So, when is everyone taking down their Iraq War tree? I like to put mine up earlier than everybody else – it’s been up since Monday—because I don’t like to think about the travesty of Iraq on just one special day. I do it for a full week up until the anniversary of America’s invasion of Iraq which, even without the liberal media shoving it down my throat, I know was March 19, 2003. I turned on the television yesterday and found myself in awe as I flipped through the “major” news networks. What did Keith Olbermann just say? What did Chris Matthews just stutter? Oh my God! Did you just say…Iraq?

How many times in the last four or so months has the word “Iraq,” “soldier,” “Army,” “Marines,” “troops,” or even “terrorism” been used in the liberal media? Probably as many times as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has gone golfing with Senator Robert Byrd. The fact is, the media has been waiting for this day, like a lion about to pounce on an unsuspecting antelope – just ready to rip our president and this war apart. My question is: why did they wait so long? For the past four months, the media has sat there telling us how we’re in a depression and how we’re all going to lose our jobs and homes and how we’re dependant on oil (even though libs wont let us drill for our own) and how we’re all going to die from global warming. Look, I live in the mountains. If the polar ice caps melt, I’ll have waterfront property!

But finally, the sleeping giant (turd) awoke. The media celebrates the anniversary of this war just like they celebrate the anniversary of September 11^th. To them, it is their only chance to legitimately defend the terrorists by hiding behind the moniker of “un-biased journalism.” The New York Times ran a story in a column devoted to reports by journalists (ooooooohh…journalists) who spent time in Iraq shortly after our invasion. The column, entitled “Notes From the Field: War and Peace,” (sounds like another stunning Leonardo DiCaprio film) is a perfect display of the treason that occurs not only at the Times, but at nearly every news outlet across the country. Robert Worth wrote a piece describing a trip he made to Beirut and his heartwarming encounter with an Iraqi refugee when he claims that “his Iraq was a different place: not peaceful, exactly, but a world away from the shattered place I spent time in.” So let me understand. While you were in Iraq in 2003, supposedly “reporting” the news, there was a brutal, dangerous, authoritarian leader who tried to kill you with chemical weapons? Maybe Worth got raped by Uday and Qusay in some dark, smelly room with pictures of naked pre-school girls all over the walls. Another pathetic attempt by another pathetic “journalist” to make Saddam Hussein’s Iraq look like spring break in Cancun, Mexico.

The front page article of The New York Times’ “Iraq Anniversary” edition focused on a speech President Bush gave on March 19, 2008 addressing the war in Iraq. Well that’s all well and good. I heard the speech. I don’t need some schmuck at The New York Slimes telling me what the president said (or what they think he should have said). However, two little features of the article that caught my attention – enough of it to write this blog – have nothing to do with the current state of Iraq at all. Steven Myers wrote:

“Mr. Bush announced the war’s start from the Oval Office on the night of March 19, 2003, declaring that the United States would ‘not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.’ (It later became clear that those weapons did not exist.)”

I love how liberal journalists call President Bush “Mr. Bush.” They’re in such denial; they can’t even acknowledge the fact that he is the president. Now, I am sure that Mr. Myers is privileged to certain information that not even President Bush is. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear any public official, Democrat or Republican, come out and say ‘Nope. No weapons. Never happened. That guy was innocent.’ I always thought there was a difference between not finding something and something simply not existing. “Damn, I can’t find my keys!” That’s because they never existed! You don’t even have a car!

“Vice president Dick Cheney who declared in June 2005 that the insurgency was in ‘its last throes,’ also acknowledged that the war had ‘lasted longer than I would have anticipated,’ but he, too, defended the effort and brushed aside antiwar sentiment.”

I’m sure that Mr. Myers is also one of those ‘hopemongers’ that probably thought Hillary Clinton’s campaign was in its last throes as well. Unfortunately for us real Americans, it’s not.

“When told in an interview with ABC News that two-thirds of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, Mr. Cheney replied, ‘So?’ When pressed, he added, ‘I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.’”

You tell ‘em, Dick! Who cares what the stupid, liberal American public thinks! Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my unemployed, pot-smoking neighbor who is on welfare and drives a BMW make decisions about my safety or the safety of my children. If Mr. Myers and the like had their way, we’d all be wearing burkas and praying towards Mecca three times a day – and if not us, then our children.

True leaders don’t change their minds based on what their opponents tell them. What kind of leader would that be? One minute, Saddam is evil, the next minute, he’s having tea at the White House. A true leader is someone who makes up their mind and moves forward towards their ultimate goal. The opposite of this, of course, is a follower. A follower is a person who relies on polls to make their decisions. A follower is a person who supports the Iraq war when two-thirds of Americans support the war and disapproves of the war when two-thirds of Americans don’t (ehem…Hillary). In this dangerous world that we live in, we need a leader who is willing to put his name on the line in defense of freedom. As The Philadelphia Inqirer puts it, "President Bush defiantly defended the Iraq war yesterday..." Really? Whose authority did the president defy, his own? The most important thing to any president of any nation is their legacy. What will history books write about them thirty years from now? If this president wants to fix his legacy, he could just listen to the “two-thirds” of American people who want to retreat. But maybe, just maybe, there is something a little more important to President Bush than his legacy (national security possibly?). “Hey John Kerry, what’s your favorite color?” I don’t know, what’s yours? “Blue.” Hey, mine too!