Bush deals with issues better than Clinton
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six and injured 1,000, President Bill Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
And you say it’s George “Dubya” Bush who isn’t concerned with Americans coming home in body bags?
If Bill Clinton had kept just one of his promises, 3000 people might still be alive, and the World Trade Center might still be standing. On at least three occasions, Clinton could have had bin Laden delivered to him but turned down the offers out of fear of upsetting the Islamic terrorist community.
And you think Dubya’s failed us overseas?
You’re pretty good at expressing outrage. Were you outraged when Bill Clinton unlawfully invaded Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia? Were you outraged at the deaths of innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers then? Were you outraged about the 450 cruise missiles, each tipped with depleted uranium, that Clinton launched into Iraq?
And you call Dubya a cowboy?
Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which can be argued is responsible for most of the 3 million lost jobs to which you refer.
And you call Dubya a failure at home? Nice try.
Scott Bernard is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
Freshmen entitledto parking facilities
I write this letter in response to Carey Behnken’s letter in which she is trying to solve the parking problem by forcing fresmen to live on campus.
I happen to be one of the “narrow-minded” freshmen she mentioned in her article.
She stated her idea as an “excellent solution” and I beg to differ. First off, I attend USF on a scholarship that pays only my tuition, and I don’t make enough to pay the average $500 a month to live on campus and neither do my parents.
Instead of taking out loans, I decided to stay at home, not knowing that it would render me narrow-minded.
If Carey is willing to pay my dorm expenses, I am more than willing to live on campus and stop driving my car to school.
I’m not sure where Carey is trying to park, but I don’t arrive at school an hour and a half before school. Maybe a half hour before, but that’s it.
You need to be willing to walk. Maybe she should rethink her views because I think she is the narrow-minded one, not realizing that people have different situations forcing them to stay at home and not get the so-called “college experience.”
Jessica Kuch is a freshman majoring in pre-med.
USF commercial not presentable enough
As a USF MBA student and alumnus of The University of Alabama, I am sorry to say that I was embarrassed by the commercial USF aired on ESPN during last week’s football game.
As a marketing executive I have seen plenty of commercials that have lacked funding and creativity. However, as USF begins “branding” our university, those responsible for the marketing efforts must be cognizant of the importance nationally televised commercials possess.
Please, on behalf of the MBAs and all students eager to leave a nationally respected university, let’s put the funds and talent into a quality commercial, or not air one at all.
Nick Middleton is a graduate student in business administration.