In the Feb. 9 Daily, Mr. Roepke asked a series of questions of the liberal community. Mr. Roepke’s first question was to ask what good is an economic surplus if our borders are not secure.

Mr. Roepke, and all the others who are unaware, should note that we [the United States] essentially created al-Qaida. Back when the Soviet Union was invading Afghanistan, we trained and supplied a number of Afghanistan people to help fight the Soviets.

Osama bin Laden was among those people. He, like many others, felt betrayed when after numerous promises to stay and help rebuild, the United States promptly packed up and left when the Soviets pulled out.

The insinuation that a liberal president would somehow have done worse — well, I suggest you look at the actions of Republican demigod Ronald Reagan and now Vice President Dick Cheney during the Reagan administration. Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United States, and Dick Cheney was selling Iraq various materials needed to create chemical and biological weapons.

I might also tactfully suggest a little research into Clinton’s efforts in combating terrorism. Clinton made some pretty serious inroads in combating terrorism, and he didn’t need to curtail any freedoms to do it, unlike Bush.

Even if you look at people as nothing but disposable labor, you should recognize that a healthy worker has greater potential for productivity compared to a sick worker. If workers are healthy, a skilled management should be able to increase productivity without having to hire additional workers.

To the people who walk around campus collecting pop cans out of the garbage, $2,000 could buy steady meals and probably a warm, dry place to stay at night.

There’s a relevant comment that both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson have their own rendition of: “Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither.”

Scott Billings

Junior

Management Information Systems