Tuesday, July 25, 2006

The President was (and still is) right.

Washington Times: 50 percent of U.S. says Iraq had WMDs. By Jennifer Harper

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary (Emphasis mine) in recent years. The survey did not speculate on what caused the shift in opinion, which supports President Bush's original rationale (Emphasis mine) for going to war. Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons (Emphasis mine) containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq. "Filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, during a June 21 press conference detailing the newly declassified information…


Gee, Looks like the boss really did know what he was talking about. Could it be that the most pwerful man in the world, with access to the most technologically advanced and largest information gathering networks in the world knew more than "Joe Typewriter" out to become the next Woodward and Bernstein? (Personally, I think overzealous anti-gummint journalists are a differently meaning "deep-throat" but thats for another post...)

Second issue: I'm sick and tired of the President being referred to ESPECIALLY by the media as "Mr. Bush" or just "Bush." Like him or not, he's our PRESIDENT. He's in charge. We don't have to blindly support him or his administration, but we should give him all due respect for the position he holds. He should be referred to as "President Bush," "The President," "The Commander in Chief," et cetera. To not show this very simple courtesy is not only disrespectful to him, it shows the world (yes, the whole frickin' blue marble) that you've no respect for the position. he should be esteemed, he should be put on a pedestal, form the masses, of the masses, but in charge of the masses and therefore, held in regard as above the masses.

If we don't respect the rank, who will?


No comments: