I missed Bush on TV last night, but I was sure to agree with him anyway so why bother. I liked this article from Fred Barnes, especially this line: "Reporters, particularly, are soft on presidents who seem to like them or at least pretend to--or who pander to them."
Bush clearly has no use for reporters and instead goes right to the people *GASP*
How dare he circumvent the press, who have a holy responsibility to tell us what to think. Why, us dumb midwesterners can't think for ourselves, we need the NY Times and Washington Post to tell us what is what. It is bad enough that we are allowed to vote in Ohio and Kentucky, but thinking for ourselves is off-limits!
It is becoming a less and less tenable position to oppose Iraq as clearly every mass grave we find tells us Saddam was a bad guy. A direct threat or not, that can be debated (I think anyone who believes he was not sponsoring and supporting terrorists is cracked in the head, unless you don't conder Abu Nidal a terrorist or helping plot the assasination of George Bush Sr. a terrorist act.). The dead Kurds, victims of a poison gas attack while we stood by and did nothing tell us he had WMDs. We certainly couldn't prove he didn't have them since he refused to comply with those tough UN resolutions (we REALLY mean it this time, can we pretty please inspect your WMD sites?) The Robert Byrd/John Kerry/Ted Kennedy clan would have preferred to wait until nukes fell on Israel or poison gas was released in Chicago before we acted, and then ONLY with the approval of the UN.
Maybe we should have left Hitler alone until he had finished bombing England into the stone age, killing off every Jew in Europe and subjugating Russia. After all he wasn't a direct threat to us, was he?
No comments:
Post a Comment