...that guard us while we sleep*. I'll summarize the WaPo's (quite vile) op-editorial for you: the author (Colman McCarthy) still wants to keep ROTC off campus in this new, post-DADT environment because the military is made up of icky people who actually approve of the thought of going out and fighting evil. With guns. And who have a completely different working definition of Christianity than Colman McCarthy and the rest of his professional 'peace activists.' But Colman McCarthy still loves the troops! ...all the way over there. But Colman McCarthy doesn't want them stinking up his precious university system with their guns and God and the inconvenient truth that they embody - said truth being that the only use that a professional "peace activist" has in the fight against evil is that he or she might take a bullet that might otherwise hit a worthwhile human being.
And if you think that was offensive, you should have seen what I originally wrote: it was some deliberately inflammatory (note: not 'inaccurate') speculation on how low a professional peace activist like Colman McCarthy would have gone to defeat Bush in 2004, or stop the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place. Let's just say that the terms 'small child,' 'gasoline,' and 'matches' were involved...
(Via RCP - also, note the difference between the old title ['ROTC Taints University Campuses'] and the new one. RCP generally doesn't editorialize in its title choices.)
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Whichever editor approved this Washington Post article should be ashamed of him- or herself. I do not expect shame, but it's long past time that we started telling these people when they've done something foul.