Last Friday, I spent the night in a bar. As a part of dinner, I sipped a dram of Bruichladdich scotch, aged 15 years on the island of Islay at a distillery that was once the focus of an investigation by the American Defense Threat Reduction Agency-its distilling equipment allegedly could also be used to make chemical weapons.

Coincidentally and contemporaneously, Mr. J.P. Murray was experiencing a very different effect of possible chemical weapons manufacturing sites-jail-due to his act of civil disobedience in regard to the Iraq War. I wonder if all of the melodrama existent in his commentary comes as a result of imprisonment alongside the rest of Saint Louis’ disobedient.

It is important to note that the intent of this commentary is not to address the ethics behind the Iraq War, as everyone has had their fair share of philosophy on both sides of the issue. Furthermore, this commentary is not intended to be inconsiderate toward fallen soldiers-logically, supporters of the war have the utmost respect for the ones who carry out the mission to rid the world of terrorism. Though one could argue that Bush is on an imperialist mission to gain whatever it is he is supposed to want from that fruitless land, it does not follow that the rest of American supporters have the same agenda.

According to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the war. Even though one can make a very strong argument that polls are garbage, it still shows that roughly one-third of America is still supportive, so a significant number of people stand behind Bush on this issue.

There lies a particularly inappropriate sentence found in Murray’s commentary, “Steven Acosta-the name in front of me-was killed fighting a war that our government can only justify prosecuting because of the travesty it has already created–a self-perpetuating f***-up, if you will-and can only defend by condemning criticism as an attack on our servicemen and women, whose loyalty, bravery and sacrifice is doubted by no one.” (Italics added for emphasis).

The distracting operative word in this sentence is “f***.” Note that the word has been mentioned, as only Murray uses this word in a public written document. Usage of profanity in written form, aside from instant message banter or dialogue of Tony Soprano-type characters, is entirely inappropriate and shows the lack of an ability to elegantly articulate an emotion. It is evident that he intended to portray his emotion, but the usage of profanity distracts the audience from the actual message of the sentence-a magician’s effect.

The usage of profanity makes a reader want to pull out embellishments and inconsistencies in the writer’s argument. So, here are a few of the sort: The American government is not, in fact, “criminally negligent” in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict; there is no law that says this country is responsible for that one (this argument for American intervention seems eerily similar to the Republican agenda for the Iraq War). Israel did not attempt to send Lebanon back to the “Stone Age,” it attempted to recover two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah forces in an act of terror (the degree of violence notwithstanding).

It should also be noted that suicide bombers in Iraq have targeted any opposition to their cause, not focusing specifically on Americans, suggesting that this country’s presence alone is not the cause for all of the turmoil.

In the future, please spend more time editing, so as not to distract intended converts from the overall message of the document. Consistent reasoning would also be appreciated.

Kristian Marlow is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences.