More than six years after Sept. 11, our world has shifted
significantly, but we still play into the same mechanisms as before. Saddam
Hussein is gone, but our anger is still there, not directed toward Iraq but
instead at home. The pariah of the moment is our own President George W. Bush.
Popular opinion of the man ranges from "partisan politician" to "asshole" to everything
in between. Is he easy to hate? I won't deny the facts: The man's actions make
it hard to defend him in any aspect. What is important, however, is no matter
the frequency of his outrageously antagonistic gaffes, we must not lose our
objectivity or our impartiality.

The greatest example in this context is Mr. Bush's most
recent veto (and subsequent overriding by the House and Senate) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. Outwardly taglined as "one of the most
important public infrastructure works of the century," the bill aimed to pour
funds into various water projects around the country and funnel cash into the
coffers of the Army Corps of Engineers, the main government arm in charge of
national construction.

Passed overwhelmingly by both the House and Senate, it
sounds like the quintessential bill of the people, and indeed it drew fierce
criticism of the president when he practiced the power of his veto.

Most people's reactions were that "Bush wants people to
drown/dehydrate/not have toilets." If I too gave into the mental defense of
labeling Mr. Bush as pure maleficent sin, I would be right there with them
shouting "baby eater" at the top of my lungs. However, we, as rational
students, owe it not only to the president (He is human after all, somewhere in there.) but also to ourselves to delve
deeper into the issue to truly comprehend the motivation of the veto beyond the
convenient knee-jerk reactions.

Surprisingly, some of Mr. Bush's qualms with this bill have
merit beyond the insidious motivations some claim. Some founded concerns
include the bill's containing more than 900 "pork barrel" earmarks solely
intended to fund pet projects such as "beach beautification" for the wealthy
communities of certain senators' hometowns. That excess is accompanied by the
lack of significant accountability measures for funds directed toward the Army
Corps of Engineers, which has received criticism for incompetence in its levee
construction in New Orleans, a factor in the extent of catastrophic damage
Hurricane Katrina caused. This is all without mentioning the Corps has also
been historically ripe for abuse and embezzlement, which Wisconsin's own Sen.
Russ Feingold cited as his reason for supporting Bush's veto. That the bill has
ballooned to almost 10 billion dollars over its original proposal to a total of
$23 billion over 14 years is reason enough for suspicion.

Of course, one could make the argument that Mr. Bush could
give two shits about all that and is simply using the veto as a ploy to appeal
to his fiscally conservative base, as well as to come off strong against
Congress, which has an even lower approval rating than himself.

In either case, we as people of even and rational opinion
must make a tough choice. Are the funds in the bill — which are meant to be
allocated to severely needy areas such as the drought-stricken South,
post-Katrina gulf and deteriorating Everglades — worth it, given the knowledge
that we are perpetuating a pet-project Congress? Or should we take a stand for
accountable government spending and apply that practice here and hope for a
reformed, more fiscally responsible amendment proposal?

In either case I hope the decision we make is based off of logic
and rational thought, rather than emotional portrayals and superficial
reactions. I would hope America is brave enough to be able to not only
acknowledge the necessity in accepting that the world is never black and white,
but that it is also enthusiastic in exploring and holding intelligent discourse
on all the shades in between.

Charles Lim ([email protected])
is a junior with no declared major.