The internet is ablaze with polemics blaming either Bush or Clinton for
our
present problems overseas. We respectfully disagree with that approach.
This is not a Democrat vs. Republican matter. Both Clinton and Bush have
accepted the same false premises of the Twentieth Century Left--as witness
our unprotected border. It is not Clinton or Bush, it is Clinton and Bush
who have caused our present situation. (See
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Clinbush.htm for the common ground
between
the two problem makers.)

The underlying ideological problem, of course, is being compounded by
Bush's
total confusion as to how to fight the War On Terror. As we wrote
immediately after his inane speech, last Monday:

"Clueless!"

As one listened to the President of the United States, last night
(September
11, 2006), memories of a funny movie crept into one's conscious. It
was about pampered teenaged girls, who lived to take their Mom's credit
cards to the shopping mall after school each day, and was appropriately
titled,
"Clueless!" It was a palliating notion. The bleak reality of the speech

was far from a subject for humor. The other quite-beside-the real-point
notion was
that any conscientious Speech or Debate Professor in America would have
graded
the effort an absolute failure. Few College Freshman could have put on a
more
pathetic performance.

There was so much wrong with the speech that it would not justify any
comment at all, were it not being delivered by a President of the most
powerful Federation of States that the World has ever known; by a
President
armed with nuclear weapons and a military budget that dwarfs that of any
other leader on the planet. Moreover, a President who claims to be
keeping
America safe, when he has--until only the past few months--virtually
ignored
a flood of incongruous immigration, across our Southern border.

We list but some of George W. Bush's more dangerous errors in logic:

1. The claim that our battle with Terrorists behind the attack five
years ago will be the defining conflict of the 21st Century.

2. The claim that the War must continue until either we or the Terrorists
are destroyed.

[This sort of delusional, "Drama Queen," hyperbole only helps the present
Terrorist gangs recruit new blood; while, to the extent that anyone in a
leadership position actually believes that the President actually believes
what he says, undermines confidence among our natural allies. There is no
way that a group of international outlaws without even a true homeland can
possibly threaten the continued existence of any major Western power, much
less the United States of America. To compare the threat of cave hiding
fanatics to that posed by Germany and Japan in the 1940s, or that posed by
the
Communist Empire in the 1950s through 1980s, is, to understate the matter,
absurd.]

3. The claim that by staying in Iraq, long after we overthrew the
antagonistic Government, we are taking the War to the Terrorists, in a
manner that somehow makes it less likely that they will come here.

[The President fails even to differentiate between the various types of
armed resistance that we are encountering. This is not merely sloppy
analysis. It is truly "clueless," since these are supposed to be part of
the force that would--according to his argument--otherwise be coming here.
Certainly those who are attacking our armed forces--as opposed to
attacking
other Iraqis--would traditionally be characterized as "guerrillas," not
"terrorists." There is absolutely no reason to assume that "guerrillas"
resisting a foreign occupation are likely candidates, absent that
occupation, to sneak into a Federation, 5 to 8,000 miles away, and commit
suicide in order to terrorize other people as a way to make a religious
statement.

While there are also those who have come in from outside Iraq and have
employed terrorist tactics against both Americans and sympathetic Iraqis,
indeed openly identifying themselves with the known Terrorists, there is
no
evidence to suggest that these are there as an alternative to sneaking
into
the United States. The functions of those in Iraq are not similar to
those
of the carefully trained group that accomplished the disaster on September
11, 2001. By all indications, that particular project was several years
in
development. Again, this foe does not have the remotest semblance of the
capacity of any major power, except in the mind of the President. What
evidence is there--or by what logic can he hypothesize--that anyone being
trained for another dramatic attack on American civilians within the
United
States, has been sent instead to Iraq, rather than simply infiltrated over
our poorly guarded Southern border, which even after the President's
belated promises, this past May 15th, does not have even 10% of the armed
protection provided American personnel in Iraq?]

4. The claim that introducing Democracy (by armed force) is some sort of
magic cure all for ideological antagonism.

[The abject stupidity of this has been explored by us in several previous
essays. This is the same theme that the President sounded in his Second
Inaugural Address, where he used the word "Freedom," in at least six
different and conflicting senses in another short speech. We posted a
staged debate on that, putting portions of George Washington's celebrated
"Farewell Address" in juxtaposition with the Bush speech, and letting the
reader decide whose argument was the correct one. (See
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/debate2.htm.) We have also explored the
whole issue of whether Democracy can work in a Third World Nation with a
multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, population in
(http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/third.htm).

Of course, Democracy does not necessarily work well in the First World
either. Hitler came to power in Germany by means of the Democracy known
as
the
Weimar Republic. Apparently, the President has not bothered to actually
learn very
much about the great struggles of the 20th Century, to which he sought
comparison. He
certainly shows little or no understanding of whom the moderates are and
whom the
fanatics in the very region that he would reengineer--nor of how "well"
the
older
British experiment in Ireland went.]

5. The claim that we need political unity in order to wage a successful
war
on Terrorism.

[While it would certainly be advantageous to get most of us on the "same
page" with respect to any problem, it is childish, playground hysteria, to
suggest or imply that there should not be a serious debate on the tactics
to
be employed in any project involving the use of military force. Whether
or
not we remain in Iraq one day longer than absolutely necessary to see that
it does not collapse into chaos, is a legitimate issue. Whether we insult
over
a billion people by suggesting that we have a role in changing their
culture--
something which beyond question helps the Terrorists recruit--is a
legitimate issue (that is, if rejecting the President's abandonment of the
traditional
American policy of treating others with respect, is not self-evidently the
wiser course). And
where and to what purpose we commit our armed forces is a legitimate topic
for debate. (That is, unless this President would deny his own people
that
level of "Freedom" that he would force on others.)

There is no legitimate debate over whether or not we need to destroy those
who
would wreak havoc on our people and interests. Of course, we must. But
there are
questions that must be debated as to what is the most effective way to
accomplish that
necessary aim. Again, this President remains clueless as to what should
be
obvious.


The President's integrity, judgment, patriotism and competence, are all
called into question by his failure to effectively defend the Southern
border. His appeal to our sorrow over the losses on September 11, 2001,
should not be
allowed to divert anyone's attention from all of the things that he has
not
done--which he clearly should have done--in the interim. In the context
employed,
it smacks more of demagoguery than compassion.]

These are the random thoughts of this Conservative Republican from Ohio,
on
the day after another pathetic, "clueless" performance from one for whom
we
once had high hopes.

William Flax

One wishes that there was an easy answer to the problem of an
intellectually
corrupted leadership. There may still be a few good men in the Democratic
Party. There are certainly a few good men still in the Republican Party.
The problem is to give them the courage to face up to the leadership
failure
in their respective parties, and address real issues with rational
analysis.
At present, almost all we are getting is spin. It is not just sickening.
It really is endangering the American future beyond anything that the
likes
of Al Qaeda could ever accomplish in a thousand years. May God Help the
American people to wake up.