I have a few comments to make in response to Visiting Fulbright Scholar Bello Umar’s Feb. 11 letter, “Powell’s speech poorly examined.”

Mr. Umar says he “would have expected [the writer of a Feb. 6 editorial, “Case for war outlined by Powell’s speech”] to raise and address” questions about Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council.

Mr. Umar says that a university daily should “critically examine issues” before it reacts to them. He goes on to express his disappointment with the Daily for “throwing this ideal in the dustbin.”

What if the writer of the Feb. 6 editorial did critically examine Powell’s speech, and came to the conclusion that he/she agreed with Powell? Is Mr. Umar’s real complaint that the commentary was poorly done, or is it that he doesn’t agree with the writer’s analysis?

To dispute another’s opinion is one thing, but to attempt to invalidate one’s legitimate opinion by labeling it ill-conceived is conniving and distasteful.

Mr. Umar, then, erroneously defines the weapons inspectors’ role as “to confirm Iraq’s compliance/noncompliance with the U.N. resolution and destroy any identified weapons of mass destruction.” In fact, inspectors have neither the responsibility nor the means to destroy any weapons; their job is to make sure that Iraq is doing that. This nullifies Mr. Umar’s suggestion that Powell should use U.S. intelligence “to guide the U.N. inspectors in Iraq to locate and destroy these weapons.”

Mr. Umar is grossly oversimplifying this situation. He has overlooked the fact that much of Powell’s intelligence only showed us that Iraq is deliberately deceiving the inspectors. The intelligence did not provide precise coordinates as to the locations of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, as Mr. Umar would lead us to believe.

Before criticizing an editorial analysis of a world event, Mr. Umar should make sure he has all his facts on that event straight.

Amy Peet

Freshman

Undeclared