In response to the story "Bremer discusses Iraq at Wharton" (SN 10/6), and more generally, his appearance on campus, please allow me the following comments.

I did attend the event, posting my $20. Why Sarah McDonald, one of the protesters quoted in the story, felt they were entitled to interrupt a speech I paid money to witness, is confusing.

Can they interrupt a movie they dislike? How about class on campus? Aside from the fact that MSU paid for Bremer's opinions, and not a cent for the protesters, why are their opinions in such high stead that they must be heard over all others, on their time table?

What is most shocking is the quote McDonald said in response to why they were entitled to interrupt Bremer. After mentioning that signs were not effective to spread their message, implying that the problem was the way the message was communicated and not the content, she said that they would not have been heard otherwise.

I doubt there could be a more stunningly arrogant statement made. Because the protesters might not get heard, they are then free to do whatever they felt like doing to force their message onto all.

Let's see, forcing things on people- isn't that like what they were protesting about? Using force?

Lastly, saying (screaming) that Bremer is the problem seemed to show the depth of the protesters' self-serving comments.

Instead of bringing attention - and considerable energy - to problems in countries such as North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Haiti, Congo, Burma (Myanmar), Liberia and Nigeria to name a few, they screamed conspiracy theories at a man who risked his life in trying to bring the rights you take for granted to a country yearning for them.

The United States is not what is wrong with the world, is it?

Tom Bengston Jr.
Cooley Law School first-year student