In the closing of her column last Thursday, Jessica Rutter asked the simple question, "What are you going to do?" The only thing I can do is harshly object to the blatant lack of facts in the column as well as the implicit threats made against our nation.
As is the standard for a column by Rutter, well-thought reasoning is abandoned in favor of one-sided rhetoric and classic references to "dying children." The facts are simple and tell a very different story. Iraqi citizens are dying, but economic sanctions are not the cause. Any trading with Iraq would only serve to line the pockets of Saddam and the ruling Ba'ath Party. The leadership certainly had no qualms about building countless "Presidential Palaces" with a citizenry to feed.
Rather than calling Iraqi citizens "non-human," the United States is actively working to save Iraqi life, at its own peril. The no-fly zones in the north and south of the country don't exist so we can have our won pilots shot at on a weekly basis. They exist to protect religious and ethnic minorities from their own government, which used chemical weapons against them, killing countless unarmed citizens. These most certainly included children, as well. By supporting inaction, Rutter condones these heartwarming displays.
While I don't have the time to refute every ridiculous comment Rutter made regarding domestic policy, which included criticism of our government for arresting lawbreakers (the nerve!), I do think the line about regime change in the United States deserves attention. While freedom of the press is fundamental to American society, this does not mean that discretion shouldn't be used. A comment supporting the destruction of our nation, which would include elimination of freedom of the press, should not deserve its two lines of text in The Chronicle, or any other publication. Besides, wouldn't children die in her proposal?
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.