Rants and Raves
So, every now and then something gets under my skin, and I have to rant.
July 16, 2003 Rant:
Remember the budget deficit projections? It can't affect
you or your day-to-day life, right? You don't use government services,
so what's the big deal? Today, the EPA announced that it didn't have the
funds to clean up the former McCormick & Baxter plant, a Superfund project
that is leaching toxins and chemicals toward the Columbia River. The cleanup
will have to stop, which means that life in the largest river system in western
North America will be in danger. But an extra $12 in your paycheck every
month should fix that, right? Meanwhile the families that profited so
handsomely from that creosote plant that closed years ago and continues to pollute
to this day will make probably just a bit more than $144 this year from the
Bush tax cuts.
July 15, 2003 Rant:
The White House admitted today that the budget deficit for the year will be $450 billion and even higher next year. Still enjoying that "tax cut" you got this month? What was it? Fourteen bucks? Five? Two? Less? Well, for that extra cash in your pocket (Dick Cheney, whose vote broke the tie in the Senate will pocket an extra $75,000 or so . . . suckers), you'll be giving away all sorts of discretionary and non-discretionary government spending. But don't worry, you don't really depend on (for example) food inspectors to make sure your food is safe, do you? Oh yeah, the "official" deficit figures don't include about $150 billion that George W. Bush and the Republicans will raid from the Social Security lock box. Remember that promise? The Republicans sure hope you don't come Election 2004.
Meanwhile, President Bush met with Kofi Annan yesterday, and
lied through his teeth, claiming that he launched the invasion of Iraq because
Saddam wouldn't let the UN weapons inspectors in. I guess he figures our
memories aren't good enough to remember what happened just four months ago,
when Bush told the inspectors to skedaddle because he had to satisfy his bloodlust.
But it's okay, because contrary to all evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bush
still believes the decisions he made "will make America more secure and
the world more peaceful." Really, Mr. Bush? If those weapons
of mass destruction you were so confident Saddam had really existed anywhere
but your own fevered imagination (and I will admit no such thing), where are
those weapons now? The military sure doesn't seem to have a handle on
them, so how is the country more secure? How is the world more peaceful?
You must not have a very high regard for the public's intelligence, is
all I can say.
July 14, 2003 Rant:
India has refused to send troops to join the U.S. in Iraq, and the corrupt Bush administration isn't happy about it. I don't know, but perhaps the Prime Minister actually listens to the people when they say they don't want to send their troops into a meat grinder for no particular reason. At least no particular reason having to do with national security. Humorously enough (or not, considering that more people are dying in Iraq every day), India feels that without a specific UN mandate, they're not authorized to send troops into Iraq. Strange, isn't it, to see a country that says it will respect the rule of law?
If your memory extends to further back than last week, you may
recall that President Bush, during the "press conference" prior to
the invasion, promised that he would return to the UN Security Council for a
second vote to get specific authorization to intervene militarily. That
was the one specific promise he made during that dog-and-pony show and he broke
it. Ostensibly, Bush couldn't wait for that second vote because of the
imminent threat Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction posed (and not because
the U.S. would have gotten vetoed by France or Russia if not lost the Security
Council vote outright -- yeah, right). As we now know, the intelligence
was manipulated by the administration, which tailored the data to serve its
objective of launching the invasion.
July 13, 2003 Rant:
There was a time when going to war was a serious undertaking. We had a well-defined enemy, a particular objective in mind, and some sort of plan for the future. Nowadays, under George W. Bush, war is a maneuver designed to pump up the White House's poll ratings. Or so it seems. The immediate concerns about Saddam Hussein and his imminent threat to the United States seem to be a bunch of overblown hooey. Despite Mr. Bush's protestations that he hadn't made up his mind whether to launch the invasion (laughable in light of a quarter million troops massed on the borders of Iraq), the intelligence folks knew what to say and how to say it in order to justify the most belligerent action possible.
Well, here it is, not four months later. The Iraqis have stopped dancing in the streets -- not that an appreciable number of them ever were. Our soldiers are bogged down in that in-between time after the invasion but before withdrawal. This particular segment lasted for more than a decade in Vietnam, but I don't think it will last anywhere near that long in Iraq. Another soldier or two dies every day or every other day, either as the result of an "accident" or due to some hostile action. The instability of the situation keeps relief agencies away, and prevents any serious rebuilding. Factions that are opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq are doing their level best to make sure that the populace remembers this incursion with rancor. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and self-appointed final word on all actions military, said today on one of the Sunday talk shows "Are more people going to die? Sure they are!" Like I said, there was a time when war was a serious undertaking. Now the administration sounds like a used-car dealer urging you to come on down for our dealin'-est days of the year.
Back to the Home Page