I find it interesting that many Americans still bash current President George W. Bush for one decision that, although was probably his best option, went wrong and has now thrown America into a long battle against an enemy who, lurking among the shadows, looks to reshape the United States and ultimately the free world for worse. This calls for a review of the situation that faced the President around six years ago. The World Trade Center of New York City was attacked by Islamic fundamentalist believing in a modernized Dar Al-Islam and the actions needed to be taken against the territory not under Islamic rule. I am not stating that the Koran under any circumstances encourages war, but yet it merely states that all of the planet can only achieve peace if it comes under Muslim control. You see the Koran states of two natures of state, one under Islamic control and one not under Islamic control. It mentions that the states of the world not under Islamic control will forever be in a constant state of war. Skew and modernize this belief over many centuries and there you have the start of the Islamic fundamentalist way of thinking. Moving back onto the point of discussion here, the terrorists that attacked the United States were fundamentalists, and in particular a group of them that installed a sort of puppet regime to control the country of Afghanistan so that the fundamentalists could take refuge in a common area without fear of military battle. So we needed to pursue the enemy that had done us injustice not only in just a Christian God’s eye, but to every person with a sense of humility around the globe. So battle would come to the world of Afghanistan yet again. A battle that was inevitable.
Now let’s fast forward to the year two-thousand-and-three. Saddam Hussein, dictator of the country of Iraq was getting older, and more senile. He had undoubtedly owned bio-chemical weapons, as he attempted to use them against our troops in the Gulf War of the nineties. We all know Saddam Hussein had SCUD missiles, for he used non-biochemically used SCUDs against the nation of Kuwait and Israel. So now we have bio-chemical weapons, and SCUD missiles capable of holding these bio-chemical weapons inside them. Now when President Bush looked at the facility photos and information provided to him by the CIA, it was not so much as a question of looking for nuclear weapons as the common American misconception is, but yet he saw the facilities that Saddam Hussein could use to pour out a new kind of Long-Range SCUD missile capable of attacking the nations of Europe and possibly the United States in the near future. The facilities that Saddam Hussein was in controlled of and employed were without a doubt willed with a feverous activity that the CIA had not seen since the entire UN inspection and US invasion of Iraq in the nineties. This was obviously alarming, and when faced with the fact that these facilities could be using their resources to develop these Long-Range SUCD missiles, the President decided to act. Now remember that at the time President Bush was faced with the situation of Iraq, he had a Republican controlled Congress. It is still very uncommon for the President to have the backing of his party in Congress, especially after the uncommon pick up of seats by the Republicans in the two-thousand elections. Therefore, it was a very uncommon opportunity that President Bush had to draw off of, and with this he decided that although the threat was not terribly imminent, and would not be for a possible another five to ten years, that acting now could prevent a possible disaster from happening in the scenario of a Long-Range SCUD missile filled with bio-chemical weapons hitting the United States. To clarify: President Bush, after the analysis of all the facts presented in this document decided that instead of using a “If it is not broken don’t fix it” style stance on the nation of Iraq he asked “Why wait until it is broken to fix it?” Thus, President Bush proposed the Iraq invasion to the Congress, and unsurprisingly, they agreed, so at the time President Bush was making a politically intelligent decision. However, it is not uncommon for us to have lost soldiers due to the war that carried off from this decision, no, for that is the state of war. However, Americans still act as if there could have been a better solution and that in a day and age where the new state-of-the-art weapons can destroy thousands almost instantaneously, that the option of a pre-emptive strike is appalling. However, what is seemingly appalling is the outbreak of the anti-Bush attitude, mostly carried on by the liberals, in that President Bush, for his pre-emptive, possible catastrophic-preventing move to invade Iraq and stop the development of Long-Range SCUDs, was a political blunder thanks to the lives it has cost. God bless the troops that fight for us every day, and the sacrifices that they have made for us in the past, but human conflict will bring death, and it must be realized before the entering of war happens. So if a majority of Americans supported going into Iraq, pre-May two-thousand-and-three, then why now do the majority of liberals not support the war? Have they learned nothing of their mistreating of the troops from Vietnam? It seems so. You see the liberals now cry for a President who’d radical idealism has not only angered many Americans, Democratic and Republican, but whose ideas have kept the Supreme Courts busy at work. I’m talking about Democratic Presidential Candidate and New York Senator Democrat Hilary Clinton. You see the bills Clinton has either sponsored or co-sponsored have all made the courts uneasy, filled with cases challenging the, and/or have kept her own party’s heads sweating. You see the Democratic politicians have kept a good lid on her previous senatorial work, but Thomas disagrees on the fact that Ms. Clinton