Has come to the defense of the Crimson. Most emails are like this:
Thanks for the link to that laughable Harvard Crimson editorial. In addition to the “usual cliches” you point out, did you note the head-spinning twists of logic in the last two graphs? Specifically…
“States that harbor terrorists are not terrorists: if they were—or if the Bush administration followed that doctrine impeccably—the U.S. would have ousted the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for allowing terrorists to remain active there.” This is followed JUST ONE SENTENCE LATER with: “Everywhere around the world, but especially in that volatile region, foreign policy decisions must be made on a case by case basis.”
Well, which is it, boys and girls? Are you calling for the U.S. to be “impeccably” consistent — or to make decisions on a “case by case” basis? Is this what passes for clear thinking at Harvard?
(I won’t even go into the harrumphing falsehood in the first sentence, since anyone who isn’t handicapped by a Harvard educaiton can surely understand that states that harbor terrorists really ARE terrorists!)
Thanks for the link — it’s always amusing to see what self-important children can come up with.
[Name withheld]