2008 Woodie Awards
Caporoso defines failure
Benjamin R. Long
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Op/Ed
Dear Editor,
Every once in a while I have the pleasure of opening up a Muhlenberg Weekly and reading a Joe Caporoso liberal rant. No matter how tired I am I always feel that rush of heated anxiety at ideas so backwards and in need of response that I wake right up. I should pay Mr. Caporoso for saving me the $3.79 in Red Bull I would have needed otherwise.
In his recent article "Defining Failure" on the seventeenth of April, in which he gave the President an F grade for his eight years in office (shocking, I know), he criticizes the President for not listening to the CIA warnings of possible terrorist attacks before Sep. 11. Then he criticizes the President for taking us into Iraq after weapons of mass destruction, except Mr. Caporoso believes, "…in reality there were no weapons."
Firstly, I don't see how Caporoso can criticize Bush for not listening to the CIA prior to Sep. 11, and then after Bush listened to the CIA tell him it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he criticizes Bush for following their advice and invading. Which is it? Should he or should he not follow CIA advice? Is anyone else wondering how they are supposed to get a better grade than an F on this test?
Secondly, in what reality is Mr. Caporoso living in which Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? He should check with the one hundred thousand Kurds whose lungs were melted with sarin gas during the genocidal Anfal campaign Saddam carried out in the late 1980s. I'm sure the Kurds can confirm the existence of these weapons from their mass graves Saddam so kindly dug for them. And why the assumption that just because we didn't find nuclear weapons in silos that Saddam must not have had weapons?
Caporoso cannot seriously be claiming from his little armchair in Seegers Union that every major intelligence service in the world whose job it is to know these things, was completely wrong about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Right?
Benjamin R. Long
Class of 2003
Every once in a while I have the pleasure of opening up a Muhlenberg Weekly and reading a Joe Caporoso liberal rant. No matter how tired I am I always feel that rush of heated anxiety at ideas so backwards and in need of response that I wake right up. I should pay Mr. Caporoso for saving me the $3.79 in Red Bull I would have needed otherwise.
In his recent article "Defining Failure" on the seventeenth of April, in which he gave the President an F grade for his eight years in office (shocking, I know), he criticizes the President for not listening to the CIA warnings of possible terrorist attacks before Sep. 11. Then he criticizes the President for taking us into Iraq after weapons of mass destruction, except Mr. Caporoso believes, "…in reality there were no weapons."
Firstly, I don't see how Caporoso can criticize Bush for not listening to the CIA prior to Sep. 11, and then after Bush listened to the CIA tell him it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he criticizes Bush for following their advice and invading. Which is it? Should he or should he not follow CIA advice? Is anyone else wondering how they are supposed to get a better grade than an F on this test?
Secondly, in what reality is Mr. Caporoso living in which Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? He should check with the one hundred thousand Kurds whose lungs were melted with sarin gas during the genocidal Anfal campaign Saddam carried out in the late 1980s. I'm sure the Kurds can confirm the existence of these weapons from their mass graves Saddam so kindly dug for them. And why the assumption that just because we didn't find nuclear weapons in silos that Saddam must not have had weapons?
Caporoso cannot seriously be claiming from his little armchair in Seegers Union that every major intelligence service in the world whose job it is to know these things, was completely wrong about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Right?
Benjamin R. Long
Class of 2003