Letters to the Editor

The sound of decay To the Editor:

I was deeply satisfied to find two articles in last Wednesday's paper addressing the dismal state of Bennett Hall and the Music Building ( "Bennett Hall work delayed," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/16/02). Finally, attention is being called to the dire need to renovate these buildings instead of boasting about the multi-million dollar construction of yet another Wharton or Annenberg building.

As a music minor, my main concern lies with the pathetic state of the Music Building, especially in comparison to those at other Ivy League schools. I'm sure that students practicing in the beautiful new music building at Princeton don't have to worry about trying to overpower the trumpet player in the next room. Every time I descend into Music's basement and enter one of the cells they call practice rooms, I have to prepare myself for the duel with the musician next door.

Given these frustrations, it relieved me to see these issues brought to the public's attention. I just hope we see some changes in the near future.

Sara Heaton College '04

No clear-cut issue

To the Editor:

Dan Fishback argues against war with Iraq ( "One man's fantasy world, one real world in jeopardy," DP, 10/21/02) by indicating that Saddam Hussein is distancing himself from the Palestinians and al Qaeda, and that the CIA deems Saddam Hussein a "low threat." I am baffled by his ability to find clarity where there is none.

Dan's claim that Saddam is distancing himself from Palestinian terror groups is laughable. Saddam has continued to fund terrorism in Israel by openly giving $35,000 to families of suicide bombers, as well as through other means. In April, Saddam donated 10 million Euros to the Palestinian resistance.

And as far as al Qaeda, many intelligence sources have said that Saddam is at least sheltering al Qaeda's senior members.

So what if Iraq is openly funding Palestinian terror groups in Israel and that he may be sheltering al Qaeda? The CIA says Saddam is a "low threat," so we're in the clear, right?

Unfortunately, this CIA, in 1991, assured President Bush that Saddam would be overthrown within two years by his own people. The CIA also thought it prudent to work with Saddam against Iran and to work with Osama bin Laden against the Soviet Union. The list goes on.

The point is that "low threat" is today's fallible opinion of several analysts, which, even if appropriate now can be shortsighted. It is nothing more than an ingredient in an assorted soup of facts, manipulation and individual assessments.

The question is not "what does the CIA think today?," but "are lives worth sacrificing today to avoid the real risk of having a proven maniac with well-known wicked intentions sitting atop an arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons tomorrow? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Gary Altman College '04

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