Ok, In Review

I read the headlines this morning on FOXNews, because I didn't have much time at that point in the day and we all know it is the source of "fair and balanced" reporting.
Knowing that the Federal Reserve has done everything in it's power in the last couple of months to bail out the mortgage lenders, the banks, and the Stock Market, with the most recent being only yesterday. Considering how busy the Feds have been at the expense of the taxpayers grandchildren, you'd think yesterday's events would still be news. It was a pretty flashy headline by late afternoon, yesterday, that the market closed UP 400. Now today, I had to wade through the "bigger headlines."
With Cheney in the Middle East and President Bush addressing the Pentagon on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, you'd think there would be a monumental headline or two, now wouldn't you, but I found one article about an 80 year old that was a protester. I saw the picture of the protest graffiti on the recruiting station in Wisconsin, but I had to look for information about the President's speech and I read on CNN about Cheney talking about Iran and nukes, again.
I'll share just a few headlines from the FOXNews home page this morning, and considering world events, I find it nothing less than I've come to expect from FOX.
Obama is talking about Hillary and her records as first lady are now public. The ex-fiance of the "runaway bride" got married to someone else. A headline that said a man was gunned down in his driveway by a "killer robot" only to read and discover it was some sort of technological suicide. A surgeon removed the wrong kidney from a patient with kidney cancer, and a woman went for leg surgery and received some sort of anal sphincter repair surgery.
I realize these last two circumstances are horrendous and I truly hope the doctors lose their licenses and the institutions are sued to the hilt. I'm happy for the guy that was made famous by his ditzy girl friend and I'm sorry the old guy chose a complex suicide.
But what I don't understand is how a Presidential Speech to the Pentagon doesn't make the top headline and why the American people aren't being kept informed regarding our VP with a jumpy trigger finger.
How our President can continue to tout this rhetoric to camouflage the wrong decision to invade Iraq, I just don't know, and how any of his followers can continue to defend such an outrageous act is beyond me. Now, on a side note. Obama keeps bringing up Hillary's voting record regarding Iraq. You know what, as wrong as it was to invade Iraq, Hillary was representing the choice of her constituents. New York wanted the war in Iraq. Although I'm not a big fan of hers, that was one time, she didn't choose her own interests, over representing the people.
Here is what I've now found in an article at FOXNews.
"The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated," Bush said.
But, he added, before an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats: "The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory."
Although I agree with the first quote, and I have to question why anyone that could make this statement would ever be considered a leader with any spiritual wisdom at all, since the Bible specifically states we are to count the cost before beginning. But the second quote is all precisely opposite of reality, with the exception of the fact, since we started it, we have no choice but to finish it. There is nothing noble about invading the wrong country in angry aggression. There was no necessity in attacking. We were in no imminent danger from Iraq and Hussein was a wonderful buffer between Iran and the rest of the world. As to a wrong war against a non aggressive sovereign nation, I don't see anything that would be considered "just" in that move. I realize Saddam refused to show us what he didn't have . . . and we never found. We Americans can't even get straight answers out of our own leaders, why in the world did our leader expect Saddam to answer to him anyway?
Without specifics, Bush decried those who have "exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much," he said.
I simply must respond to his quote that closed the article. As a war critic, that was a war critic before it started and even when it was popular, I have never argued winning or losing. The cost in human life and future freedoms was done with absolutely no accountability. As a critic of the war, it's still not about winning or losing, it's about the fact that it was unnecessary when we went and now we can't leave until Iraq is stable. America destablized the entire Middle East on bad intelligence, an old grudge, or simply an aggressive whim.
Hardly noble, necessary, or just. If our leader had been led of G~D to do this, there would have been victory, not five years of an empty promise of such. If attacking the war critics is the best he can do five years later, that says so much more than anything else I could add.
Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard. a Proverb of Holy Scripture