Going to war with Iraq justified
On March 31, a letter was printed blasting President George W. Bush. The letter compared our president with the 18th century British monarch King George. It also futilely attempted to parallel the operation in Iraq with the Revolutionary War.
Political science major Stephen C. Bedell has a view of America that polls show is not adhered to by many Americans. His summary of the book on Operation Iraqi Freedom was clearly a summation of one chapter. He failed to point out that Saddam Hussein was a suppressing, totalitarian ruler who has driven his country into poverty. The murderous acts that he has performed were not overlooked by our strong, courageous administration.
To simply state that we are invading Iraq would be to state that the British invaded America, which they did. Just as his history is hazed, so is his current view. A murderous leader has slaughtered thousands and has links to the deaths of thousands of Americans, namely those of Sept. 11. The mission is that of police work. We have evidence proving that Saddam has killed, so Saddam will see the repercussions of his actions; he will lose his power.
On the note of the validity of the United Nations, they passed resolution 1441 — a resolution that President Bush didn’t need to pass. He had the authority from the previous Desert Storm treaty, which was violated multiple times. The president also ventured out of his way to appease international concerns by constructing another resolution, one that France stated it would veto. The French were trying to hide their dealings with Iraq and regain the power that they lost many years ago.
I believe in America and its Constitution, which has been adhered to strictly by our administration, and in regards of freedom of speech, it gives me the right to tell Mr. Bedell that his twisted view of our current international situation is unknowledgeable and is a view of the world through tunnel vision. God bless America, God speed our troops, and may God stay with my president.
Stephen Zust is a freshman majoring in mechanical engineering.
Different viewson presidential debate
I am horribly shocked and appalled by the recent letter to the editor written by Mary Hodgson. Never in my four years at the university have I seen a Student Government presidential campaign turn into a smear campaign. Hodgson had the audacity to use The Oracle as a vehicle to personally attack Ronda Bostick and Mike Berman. It is no surprise that Hodgson is an avid supporter of another candidate, and it is obvious that her personal attacks were a last resort for a supporter who is afraid that her personal candidate choice wouldn’t make the cut. Berman and Bostick both have track records that speak for themselves.
Berman, the current Senate president, and Bostick, the first vice-president of NAACP, are leaders that truly have student interests at heart. My opinion on the situation would be different if I didn’t know personally that Hodgson has left voice messages, put up signs, etc., for another candidate on the ticket. It is a sad day in SG history when fanatic supporters decide to tell lies to destroy the reputation of others. I wonder if Hodgson even had the opportunity to listen to the debate; it seems as if she spent the entire time watching Berman and Bostick.
Obviously, Hodgson’s motives were not to get acquainted with the issues but rather to salvage ammunition to attack the strongest presidential and vice presidential candidates. Hodgson has single-handedly tried to destroy the true spirit of democracy with propaganda. I am sure that this year’s theme, “One Vote Can Cut Through All the Bull” will continue to hold true. Informed students will be able to discern “all the bull” Hodgson has conjured up in her mind and will vote for whom they think is the best candidate based on the facts.
Stacy Smith is a senior majoring in mass communications.