BCT Editorial – 4/11/07

This page was last updated on April 12, 2007.

Bad move; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 11, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“A minor act of vandalism that took place in Pittsburgh last week bears watching.

“A Marines Corps recruiting office in Shadyside was splattered with paint and several of its windows were cracked and shattered. Anti-war slogans were also spray painted across the front.

“Whether it was coincidental or not, the incident, which took place late Tuesday or early Wednesday, followed an anti-war protest earlier that evening.”

[RWC] Have you ever noticed how often the “peace” crowd resorts to destruction and violence?

“This vandalism could be just a random act.”

[RWC] Yeah, sure. Let the excuse making begin.

“However, neighbors said this was not the first time that the recruiting office has been targeted. If these acts of vandalism are politically driven, they’re a bad move.”

[RWC] Translation: You dopes! This is bad PR.

“One of the more heartening aspects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush administration has been the ability of the American people to distinguish between the men and women in the military who are carrying out a flawed policy and the elected and appointed officials who are responsible for determining that policy.”

[RWC] This is at least the second time a Times editorial has intentionally buried its head in the sand on this subject. Most recently, “peace” protesters in Portland, OR, hung and burned a U.S. soldier in effigy on March 18, 2007. These cowards even wore masks so they couldn’t be identified. Are we to believe a news outlet like the Times isn’t aware of these activities?

And what of communities like San Francisco that vote to ban recruiters from high schools and colleges? Let’s also remember San Francisco in 2005 shunned the USS Iowa as part of a maritime museum in part due to opposition to the Iraq war.

“Granted, the recruiting office could be seen as an extension of the government that is fighting this war. But the vandalism was also an attack, albeit an indirect one, on the young men and women who want to serve their country and who are serving their country.”

[RWC] Read this paragraph carefully, and you find it expresses the opinion that the vandalism was “bad” only because it could be seen as “an attack, albeit an indirect one, on the young men and women who want to serve their country and who are serving their country.”

Apparently, if the attack could be seen only as on “an extension of the government that is fighting this war,” it would have been OK. By the way, it is not “the government that is fighting this war.” This is an American war.

“Please, don’t go there. We went through that in Vietnam. Let’s not relive that nightmare on the home front again.”

[RWC] Hmm, given all the excuse making and the ignoring of previous anti-soldier activities, I have a hard time believing the sincerity of this plea. I believe the Times opposes these activities only because it knows they are bad PR.