Gentleness and slack has been shown the President. Expectation for a successful administration has always
been our hope. As time passes and events play out their twists and turns, the true nature of the man becomes visible. All
leaders have flaws. Most seek to serve their own interests. But when a fatal fault is exposed, it instills fear and dread.
The evidence for this conclusion, did not come from a detailed analysis of policies or their relative success or failures.
This judgment comes from the literal meaning of his own words. Mr President, do you really believe what you said?
His recent speech at VMI at the George C. Marshall ROTC awards, spoke directly on - a Call for the End of Terrorism. Public attention
for this event was nowhere near the viewing of his address to the Nation after 911 or the last State of the Union message.
But hidden within the text, is an insight into the man that cannot be denied. The opportunity to see the delivery of the message
has an impact that a mere reading will not convey. This was one time that we, the people, could see the intensity in the heart
and mind of the American President.
As commander and chief, no doubt he was addressing a group of future warriors. But when he came to the crucial
passage, the applause dropped off to a faint whimper. Is it possible that this audience understands the significance and implications
of this mindset, while the public sees and hears only what it wishes to believe?
" . . . Whenever global terror threatens the civilized world, we and our friends and our allies will
respond decisively." (APPLAUSE)
"Every nation that joins our cause is welcomed. Every nation that needs our help will have it. And no
nation continues (pause) -- around the world the nations must choose: They are with us or they’re with the terrorists."
Significantly, there was no applause from the audience.
How did we get from: "You are either with us or against us", elevated to support for terrorism?
Are you saying that no one can or should question U.S. government definitions and identification of a terrorist? Our justifiable
national cry and mission was to hold the perpetrators of the tragic and wicked attacks of 911 on America accountable. We were
told that al Qaeda was responsible for these criminal acts? We keep hearing that the network of this band of cowards has been
effectively neutralized, even if not completely dismantled. So where does accountability end and elimination of ever potential
Don't miss the subtle but crucial distinction. Most of the world supported a righteous effort to bring justice
to those related to the crime. It is no surprise that intensity for that endorsement has dropped considerably, as Bush policy
broadens the definition to include anyone who may threaten or even hate American presence. Moving to a state of perpetual
and constant deployment, only guarantees a war of unending conflicts.
Bush's zeal and passion for this task is evident for all to see. His determination to resurrect the "axis
of evil" mantra, claiming a duty to confront and eradicate it, is akin to dropping a red flag in front of a bull. But you
can't kill all the steers, unless you resort to the slaughterhouse approach. Terrorists are consumed with hate. They seek
political turmoil. How do you eliminate this threat when it is based upon a demented willingness to strike where a society
is most fragile? Proactive arrogance only breeds a more determined foe. So why does the American alter ego require a garrison
mentality? Is there a hidden need to validate the manhood of the country? Why paint our house red and rouse the temper of
an animal? Fences provide more safety, while rational effort are sought to neuter the beasts. If the attention of the
deranged is directed away from a direct challenge, the matador is able to apply his deadly art . . .
The progression is frightening, for we are less secure today because of this misguided
strategy. How can one rid the world of all remnants of terror when a new bogeyman arises when needed? Terrorism is a
tactic of the weak used against the strong. Who has more to lose when your enemy has nothing to risk? Isolating elements of
terror, discrediting their sick hatred and a sober reflection on our projected image as an imperial tyrant, will place this
task into the proper context.