The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

The official student newspaper of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire since 1923.

The Spectator

`Bleeding heart’ defends stance

I, too, am saddened by the tragedy of Sept. 11, and I think we will all remember what exactly we were doing when we heard about it. We’ll remember the sudden ache to call home, just to make sure everyone was OK. I, too, am frustrated by the sudden recognition that this impenetrable giant we call home can and was assaulted. However, I also feel that uneducated and unbridled calls to arms are not only weak reaction but a dangerous one as well. To all of you who stand to the Right I commend you for your courage to believe what apparently is not the norm on this campus. My boyfriend is a conservative and he’s been battling this “bleeding heart liberal” for close to five years. I do not agree with him on most issues, but I am able to conceptualize my other half’s position, and even able to accept it if, and when, he makes a coherent argument.

To this end, I am embarrassed for those of you whose views were so poorly represented by Mr. Daniels and Mr. Hoeft. Please gentlemen remember, in the real world you cannot get by on regurgitated snippets and undirected passion. It would be wise, if in the future, you at least did some research when writing a column. Granted the information you cited about he bombings in 1998 was correct. You are correct, the U.S. embassy’s were bombed. And you also insightfully made reference to the Clinton administration’s failed attempt to stop bin Laden. However, for some reason, though it couldn’t possibly have been because your argument was not well rounded, you neglected to raise the point that the United States government actually assisted Osama bin Laden in his rise to power, while supplying him with weapons to fight off the Russians during the Cold War. What Iran-Contra? Certainly it can be said in your defense that you did not know. But that is just the point, not many do. However, that doesn’t seem to quell the noise from the “experts” who condone the use of force and demand that it’s all in the game. Although we do not “intend to send any Afghani civilians to their deaths” it is apparently an acceptable loss. Who nominated you two as God? The lives of those lost in the Sept. 11 attacks will never be bought off by the deaths of some fundamentalist terrorists and certainly not by the lives of innocent victims.

And contrary to the plethora of information you have sifted through to develop this so persuasive argument, the “Afghani people have” NOT “allowed the Taliban to harbor this” or any other “international criminals” (the words in quotations are yours, gentlemen). In fact the Afghani people, especially the women, have been terrorized in their own country for years. I’m not talking two – I’m talking 10. Women have been executed in sporting arenas for not wearing their burka; they have been banned from receiving an education and from holding a job. They cannot even go outside without the accompaniment of a male relative. Their windows are blacked out and they are not allowed to make eye contact with a man. They are forced to undergo female circumcision and can be stoned to death on the street if they show too much leg. You want to know what terror is, go live in their country for a while. But I’m sure they “allow” this to happen.

Although my heart is bleeding, the point of this column is not so much to tell you you’re wrong, however wrong you may be. The point is to let you know that although we, the anti-war lot, may use “soft arguments,” they are at least well thought out. I do believe some type of retaliatory action is needed, but I do not have the information, the expertise or the moxie to say what moves to make. I at least have the sense to know that this is way above me.

Story continues below advertisement

Sadly, Mr. Hoeft and Mr. Daniels seem to believe they could jump right into the seat of Secretary of State. However I am fully aware, as should be the rest of the academic community, that included responses which boil down to “let’s bomb the hell out of ’em” are insultingly simplistic and juvenile. I apologize to my peers for the assumption these two gentlemen have made that we students are not intellectuals but merely lemmings who will follow any propaganda, however unsubstantiated. And I apologize for the attacks that these two gentlemen have made toward the more peaceful portions of society. An attack obviously borne from ignorance and insecurity.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Spectator intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. The Spectator does not allow anonymous comments and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Spectator Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
`Bleeding heart’ defends stance