This week, I could not find one thing to write about, I found two.
First, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently suggested publicly for the first
time that Iraq might have destroyed weapons of mass destruction before the war.
Say it aint so! Secretary Rumsfeld who possessed the confidence of Winston Churchill
prior to the war is backtracking? Could it be that questions as to the whereabouts
of the infamous WMD that found its momentum and genesis in the British press is
slowly making its way
across the Atlantic?
I am not surprised by Rumsfeld’s mild retreat on WMD. But my anger and
disappointment is fueled by this administration’s nonchalant attitude that
the failure to locate WMD (78 days and counting) does not require any explanation
beyond, “It’s just a matter of time before
we find them” or “They probably destroyed them just prior to the war.”
Adding to my anger (This does not count as number two!) is the Vanity Fair article
where Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, suggested that the decision
to emphasize WMD in the prewar hype had been taken for “bureaucratic reasons…
because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
WMD was not the reason that everyone could agree on, it was “THE”
reason for going to war. If anyone doubts this claim simply go to Google and type
in “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Were it not so tragic, it is almost laughable to read the pundits who supported
the war explaining the failure to locate WMD as minor in relation to what was
gained.
Supporters of the war are quick to point out that the removal of Saddam Hussein,
thus liberating the Iraqi people, was justification for the action. With the power
of human rights allegedly on their side, they boldly proclaim that uncovering
the mass graves alone
warranted his removal. How quickly those same pundits forget that in the 1980’s,
the Reagan Administration was fully aware of Saddam’s atrocities when he
was their dog in the war against Iran.
The second item of note was the appalling ceremony of President Bush’s signing
of the $350 billion tax cut.
To make room for the tax cut, without ceremony, President Bush signed a bill allowing a record $984 billion increase in the amount the federal government can borrow, to a record $7.4 trillion, making the current debt the largest in the nation’s history.
Meanwhile, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities families
earning between $10,500 and $26,625 will not receive the $1,000 child tax credit,
which translates to almost 12 million children.
The reasoning behind the move to cut out the poorest families was to come in under
the $350 billion limit that Congress has previously agreed upon. Wasn’t
that $350 billion limit a self-imposed, meaningless number that carries as much
potential for fluctuation as the Dow Jones?
The inclusion of the working poor would have increased the tax cut from $350 billion
to $353.5 billion. Even more despicable, as columnist Mark Shields noted on the
News Hour with Jim Lehrer, under the law the families of many of the sergeants,
lance corporals, and
privates who risked their lives in Iraq do not qualify for the child tax credit.
Since the passage of the tax cut legislation, the Senate has voted to add the
necessary funding to include those originally left out of the child tax credit,
but that vote must also pass in the House. House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-TX)
has already announced that the
inclusion of the poor will be met with additional tax cuts for the wealthy.
I suppose that the .7 percent of the wealthiest individuals in the country
who will already receive 63 percent of the capital gains tax cut is irrelevant
to Mr. Delay. If the poor are to receive additional benefits, then out of a sense
equity shouldn’t the rich?
This administration and its Republican allies are so pregnant with arrogance that
in the same week it can overtly ignore the poor and its original reasons for going
to war without offering further explanation for either one.
In the words of Marvin Gaye, “It makes me want to holler, throw up both
my hands!”