Reading letters to the editors in various newspapers and listening to the commentators on TV, I am somewhat surprised at how vitriolic some of them area against those of us who protested against the war.

In a free country there are always at least two sides to a question. If we’re so gung-ho to carry democracy to the people of Iraq, maybe we’d better be sure we have it here.

At present, those who felt we should go to war with Iraq seem to have won their point. History alone can testify as to whether that was a good or bad thing. Although squarely on the other side, I have always respected their right to their point of view.

I am somewhat puzzled about the remarks they make about those holding my point of view. Frankly, they don’t make sense. For example, there was one writer who spoke about &uot;protecting our boys (in the military) from the protesters.&uot;

Listen, lady, suppose there was a plan pending to throw you into a body of shark-infested waters (and that’s what war is). Would you need protection from the ones who approved the plan or the ones who protested against it?

Then there was something about protesters not caring about our brave boys getting back from Iraq. What in the name of heaven does that writer think we’re protesting against?

There was a splendid letter from a woman who was all military fervor and loud, loud patriotism. It reminded me of a speech made by a &uot;patriotic&uot; politician I once read somewhere. That speech was made at the time of World War I.

I can’t quote it word for word, but as I remember, it went something like this: &uot;This is a holy and just war. I would proudly send any and all of my sons to fight in it. Why, God forbid, if none of them were to survive and the war not over, I would send my daughters. If he were still alive, I would joyfully see my old father pick up a gun and go. I would burn with pride if my saintly mother, seeing a need, would herself volunteer. Why, why &045; if worse came to worse, I would even go myself.&uot;

I’m writing this on Monday. I think it was Saturday night that a commentator by the name of Savage trumpeted his great discovery. Those cretins, those imbeciles in Hollywood that are protesting this war are ignorant. Why, some of them didn’t have more than an eighth- or ninth-grade education.

A helpful bit of information, that. It explains, I suppose, why our own George Washington advised against foreign entanglements. &uot;First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen,&uot; he might have been, but I have to admit his education may have been a bit sketchy. I always thought the pope had a fairly good education, though.

There is one point I’m thinking that Mr. Savage should consider. Education may enhance intelligence, but it can never replace it.

Then there’s that all-powerful, all-knowing Bill O’Reilly. For months he’s been pointing out that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. In enthusiasm for the war he repeatedly snarled, &uot;I want me and my family to be safe. I have the right.&uot;

Well, that’s understandable enough. Most of us want our families to be safe. Some of us, though, balk a little at sending the members of other families into certain dangers in order to ensure our own safety.

That day after Saddam’s statue was pulled down, a woman writing a letter to the Minneapolis newspaper wrote &uot;with tears of joy,&uot; and wondering why the protesters could be &uot;so selfish,&uot; as to oppose this war.

I wonder if that woman has seen some of the pictures of small children in Iraq. I’m thinking of one of a small boy, his arms and legs blown off. Standing by his bedside is a distant relative, trying to find the words to tell him that the weapon that handicapped the child for life also destroyed his father, mother and all the rest of his family.

Yes, I know that Saddam was, or is, a very unpleasant person. He was probably even an unpleasant person when we were buddy-buddy with him in another conflict before 1991. He was, I believe, our ally then.

I, for one, have never wished him or anyone else dead. Wishing people dead has never been my cup of tea. If he be dead, though, I congratulate the man, spoken of in another letter to the editor. You remember the man, who with his young daughter, was marching with some of our local protesters. If Saddam is dead, that man won’t lie awake nights wondering when the villain will come riding up on his camel to rape the man’s daughter.

I have never ventured to tell other people what their course should be. We all have different standards. When I make a choice between what seems right and wrong to me, I’ve never felt the need of a committee to help me do so. Nor do I assume that those who disagree with me need my input.

It’s too bad that they are so uncertain in their choice that they have to attack those that do not agree with them. Confident that they are doing the right, the moral thing, they should have attained serenity.

Love Cruikshank is an Albert Lea resident. Her column appears Thursdays.