Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor
Travis Willse
EDITORIAL
Kay's Iraq war
allegations
are disturbing,
need probing
The recent revelations by top weapons inspector David
Kay that the United States used faulty intelligence to justify
the war in Iraq does a grave injustice to the spirit of our
democracy. And in the aftermath, even the most staunch
governmental supporter can't deny that the whole debacle
seems a bit fishy.
After Sept. 11, America became deeply concerned —
and rightfully so — with its safety, and American citizens
rallied in overwhelming numbers to support President
Bush's efforts to battle terrorists in Afghanistan. In short,
every American who supported that conflict put their
trust and arguably their well-being in the hands of the
federal government.
But that trust was grossly mishandled with the war in
Iraq. After seemingly abandoning hopes of capturing
Osama bin Laden, the accused mastermind of Sept. 11,
Bush moved his crosshairs to Iraq, citing its alleged
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (or, now,
weapons of mass destruction-related programs) and,
subsequently, Iraq's violation of several United Nations
resolutions. At the time, one could not deny that Hus
sein was an ostensibly oppressive dictator who, under
American laws, would be labeled a mass murderer. In
theory, Bush could have used that argument to justify
the war, but chances are Americans would not have ac
cepted it, given the opinion of many that we are not the
world's policeman.
So Bush chose not to frame his argument for war in that
manner, focusing instead on the impending doom or
weapons of mass destruction and America's need to pre
empt a potential attack. But no evidence was found that
suggested Hussein was planning any such attack, and even
the intelligence that suggested he still possessed weapons
at the time of the war turned out to be faulty. In fact, even
any evidence that Hussein was involved with Sept. 11,
which is why we began hunting terrorists in the first place,
was lacking.
Some political pundits dismiss any criticism of Bush's
handling of intelligence and the war as unpatriotic con
spiracy theory. Perhaps they should stop and look at the
situation from a different angle. Consider the possibility:
America, a nation largely dependent on oil for its liveli
hood, uses faulty intelligence to invade and depose the
government of an oil-rich nation. America then plays large
part in instituting a new, America-friendly government
while a major American oil company takes over oil pro
duction in the country.
After all, if weapons of mass destruction-related pro
grams are such a huge impending concern for us, why
haven't we invaded other countries with similar programs
in the works?
Sure, it's possible that the government's actions were
completely pure in spirit, and America did a good deed
for the world by ridding it of a destructive leader
(though he has yet to stand trial for his crimes). But
from what we know, it's also conceivable, especially giv
en that the intelligence was wrong, that the government
exploited Sept. 11-induced support to sell a war to the
American people. And that possibility, however far
fetched, should be investigated thoroughly and should
include all officials involved with the war in order to re
store credibility and faith in one of the most free democ
racies in the world.
EDITORIAL POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters
@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per calendar
month. Submission must include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right
to edit for space, grammar and style.
\t\\m ctLee>R\TN/ h>0ls fail....
Stew Baggs Illustrator
Robbing from the poor
On Monday, President Bush released his
projected budget for 2005, and ever since I
have spent every spare second of my free
time pouring over all 3,000 pages of...
Okay, I'll be straight with you. I haven't
read one page of Bush's budget. I didn't
know he had released the damn thing un
til I read it in the newspaper today. Look,
the Emerald is giving me 10 bucks and a
good-job-old-chum pat on the butt per
column. What do you want from me? In
vestigative journalism?
Furthermore — and I'd like to stress this
point — I am not an economist. I am not
good widi numbers and really don't un
derstand budgets. I can't even balance my
checkbook. I am probably the last person
on this campus who should be comment
ing on Bush's $2.4 trillion proposal.
That being said, I am absolutely out
raged by this budget. Outraged! I mean, I
knew Bush was "starving the beast," but
who could have guessed he would be so
obvious about it?
"Starving the beast" refers to a counterin
tuitive strategy whereby tax cuts and over
the-top spending are used to starve the gov
ernment of money and force cuts to public
spending. It is spending for the sake of cuts.
Ronald Reagan's budget director David
Stockman coined the phrase, or so it said
when I Googled him. Again, what do you
want from me? Actual research? Why
don't you read a real newspaper, you
cheap bastard?
Sorry. I didn't mean to snap. It's just that
this budget has got me hopping mad!
Bush's spending priorities are so fiscally ir
responsible that even some Republicans
are starting to brisde.
Sure, it took projected deficits of $521
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
billion — much of which is going to a useless
war in Iraq that is threatening to suck another
$50 billion of taxpayer money not included
in the budget — before these conservatives
raised their heads out of the sand. But better
late than never I guess. Bristle away!
I have an idea: Let's just scrap that new
Medicare package that was recently enact
ed, which is going to cost one-third more
than originally estimated. Then we would
have a surplus of $ 13 billion. Or, if you are
partial to health, let's junk that whole So
da! Security thing. That would have us $29
billion in the black.
My point: Cuts alone are not enough.
We need a progressive tax structure in this
country that would dramatically lower the
burden on the middle dass while fordng
the rich and their multinational corpora
tions to pay a fair share.
Bush, by contrast, wants to use the
defidts that he created through unneces
sary spending as an excuse to cut an array
of useful social programs. Here are a few
examples:
• The Small Business Administration
takes the largest percentage cut in Bush's
plan: Over 83.4 percent according to the
Associated Press. I guess Bush's tax cuts
for the rich have trickled down to small
businesses by now, making the SBA
irrelevant. Good news: Bush's budget in
cludes $1.1 trillion more in tax cuts for
the rich over the next 10 years. I guess it's
the third tax cut for the rich that creates
new jobs. Or is it the fourth? I hope jobs
come soon because after this column I
think I'm going to need one.
• The Justice Department would take
cuts of 12.7 percent in Bush's budget,
which makes sense if you think about it:
Since Ashcroft took over there's been very
little justice going on in this country.
(Sometimes they write themselves.)
• Bush's 5-percent increase in overall
spending for education, which is being la
beled as progress, carries the nasty sting of
38 eliminated programs in the arts and
counseling departments.
• Bush's war on drugs also takes a hit in
his budget. They will still be going after
those potheads in full force. However, this
budget eliminates a program used to locate
methamphetamine labs. Luckily, Bush's co
caine-induced dream of sending a man to
Mars was spared the ax and fully funded.
Bush seems intent on starving the beast
of government by giving our tax dollars to
his pals in high places. Now, if his friends
were good people doing good things, that
wouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately, Bush's friends are in de
fense and oil. That means that while he is
gleefully starving social programs, we can
all look forward to endless war, which,
like the war in Iraq, will serve no other
purpose than to enrich those who make
their living by building the tools of hu
manity's destruction.
Contact the columnist
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
SCHMIDT
continued from page 1
and assess grammar and style
In this instance the same precautions were
taken but to no avail. A lack of proper termi
nology on behalf of the Emerald created con
fusion, and some facts were simply wrong. At
best the reader was confused by the article At
worst the reader was misinformed.
It is the job of the media to educate readers
with relevant and correct information. A
newspaper without accuracy is without val
ue Likewise a newspaper that refuses to ac
knowledge its mistakes is without credibility.
We at the Emerald strive for accuracy
and credibility. We very much want to be
considered a worthwhile addition to this
campus. And we want you to be able to
trust and rely on us.
On behalf of the Emerald, I apologize to
you, the reader. Every effort is being taken to
ensure such mistakes do not happen again.
Contact the editor in chief
at editor@dailyemerald.com.