4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, March 5, 2003 OP/ED ale £Itgu 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 LOUIE MEIZLISH Editor in Chief AUBREY HENRETTY ZAC PESKOWITZ Editorial Page Editors Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE (It's cold, the world is going to hell, but how can you stay home?" -Baton Rouge, La. resident Michael Patrick on yesterday's Mardi Gras celebration, as quoted by The Associated Press. SAM BUTLER THE SOAPBOX ou( loac5- UP6.Le cOnTha..vKS wa.Movio-mAlyio&, Ttie. Vnlon -T,-cco r ..AWe 'la"id ko h 'Q-'J op "i\ f" s is -tie c,je o I. a o C.Ok\ Vi61, v o boe V, tA o M o lov"e.A. b)e --te. ",ArwiYA be~htnA T.vE,1-eox1.oF' vwc rrtnou oalso be.ceg9osb~L \'asc.+Fos eF. g Ifot he ... 1 y ecx-son a.L.VOS:VS 3. n-4c Desperate times and desperate measures KASHIF SHEIKH FROM THE WASTEBIN OF HISTORY T enured University of South Florida Prof. Sami Al-I Arian never stood a chance. After he and hisl Islamic think tank werei cleared from any involve- ment in terrorism back in 2000, the FBI closed the case, and the court ruling went on to describe his organization as ai "reputable and scholarly" research center. Oh, how times have changed. Two weeks ago, Al-Arian was unexpectedly arrested under the authority of the attorney general for his alleged connection to Islamic Jihad. But the information the arrest was based upon had been around for years and these allega- tions had already been dismissed in court, so why such a big deal now? "It's all about politics," says Al-Arian. Post- Sept. 11 paranoia aside, it is in this columnist's humble opinion that his arrest was no coinci- dence, but a well-timed PR endeavor amid fad- ing support for an already unpopular war. In these jittery days of Code Orange alerts, the1 public has upheld blind faith in our government1 to do the right thing, though most Americans still can't grasp the nonexistent relationship between Osama and Saddam. But by continual- ly promoting this imaginary connection and detaining fictional terrorists like Al-Arian, Americans maintain an illusion of the govern- ment's vigilance that the Bush administration has exploited to justify a violent confrontation with the not-so-pressing threat of Iraq. The use of such manipulative tactics by pro-; war advocates have proliferated as the interna- tional community and most Americans have voiced support for U.N. inspections and a glob- al coalition before military action is considered. Noting the growing opposition, the administra- tion and its proponents have resorted to dirty last-ditch efforts involving silencing dissent, fabricating facts and bribery intended to create artificial consent for the war where Americans would otherwise pass. President Bush best epitomized this deceitful pro-war spirit last month when he inanely dismissed 10 million global anti-war protesters as a "focus group" that he wouldn't let sway his foreign policy. While forgetting that his own campaign was largely financed by special interest groups, he also overlooked the fact that the largest anti-war rallies were held in the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy, our presumed allies in this venture. With friends like these and Rums- feld's "Old Europe" dragging us down, who really needs a coalition? Optimists/warmongers like U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) still believe we have one. In a CNN "Crossfire" debate, he and the host reas- sured viewers that "we have a lot of countries behind us," but couldn't say whether anyone on that short list would even provide us with any money. Perhaps moral support is enough for these guys. Unfortunately, this kind of vague everyone-else-is-doing-it rhetoric is all too prevalent when every other strategy to convince the skeptics has failed, and misleading on-the- spot statistics like these are responsible for con- fusing America to the brink. When Saddam was interviewed last week on an American network for the first time in 12 years, the White House criticized CBS for air- ing his propaganda, bitter that they didn't get the chance to refute Saddam with just that: more propaganda. While CBS deserves some credit for rejecting that proposal, the major media is also to blame for candy coating the scenario of a post-Saddam Iraq. Not even Afghan President Hamid Karzai had the gall to admit, in his testimony to Congress last week, that his post-Taliban puppet government is in good shape. Instead, he pleaded to the United States not to divert vital resources to Iraq in case of war, leaving Afghanistan in ruins as was done shortly after the Soviets withdrew in 1989. With the exit strategy just as unclear in Iraq, it is plausible that Iraqis might not be as well off without Saddam as the White House would want us to believe. Then there is the intentionally seldom-men- tioned matter of money, where conservative estimates by the Pentagon range between $100 billion and $200 billion ($320 to $640 per capi- ta) for the war and occupation, projected direct- ly to the taxpayer. This probably doesn't include more than $40 billion appropriated to nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Spain and Bulgaria to bribe a reluctant "coalition of the willing" into showing that America is not alone on this one, while non-complying U.N. Security Council members get to be spied on. It is an awfully high price to pay for such an indecisive cause. Fortunately, the fear that has been ingrained within us - of nukes, anthrax, beard- ed men, high gas prices, etc. - eases the deci- sion for many, and the delusion that the world is with us helps too. And though this was never our war, it certainly seems like the Bush admin- istration and their proponents are willing to try anything to make us think so. Sheikh can be reached at ksheikh@umich.edu. 0 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Reader not tired of 'same old MSA,' active debate TO THE DAILY: While I respect the viewpoint and legitima- cy of the University Party (Tired of same old MSA?, 02/20/03) I think that Michael MacVay and Timothy Moore miss the whole point of student government. Claiming to "know the role of our government," they propose restrict- ing the purview of Michigan Student