now if you're not sure and you're still trying to figure out if I'm a Democrat, I can assure you that I am. Boggs goes on to bash Democrats for wanting to bring the troops home, for criticizing Bush, for not finding WMD and for being pessimistic. I can rightfully say that Boggs is making a very big generalization about Democrats, because this is not the case. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, is a Democrat who believes that we should bring our troops home. But, there are Democrats in Washington and across our nation who understand that our presence in Iraq is necessary to sustain the security of the Iraqi people. Kennedy doesn't represent us all.
Now moving on to WMD, every American can recall Bush or someone in the his administration giving their justifications and reasons for war. If anyone still believes that WMD was not the major justification for going to war, then they must be using the same logic that Timothy used when he forgot about the 2000 presidential elections.
The last and most disturbing statement that Boggs makes is that our only option was to go to war. I guess that giving weapons inspectors more time to look for WMD was not an option, because if we did maybe we would have found them. Never mind we still haven't found any WMD. North Korea is currently making statements regarding their nuclear capabilities. I guess that we have no option but to go to war. We know for sure that they have WMD -we don't even have to send inspectors to search for them. The government will admit to it. In the near future they may even test out their nuclear weapons. Boggs' logic will work out nice in this situation and in future situations regarding threatening international forces. We have no options -we must go to war.
The Bush administration went to war without exploring all possible options to solve the problem. World history confirms that there can be political and social change without using violence.
The reason the U.S. is what it is today is because we the people are supposed to disagree. We are allowed to speak up and have opinions. Our political views are allowed to be different then our representing politicians. Boggs writes on the opinion page, but I think he only has one opinion -whatever Bush said in his State of the Union address. My opinion is for the United States not to take Boggs' advice when dealing with North Korea and Iran.
-Ben Carney is a junior finance major. Send him an e-mail at benjamin.carney@ohiou.edu.
. 17
Archives
The Post Editorial