is a typical Democratic thinker. In fact one look at her track record of voting on bills by Republicans on Thomas shows that a lot of her speeches in the senate and bills authored by her could easily border the ideals of the Socialist Castro of the seventies and eighties. The press will not talk about it though because most Americans do not follow congressional bills. This is a shame, as Ms. Clinton’s bills from the past three years have challenged the Supreme Court on multiple issues, including First Amendment Self-Expression clauses in the fields of video gaming entertainment, music entertainment, movie entertainment, and the rights of public schools to use detention and suspension as a form of discipline. In fact Ms. Clinton has easily swayed on issues too. Last year when there was an elementary school case of a Jewish girl, straight A student who stated that her classmates’ teasing of her was “gay” she was suspended for two weeks while the offenders got off with not a single disciplinary action. The fact is that although the girl could have chosen better language, two weeks was beyond harsh. Not for Senator Clinton, who was among a handful of Democrats that argued for the upholding of the decision y the school. However Ms. Clinton does not like the suspension of two minority students who verbally attacked a white student who attended the same high school as the two minority students, along racial lines and then physically attacked the student. Ms. Clinton pushed for the attackers to be cleared of all charges, but later settled on the idea of two days detention. Ms. Clinton also pushed for the removal of a school teacher in Texas who posted the picture of President George Bush and First Lady Laura Bush in the room he used to teach American History and Social Science in. Ms. Clinton did not acknowledge that fact that the previous presidents’ pictures were displayed around the room. She also supported the removal of the words to the Pledge of Allegiance in another American History teacher’s room in two-thousand-and-two. Ms. Clinton argued on the grounds of separation of church and state the controversial words of “under God” being publicly displayed. It seems apparent that Ms. Clinton does not like the public support of the Republican president or of the Conservative idea that “under God” should stay in the Pledge of Allegiance. Then what of Ms. Clinton’s support of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” movie which provided an enormous amount of information that was later statistically and factually proved wrong by the Druge Report. So the support of secular-progressive idealist liberalism is alright, whether or not that idealism uses false statistics and information, but the support of Conservative figures and ideas, whether or not they are used for educational purposes is not ok? This is why the Democratic party cannot choose Ms. Clinton as their candidate, for she will then be in a position where she could possibly trample on American rights and even by-pass constitutionality. IT would also be a politically unintelligent move as politically aware Democrats would migrate to the Republican candidate, but thus, this is where the media is and will take advantage of those unaware of the current political scene, a crowd that is populated by the majority of Americans today. Therefore, in conclusion of all the observations made here, it is the duty of the American people and of you the reader, to reject the media’s stance on politics, as it is so feverously divided among the networks’ overtly liberal ideologies that border that of socialism and the overtly obnoxious and outwardly views of most anchors on Fox News that are often skewed just to feed on the Conservative minds of those that just want to hear something different than the networks’ propaganda. The petty pouting of each other over public and cable television is outright disgusting, and therefore needs to be avoided all together. What is more disgusting is the attacks that pounded Fox News upon and after their creation. The bitter tasting out lashes against them from the public and cable television networks, and from the warped minds of Hollywood directors like Michael Moore, who try to portray all of Fox News’s viewers as absentminded in a literal sense. This repugnant outcry against Fox News is like that of a six year old child who has cut open his knee after falling from his bike. The networks acted like there was a law forbidding any Conservative television network, and they tried to repress the station. Ten years later, the station’s ratings far outnumber CNN and the ever so struggling MSNBC, who still try to tarnish Fox News’s reputation. It was also despicable to see Canada’s government try to ban the attempts of Fox News to legally be circuited around the country. When the elections took place in two-thousand-and-five and a Conservative government won the seats and the Prime Ministry, Fox News was suddenly a syndicated cable channel in Canada. Finally in conclusion, the vicious attacks towards the Conservative idealism needs to stop, for in the process of the liberalist bullying, the First Amendment has come under attack by one of the liberal prime crusaders, the fact that you could be a Republican is publically looked at like a stain on your soul, in most particular, the urban areas of the country, and the actual decent and intelligent decisions by the current President given all the facts are stretched so far beyond the truth, it only brainwashes those not in line with the political process of this great country. Therefore it is time to look towards other options besides MS. Clinton and towards the Conservative thought line that did this country good in the past in the hope that we, together as a nation, can defeat the liberal idealism that threatens to destroy the Democracy that this great nation was founded on.