President Bush repeatedly proven untrustworthy

Last week, when Adam Fowler compared environmentalists to anti-Semites, I let it slide. His assertion was so unbelievable that I thought challenging it would only substantiate it. His column on Tuesday, however, warrants a response on behalf of those who guard their right to distrust our president and believe this right to be Constitutionally guaranteed only when defended.

Fowler says there won’t be a draft in the president’s next term if the president is re-elected, because the administration says so.

This view is dangerous given Bush’s track record on promises. Fowler believes Bush. He trusts Bush. He believed Bush in October 2000 when Bush said, “If we don’t stop overextending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.”

He trusted Bush when he told us he would catch or kill Osama bin Laden. Now the president says, “I just don’t spend that much time on him. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

Fowler trusted Bush when he said that Saddam was an imminent threat. He believed Bush when he told us Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He trusted Bush when he told Americans about the Iraq-al Qaida link. The president said Sept. 25, 2002, “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror.” Then on Sept. 17, 2003, he said, “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.”

Fowler believed Bush when he told us that Iraqi oil would pay for the monetary cost of the war. He trusted the president’s word that our troops would be welcomed as liberators. He believed this president when he told us he would build a real coalition. He trusted this president when he told us we could win the war on terror only to tell us the next day, “I don’t think you can win the war on terror.”

For believing and trusting in this president, some people get multi-million dollar no-bid contracts in Iraq. Others get shot at, injured, or shipped home in a flag-draped coffin.

And yet others, like Fowler, get to think that the consequences of believing and trusting in the current president will not catch up with them or that the consequences simply don’t exist.

As Americans, it is not only our right to distrust the president, it is our responsibility. The Constitution both guarantees and requires it.

Stephen C. Bedell is a senior majoring in political science.

Don’t ban freshman cars, create priority spots

Many have been suggesting that the solution to our parking problem is to ban cars for resident freshmen. The major problem with this suggestion is the ban would do little to alleviate the parking situation because most of the parking spots the ban would free up are near the dorms, far from classrooms.

A better and more economically sensible plan is needed, such as selling premium student parking for limited-time slots. It would work something like this: There would be Park-and-Ride lots, standard student lots, and premium student lots right next to the buildings (some staff parking would have to be moved). A student that wanted premium parking would buy a standard pass. Then, that student would buy stickers for premium parking for the specific days, times, and lots, such as Monday from 8a.m. to 9a.m. in the lot by the Chester H Ferguson Hall. Students can buy multiple stickers, but the total number of stickers for a specific time-slot would be limited to ensure those who bought them would be able to find a spot.

This would not only allow people to purchase better parking, it would raise more money for parking services.

Even those students who can’t afford premium parking would be better off because their permits would be cheaper than they are now, offset by those that did buy premium parking.

Scott Grizzard is a first year graduate student in economics.