Only "Anti-War" Citizens Are News

Our world is full of danger. Think about it: virtually everyone on Earth is threatened by evil people. Centuries ago, Edmund Burke handed reluctant warriors against evil in our time the billboard message to answer today's "peace" rallies: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Only in America (surprise) is the public heeding Burke's warning. The latest CBS News poll found that when asked, straight up, if they approved or disapproved of "the United States taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power," 66 percent are in favor, and only 29 percent opposed. City blocks full of people armed with nasty signs railing against that alleged Nazi terrorist, George Bush, have not shaken the American people's support for the president and his mission. The public wants to support the United Nations - which the media have presented as less controversial than either Mother Teresa or the Boy Scouts - but they do not favor doing nothing in the face of evil.

And yet the American media are celebrating those leftists who want the forces of the good to do nothing on Iraq. That's not quite correct, come to think of it. The "peace" protesters certainly don't recognize that our side is good, or that the other side is evil. Many don't see any discernible moral difference between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. They don't see any moral difference between American possession of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's acquisition of them. Some are so fixated on their disdain that they have no time to consider this fellow in Iraq as another Hitler. The beauty of the "anti-war" message is you don't have to be for or against anything, except against war, at any time, for any reason.

Isn't it amazing that liberals, who are perpetually congratulating themselves for their unparalleled sophistication and their ability to corner the market on nuance, approach the prospect of war on television with little more intellectual heft than the rudimentary idea that war is bad? Slacker rock stars mouth their "agreeance" with it at the Grammy awards show and we simply accept that this camp seems incapable of mental exercise.

Our 21st century flower children won't confront the ugly reality of what happens if Saddam Hussein is left to keep accumulating weapons of mass destruction. They only symbolically place flowers in gun barrels and wonder why everyone can't bask in the glow of their virtue. They cannot comprehend the moral absurdity of unalloyed pacifism, the consequences of projecting weakness and endless diplomatic dithering. What if "peace" activism makes war down the road more likely and more lethal?

With all the desperation of a camp that feels it's losing the battle for public opinion, the media are avoiding any hard questions for their protesting pals. Instead, they're stepping up the praise the perpetually "growing anti-war movement." It's reminiscent of how Dana Carvey always joked in his impression of Bush the Elder that Dan Quayle was "still gaining acceptance." Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom" box pitched the old spin that the "not-so-silent minority is respectable and growing fast." Who's stretching now?

Last week, some reporters celebrated those "human shield" oddballs who traveled to Baghdad to stand in front of military targets and dare American forces to kill them. ABC's Dan Harris worried about the "problem" these idiots have to "avoid being tools of the Iraqi government" when Saddam is providing food and housing. The New York Times channeled the outrage of Ken Nichols O'Keefe: "They are not using me. I am here voluntarily. What is Saddam Hussein supposed to say? 'No, they can't do it'?" Is this man really so deluded as to think that Saddam is powerless in deciding which fools to import? These people aren't "shields" to glorify. They're traitors putting American soldiers and missions at risk.

Why not schedule some air time for the millions of Americans who aren't protesting in the streets, who aren't carrying signs smearing their president with swastikas and telling the cameras they're patriotic? Surely, they could protest that they're just as "anti-war." Who, after all wants war? But the majority won't be romanticized as idealists by the American media. Network producers think the people worth showing are "mainstream protesters," people who've come to their first protest to march alongside the hippie on his 164th outing. But they won't find it "newsworthy" to focus on the president's supporters on Main Street, or even find first-time converts to the cause of war. Why not find someone who changed his mind after 164 protests?

Easy. It doesn't serve the media's anti-war agenda.