Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thesday, June 28, 2005
BRET FURTWANGLF.R | GRAPHIC ARTIST
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
SHADRA BEESLEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GABEBRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
IF.NNY GERW1CK
COPY CHIEF
BRET FURTWANG1.ER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
IUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541) 346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUITHF.IL
STEPHEN MILLER
KAFIF. STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)346-4343 _
TR1NA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORA1.YNN BASHAM
KATV GAGNON
KERI SPANGLER
CLASaflED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)346-4381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
The problem with the plutonium plan
On a scale of one to idiotic, the Bush
administration just nabbed themselves
a place at the top. It was revealed yes
terday that the U.S. is planning pro
duce plutonium 238for the first time
since the Cold War— as if any other ev
idence were needed to prove that de
veloping nuclear weapons technology
is a giant step backward. For about
$1.5 billion, our nation will be left with
more than 50,000 drums of radioactive
waste. Considering the budget deficit
America is currently experiencing, it
seems just a little strange to spend
money creating lethal trash.
The plutonium project is currently
being touted as a classified national se
curity project. Plutonium could be
used for nuclear weapons, nuclear
space weapons (both of which the En
ergy Department has denied) or espi
onage equipment. All we know for
sure is that the plutonium technology
will be developed for the purpose of
creating a safer America.
It is amusing that the United States
still believes nuclear technology and
security are in some way related. To be
gin with, even if the U.S. government
is not planning to use plutonium 238 to
create weapons, the raw material can
easily be turned into a killing machine
by someone else. The Bush administra
tion is not shy about accusing rogue
nations of stealing and harboring
weapons of mass destruction; surely
someone at the White House must re
alize that developing a weapon for the
United States can be just as deadly as
handing that same weapon over to the
enemy on a silver platter.
In fact, in an obscenely hypocritical
move, Bush recently expressed
the following sentiment in response
to an Iranian plan to develop
plutonium technology:
“The development of a nuclear
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
weapon is unacceptable and a process
which would enable Iran to develop a
nuclear weapon is unacceptable.”
The United States government still
believes that our nation is somehow a
superior species to the rest of the
world; technology in the hands of Ira
nians is unacceptable, but technology
in the hands of Americans is necessary
to our national security. It pains me to
mention the fact that the United States
has been a historic supplier of nuclear
technology for Iran, including a re
search reactor capable of producing
plutonium. Why does our nation fall
prey to the ethnocentric assumption
that nuclear technology is safer in
hands of a lighter skin color, or that
America’s decisions regarding the eco
nomic or defense purposes of nuclear
programs are always correct? The sim
ple fact that the United States once
supplied plutonium technology to Iran,
but is now demanding that the Iranian
nation refrain from developing such
items, shows that the United States is
hardly accountable when it comes to
making global decisions.
The time has come for the leaders
of the world to get their heads out of
their arses and call for a change. With
each nuclear development, the para
digm of mutually assured destruction
comes closer and closer. Instead of
building up arsenals of plutonium,
the United States especially should be
using its resources to foster some
kind of communication or plan of ac
tion toward the eventual goal of erad
icating nuclear warfare. America can
be neither the land of the free nor the
home of the brave if protecting our
nation means creating a substance so
dangerous that a single speck will
cause cancer. When was diplomacy
replaced with the Cold War ethic of
secrecy and a nuclear arsenal? It bog
gles one’s mind that governmental
communication and compromise
have become the exception rather
than the norm.
Nations of the world, especially
those hosting nuclear technology,
have given up on one another but not
on the utopian promises of technolo
gy. Every country may believe that
nuclear components are making them
safer, but stockpiling weapons and
technology will lead to nothing be
sides the parallel stockpiling of
weapons and technology in the fists
of opposing nations. The United
States cannot expect to announce its
own development of plutonium 238
without seeing similar production in
countries who fear that the only way
to deter America’s technology is to
delve into dangerous technology of
their own.
As long as nuclear weapons exist,
the threat of nuclear winter will exist
as well. The only way to prevent nu
clear war is to stop creating nuclear
technology and concentrate upon dis
mantling the weapons already creat
ed. Maybe we’ll have to look for new
energy sources; maybe we’ll have to
search for a different way to secure
our nation. But, for what it’s worth
(i.e. billions of dollars), I wouldn’t
mind seeing at least a glimpse of the
pretense that world peace is possible.
aileeslater@ daily emerald, com
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and ©Jest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month Submissions should
include phone number and address for verification. Tire Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald.
■ Editorial
Iraq memo
has serious
implications
about war
Earlier this month, a piece of documen
tation relating to the war in Iraq was un
covered: The Downing Street memo; it is
the most convincing proof yet that military
action in Iraq was based on faulty, possi
bly nonexistent intelligence. Worst of all,
the memo makes it perfectly clear that the
lack of concrete information pertaining to
Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons
of mass destruction was no secret to
President Bush.
The memo details British Prime Minister
Tony Blair’s report on a political talk involv
ing President Bush. The most poignant line
of the memo, dated eight months prior to
the United States’ invasion of Iraq, reads:
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam,
through military action, justified by the con
junction of terrorism and WMD. But the in
telligence and facts were being fixed around
the policy.”
Intelligence and facts were being fixed.
Remember how mad the American public
became when former President Bill Clinton
lied to his nation concerning an extra-mari
tal affair? The Downing Street memo is con
crete proof that Bush not only lied about his
fears over WMDs, but also led his country
blindly into war for the purpose of satisfy
ing some kind of personal vendetta against
Saddam Hussein. After thousands of casu
alties and billions dollars, it seems that
someone owes the world an apology.
If the memo is valid, then the significance
of Bush’s lie is huge. The Downing Street
Memo means that when U.S. political or
ganizations made their decision to support
the war in Iraq, they were doing so under
false pretenses. The use of a preemptive
strike was authorized largely because of the
belief (instilled heavily by Bush himself)
that there was some sort of time frame; if
those politicians had been aware that Bush
created Iraq’s WMDs out of thin air, the ad
ministration might have been pushed to find
a long-term, diplomatic solution.
Besides the material ramifications of such
a lie, it is also important to consider the para
digm that is set when a president feels he is
correct in lying to the country he has been
elected to serve. A democracy is based on
serving the will of the people; if those people
are receiving false information, their needs
and desires can be neither heard nor met.
Of course, it must be kept in mind that
the memo is nothing if not ambiguous, as
Bush supporters are quick to point out.
Bush and Blair have denied allegations
that intelligence was fixed to prompt the
war in Iraq, and the memo itself does not
contain enough specifics to thoroughly
indict anyone.
Then again, it didn’t take much more
than a blue dress with a stain on it to im
peach Clinton. The Downing Street memo
has hardly received the enormous media or
public attention it deserves. At this point,
the Bush administration owes this country a
sound explanation, rather than just a vague
denial. If Bush or Blair cannot provide such
an explanation, then neither man deserves
to hold his current public office.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Shadra Beesley Ailee Slater
Editor in Chief Commentary Editor
Tim Boboksy
Photo and Online Editor