Letters to the Editor

To the editor: David Copley's recent installment of Right on Target (" A fight against the inevitable," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 2/3/03) was anything but. It was, in fact, overwhelmingly one-sided and callow, and it overlooked some crucial facts concerning the impending war with Iraq. For instance, Copley claims that President Bush "made clear" in his State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorism. This is simply not true. The reason that so many Democrats and such a large percentage of the American people are hesitant to go to war is that, while it may be obvious that Hussein has violated countless weapons treaties and promises (of which the U.S. is also a great offender), no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has been established. This causes confusion as to what threat Iraq poses while Osama bin Laden and several key perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks are still on the loose and while another nation, North Korea, is boldly flaunting its equally dangerous weapons programs without fear of a U.S.-led reprisal. Apparently speaking for President Bush, Copley asserts that "the goal is to prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat." This, however, is also not the case, as the administration's justification for war all along, absent of any link to terrorists, has been that Hussein poses a very grave threat to our national security. I suggest that it is Copley's logic that is faulty. If we can go to war simply to prevent someone from becoming an imminent threat, what precedent does that set for our foreign policy? I think it is wrong to accuse a party that has the common sense to ensure that the president is challenged on such a significant and volatile issue of having no backbone. Copley writes that "our great American democracy needs a credible opposition party," and that is just what the Democrats have provided by exhausting all possible efforts to guarantee the success of our national policy. There are two very credible and powerful sides to this issue, and in seeking to attract readers to one of them, Copley should focus on facts and issues, not use cheap partisan punchlines like "axis of appeasement" and irrelevant comparisons to the Israeli Labor Party to make his point. Conor Lamb College '06 To the editor: What is the Undergraduate Assembly thinking? Why go out of its way to petition to have the GPA from abroad classes (" Studying abroad will not alter GPA," DP, 2/5/03) not count toward the overall GPA? First off, how is it a "victory" to not get an entire semester of credit count toward one's GPA and still have to pay Penn's outrageous tuition, which is usually thousands more than the tuition for abroad programs? The nerve of the administration to continue to receive our money (for not doing anything while we're abroad) and not even have the courtesy to let us use those grades! If the administration and UA truly believe that students are worried about their GPA and all of a sudden want to be nice and "alleviate" the pressure of classes abroad, at least make the policy so that students can choose whether to have abroad classes count toward their GPA. This way, students can choose if they want a relaxed semester or not and not be forced into the position of going abroad and working hard, only to have all of their hard work go unrewarded in their GPA. Unfortunately, GPA or not, Penn abroad students are left to ponder the benefits of a $20,000 Ivy League travel agency. Sean Murphy College '04

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.