‘Stater’ board is not authoritative source

Dear Editor:

Pro-war hawks, as this editorial board has revealed itself to be, are so ridiculous and blind to their own hypocritical rhetoric it is beyond being funny.

In the Tuesday editorial, you suggest it is irrational (you all love that word, don’t you?) to pull our troops out quickly. Wasn’t that the plan in the first place? Take out Saddam, get a new government in there and get out. Well, Saddam’s gone and pro-war folks point to the recent elections as a growing leadership – “democracy has taken hold” as you like to say. So what are you waiting for now? Those elusive WMDs to show up?

You also state opponents such as Murtha don’t understand what they are saying. How can a group of barely 20-year-olds insinuate a Marine veteran of 37 years doesn’t know what he’s suggesting? You also attempt to silence, discredit or dismiss anti-war voices like myself, who has sacrificed eight years of my life to the Army and is now a student of advanced age and experience. What kind of credentials does any member of the editorial board bring to this debate? What credibility do the hawks in the Bush administration have? Colin Powell was the only one with any significant military service and has since resigned due to his disgust of policies carried out in his name. The “Big Bird” Cheney had “other priorities” during the Vietnam War, as did Bush and Wolfowitz.

This war is already lost. It is impossible to withdraw our forces with any dignity. Our continued presence in Iraq is only motivating the “insurgency.” Honor our fallen – bring their brothers and sisters home now, and get them out of harm’s way. I am not suggesting we leave the people of Iraq high and dry. After our troops are out and safe, we can provide non-profit humanitarian aid, without the military orchestrating it.

Lastly, don’t call me a Democrat.

David Pittman

Senior political science major

Thorough reporting on media leaders needed

Dear Editor:

The Stater ran an article Tuesday about the selection of new student media leaders. The article in itself was consistent with what your paper has run in past semesters about the selections. What was new, however, was a box containing the salaries those leaders will make.

As a journalist myself, I understand the right of a reporter to include such information. We report the salaries of government and university officials, so why not those of student media leaders? But the ‘why’ in this instance is exactly what was missing.

I have held two leadership positions that were listed in your information box, and even though my name was not included, I took offense for those that were. More importantly, however, I was stunned by the journalistic oversight. As members of this profession ourselves, we all have an obligation to inform our audience, but we have an even greater obligation to do so accurately and thoroughly.

Amanda Seese

TV-2 General Manager