Wait for it...

Between grad school applications and skiing Targhee and Jackson, I've been distracted from my goal of global dominance by way of this blog. I'm still not finished with applications or caught up from ski days, but I thought I'd make a quick post before I tended to the tedium of school work.

Though I haven't posted since the end of February, the discussion and debate in the comments section of my last post was great. I hope everyone reads the comments. I have said before and re-state it here--comments are the best part of the blog.

The last post examined the misguided efforts of the UW Student Senate. Like many in the U.S., they mistakenly conflated any war (in this case WWII) with Iraq. Because they hate Bush and the war in Iraq, they look for any opportunity to protest. This ridiculous outburst against Boyington is just one example.

I understand the critique about blind loyalty to President Bush. I wonder if the liberals who make this accusation are aware that they are at least as blinded by their hate.

Besides, my blind loyalty isn't that blind. Off the top of my head I can think of several issues where I've been at odds with President Bush--Harriet Miers, McCain-Feingold, prescription drug benefits, immigration--to name a few. However, on the issues most important to me--the war, courts, and taxes (in that order)--Bush has, for the most part, performed well.

What complicates the debate about Iraq, Supreme Court nominees, or anything political, is the liberal slant purveyed ad nauseum by the press. Exhibit #5,467,342 from James Taranto of Best of the Web
__________
What's for Desert?
The U.S. military's desertion rate "has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001," USA Today reports:

The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971--3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.

Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.

Accompanying the story is a chart that shows Army desertions have declined every year since 2001.

So how does USA package this good news for the military? As bad news: The headline reads "8,000 Desert During Iraq War," and the first paragraph begins:

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although . . .

Many in the press seem determined to follow their Iraq-as-Vietnam script, whether or not it's consistent with the facts.
__________
I discussed the gross infatuation the press has with Vietnam at length here in the concluding paragraphs. Writers and talking heads who cut their teeth reporting on the war or Watergate are hungry to once again attain what they see as the zenith of their power and influence.

They think they got the U.S. out of Southeast Asia and brought down a president. To read their Op-Eds and slanted news reporting, it seems they would like a repeat performance and return to the "glories" of Watergate and Vietnam.

When news first broke about "illegal" wiretaps, the predictable knee-jerk response from members of the press who called for impeachment was almost laughable.

For the sake of the country, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., lets hope the press is unsuccessful in its bid to return us to the Watergate/Vietnam era.