"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

CNN.com - Poll: Americans nervous about Iran - Feb 13, 2006

CNN.com - Poll: Americans nervous about Iran - Feb 13, 2006: "Moreover, 69 percent said they were concerned that the Bush administration would be too quick to use military force, yet 67 percent were also concerned the United States wouldn't do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

Yet another article based upon a poll, isn't there anything truly happening out there that they might look into and report back to us on?

As far as the concern that Bush my be too quick to pull the trigger; PLEASE give me a break. Something that never seems to work its way into the equation is the previous decade plus. Was the president supposed to try to waste as much time as had previously been wasted? Is that really how we want to deal with things, in a endless U.N. negotiation stance? Never actually doing backing up our words with simply more words. The president wasn't "too quick to use military force," if you consider that Iraq/Saddam/Oil for Food didn't just suddenly appear during his administration.

Has we nuked or attacked North Korea yet? Shouldn't "hair trigger" George have fired by now? Is the media succeeding in not telling the whole story yet? Yes, according to the results from a poll of 1,000 adult Americans. Oh and by the way Bush's approval rating is down to 39%.

One last "irk." Military action IS a part of diplomacy. So would the msm please stop asking for more diplomacy before taking military action?


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks