Anti-war letter bolsters opposing viewpoint
Re: Letters to the Editor, “Cartoon response cheap shot as well,” by Lance McCormick, Sept. 22.
Lance McCormick’s Letter to the Editor is the perfect example of someone whose argument is based on conjecture and not fact. When the article is read through, there is not one single fact to be found; just empty words.
I am not suggesting you should only give facts and not your opinion in a Letter to the Editor – that would render editorials useless. What I am saying is this: When you give your opinion on a topic, explain why.
In my first letter I gave three pieces of fact and the rest was my opinion on what to make of them. The first was that the Bush administration has announced its exit plans repeatedly on several news stations. The second was the letter sent to the Bush administration by Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats, and the third is that Saddam Hussein at one point had weapons of mass destruction and used them against his own people.
Lance did not do this in his letter. He didn’t even respond to the fact that I included the Bush administration’s exit strategy in my article; he simply pretended it didn’t exist. Lance made it seem like he was going to provide some facts when he said, “In the spirit of open forum and democracy, let me try to explain how such a cartoon isn’t really ‘inaccurate.'” The next sentence he wrote had only his opinion: “The United States has been operating this war in a sloppy and poorly planned manner, ‘exit strategy’ notwithstanding.” After all the conjecture, he had the gall to compare ending a war with a business deal.
It just shocks me that Lance McCormick would write a letter proving my point so vividly. His letter did not have one piece of solid information in it – I’m not trying to anger him, I’m just stating the facts.
Brian Milhoan is a sophomore majoring in criminology.