Assem- bly debates to strictly educational matters. I personally know a number of people who feel the same way as they do, but I think that it is quite telling that most of them are not politi- cally active and do not vote in MSA elections. Perhaps MacVay and Moore intend to capital- ize on that voter base, but I doubt that they will succeed. If it is such a good idea, surely someone else must have already tried it. I believe that that segment of the student body, sizable as it is, doesn't care enough to vote, even for those who agree with them. While student apathy is deplorable, the situ- ation on the ground merits a reexamination of the University Party's assertions as to the role of MSA. Many of those who are most actively involved in the assembly are those who will be active in their adult life as well, either as mem- bers of lobbies and grassroots campaigns, or as participants in "real" government. But even those who don't have such ambitions are clear- ly interested in using their time here and now to make a difference. That is, of course, part of the argument that MacVay and Moore are making. What MSA says on these non-campus issues has no impact on the "real world." MSA's resolution, against war on Iraq is about as likely to influ- ence President Bush as a resolution against gravity would be to change the laws of physics. A valid point, perhaps, but irrelevant to the question of whether MSA should pass such resolutions anyway. What is at stake here is, as noted above, the very nature of MSA. I assert that the purpose of MSA is to help the microcosm that is the University better reflect the world that we live in. Part of that reflection is dealing with issues that face the larger world. Some students achieve this through demonstrations and ral- lies; others never even try. The members of MSA achieve on a more intellectual level, debating the issues at hand and attempting to find a reasonable balance. MacVay and Moore complain that such debates and resolutions promote divisiveness and threaten tolerance and understanding Thev which will serve them in good stead down the road. What MSA has to say about the war in Iraq (for instance) is important for the same reasons that people collect signatures for petitions on campaign finance reform: Grassroots campaigns at every level represent the heart and soul of democracy - the real world in which we live even at the University - even when unsuccessful. CHAIM SCHRAMM LSA freshman Daily columnists wrongly prefer antics of previous pres. to slip-ups in speech TO THE DAILY: Apparently, Joseph Litman is a little embar- rassed by President Bush's lack of eloquence in the public speaking department (He's not with me, 03/04/03). In addition to mentioning several times how humiliated he is when the president stumbles over words, he basically showed utter disrespect for our leader, calling him "stupid" and an "embarrassment." I'll bet Litman was absolutely fine with the antics of our previous president, though. What's more embarrassing? A president who stumbles a little in speech, or one who receives oral sex from a 21-year-old intern in the Oval Office while talking on the phone to a member of the U. S. Congress? If you could stand the latter without humiliation, then I'm certain that you can suck it up and endure the former. This is typical of the Daily's lack of objec- tivity in its editorial page. Democrats can do no wrong to Daily columnists, but Republicans? Well, hangin's too good for them. ANDREW QUESNELLE LSA senior Bush presidency 'a breath of fresh air' in White House TO THE DAILY: I wasn't surprised to see two scathing anti-Bush articles in.yesterday's Daily. It seems like Joseph Litman (He's not with me, 03/04/03) and Peter Cunniffe (An unbelievable foreign policy, 03/04/03) sat by adjacent com- puters late Monday night exchanging pleas- antries and "Bushisms." However, as much or Iraq's continued violation of U.N. resolutions (while we were fully engaging in the oil-for- food program, nonetheless). Now, the Ameri- can public is made fully aware of these threats and injustices daily; this information is no scare tactic, but merely an opportunity to make the public aware of a vast policy shift that is very much underrated and chastised. Perhaps if we were so inclined to look beyond our already gluttonous domestic free- doms and the American ideal of a six-figure income, we'd realize that having a president who shows immediate concern for the "embet- terment" of international security is much more favorable - and necessary - than one who finds himself impeached for lying to his con- stituents. MAT SCHAAR Engineering senior Student opposition to U.S. government 'a slap in the face' TO THE DAILY: Returning to the University after a three- term hiatus filled me with joy this January. Having left a town and school that I loved to serve my country was heart-wrenching, nev- ertheless I did my duty. Many of my former instructors recall the fall semester of 2001, when I was forced to leave the University because my Air Force Reserve unit had been activated to duty following the events of that September. For nearly a year, I proudly served my country again, having completed a four-year assignment in the spring of 2000. While standing in the sands of Saudi Arabia, I could only think of returning to my friends in Ann Arbor, and the many Satur- day afternoons at the Big House. Having completed my duty, I returned to the University, and to my horror, found that my' very peers are protesting against my actions. This strike that has been called for today is a slap in the face to all those who have sacrificed their life and time to defend the U.S. Constitu- tion. While it is the very same constitution that grants students the right to protest, exactly what have you done to earn that right? Having served my country, I believe that I have earned the right to speak my mind. An overwhelming majority of the students at the University accept the right to protest as a birthright, as a citizen of the United States. Legally, they are indeed cor- rect, but morally, what justification do they find for protesting against the government that has aranted them the right todon so? THE BOONDOCKS MRON 4cGRUDER i E xlt I