I think I've made it clear of late that I have not been too impressed with President Bush's domestic policy decisions. I don't think that he's doing what's best for the American people nor do I agree with many of the choices he has made. This has led me down a road of being less than impressed with his presidency. He has, however, been a fairly good war-time president. Personally I find that his handling of the situation in Iraq hasn't been perfect but has been decent and I might even say fairly well done. This is not what you see on TV, read in the papers, or even on the internet. I guess it stands to reason that the best way to defeat your enemies is to attack them at their strongest point and I suppose that's what's being done but it'd be nice to hear a non-liberally biased report on Iraq just once before we do finally leave the country.

This was brought to my mind today because I read that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (one of the terrorist leaders) was killed in a tactical air strike recently in Iraq. This is an important thing for the U.S. forces. They have removed one of the ring leaders of the so-called insurgency. The thing is, the media coverage of this has basically stated, "they've killed al-Zarqawi BUT that's not going to stop the insurgents and Americans will still die and this war is bad and blah blah blah." That's what we're getting. We can't just simply hear, "the U.S. forces have killed the leader of the Iraqi insurgents and this is a nice step forward in the war in Iraq." No we have to hear how just because they did something good doesn't mean that anything good is going on. It's ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing about it.

The media bias certainly doesn't stop there of course. Ever since the war was started it's been compared to Vietnam and how we have some sort of quagmire. Guess what folks, it's not like Vietnam and it's not a quagmire at all. Let me explain. The reason we failed in Vietnam was because we tried to do the fight half way, we left it up to politics and we never went forward and won the war. Now as much as we're starting to move the war in Iraq to be more a political one than a military one when it started and when we freed the country we used our full military might. The reason "Mission Accomplished" was announced was because we actually had taken over the country and freed the people therein. Sure there's people still fighting but that doesn't mean that we haven't accomplished the initial mission of freeing the country. Now we're there making sure that we keep the country free.

I don't mean to paint the whole thing through rose colored glasses but the truth is it's not terrible over there. In Vietnam we were fighting the North Vietnamese but we never took over North Vietnam, in Iraq we've already taken it over, now it's just keeping it safe that's the issue. Yes people are dying in Iraq, and I thank them for their sacrifice, but really it's not even comparable. Since the war began on 3/19/03: 2486 Americans have lost their lives. In the comparable time in Vietnam over 11,000 Americans had died. That's a quagmire, what we're in now isn't.

The senate voted to go to war, we went to war, we didn't find WMD's, but we freed millions of people. I'd say it was worth it, now why can't we start hearing a few stories out of Iraq that let the American people hear about the good things going on than just the bad. We get it; you don't like Bush, fine. Just stop it with your stupid babblings that are aimed at making baby boomers remember the war of their past and stick to actually telling the news.