The extensive round of editorials, articles, and letters in recent days shows the increasing frustration of the anti-American crowd. Incensed with the resounding success of the war effort and the soaring popularity of the Bush administration, the Daily Editorial Board has taken to criticizing Attorney General Ashcroft for his blatant and unapologetic efforts to protect the United States from more terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, the charges made in letters included everything from accusations that this war serves only U.S. business interests to suggestions that the war has nothing to do with apprehending the known criminals.

Not even the liberal media is questioning Ashcroft’s actions regarding the detaining of certain Middle Eastern men for an extended period of time. Many of those detained are al-Qaida members, and this action has very likely prevented other terrorist attacks from occurring.

Secondly, interviewing select Middle Eastern immigrants does not violate their civil liberties; it violates political correctness. What you call “racial profiling” I call “common sense.”

As for the anti-war crowd, could someone please explain what historical precedent exists for halting aggression with a “peaceful solution?”

The fact is that there is none.

I’m sure it must make you all feel good to suppose that nonviolence and love are the ultimate counters to terrorism and aggression. Reality is very much different. Try thinking more and feeling less.

The United States has freed the people of Afghanistan from an intolerant, oppressive regime. By opposing the war effort, the anti-American crowd lends its support to the only losers in this war – the Taliban and the terrorists it sponsors.

By doing so, they oppose the freedoms the people of Afghanistan now have and turn a blind eye to the freedoms lost on Sept. 11. The logical conclusion is that they value the freedom of Arab terrorists, and not the freedom of innocent Americans or Afghans.

Paul Armstrong

Sophomore

Aerospace engineering