|
| |
On Political Commentary
By
Marilynn Stark
RE-ELECT PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
America
is on alert, as terrorism has changed the day for us. Where before we
used to listen to the news reports of other terror-stricken countries and be
grateful for our
domestic tranquility, now we must reassess our own security and immunity to
trouble
from abroad, our primary concern in view of the debacle of 9/11.
There are those who would hold our president and his
intelligence sources as
somehow essentially responsible for the event of the 9/11 attack. For the
convenience
of forming an alluring platform, one of the opposite party, for instance, the
definitional
nature of terrorism is temporarily suspended in deference to the will to blame
the
president for somehow allowing the attack to have occurred by those who try to
thus
turn the tables on the Commander-in-Chief. By definition terrorists strike in
the mode
of surprise and use unavoidable force. If there were bargaining involved in
keeping any
would-be attackers at bay, then the entire event of 9/11 has been recorded
incorrectly for
history and has been widely misreported and misunderstood. Threats upon a nation
constitute a legal basis for retaliation and resultant battle or battles
building to war, if
those threats had been leveled and ignored or dismissed on any level percieved
as
pertinent to the outcome of the threats as having been carried out.
Let us reason that if there had been such perceptible
threats received by the Bush
administration, and they were downplayed to the point where such indifference
had first 
imperiled our nation and then reduced it to a standing target, then President
George W.
Bush could have taken the kind of defensive action which would have been derived
from the logue of information and communication which would give sanction to
direct
retaliatory measure. None of this did occur, and thus should we view President
Bush's
initiative in Iraq as one of a broad-field offensive answer to a vague condition
of unrest
which currently haunts the planet. To say that Bush is in Iraq from an
insubstantial
viewpoint based upon the absence of weapons of mass destruction located there is
to
lend a very generous measure of trust in a most untrustworthy rogue's state,
that of
Saddam Hussein historically. Naturally, Hussein would place premium interest in
designing a
way to fool the United States in terms of escaping the intelligence assay as to
whether and
where on the weapons issue, whether they were ever in his possession, and if so,
where
might they be? Hussein most probably would have horrified the entire world
further if he
had not been quashed by our noble president, and we are asking for proof
if we have a dash
and a D after our name on this point. Most probably, Hussein would have
escalated his
attempted genocide using any weapons he would neatly hide and guard until
deployed,
and keep a close vigil on our American intent to catch the cache. Mass murderers
like
Hussein build to degrees of destructive intent, and look for likely prey. To
have seen us
as a nation so destabilized and hurt by the sight and results of 9/11 endangered
us to the
reigning psychopath on the planet, Saddam Hussein. How can our politics of the
presidential forum review the strife to nab Hussein for who he is, except in the
light of the ideals and values which we must recover from the soot of 9/11 on
our peace? By citing his case and owning up to our world role, President Bush
through our initiative in Iraq has turned the
world's eyes around once again to the concept of the beneficence of freedom as
it works
through our fine nation in its sense of ideals. We intervened and worked
if through
war to give Iraq a chance to become a like nation, a free one. In George
W. Bush is a leader who states his case, remands our values to it, and then
follows his word with salient action. It is difficult for those
who understand the loss of freedom and what it does to individuals and to people
and even to
nations of people to even listen to the rhetoric of the current presidential
contenders of the opposing party,
who out of some vacuum of humanity decry the war in Iraq. The only conclusion
this
author can draw, is that those Democratic Party members profoundly do not
understand
freedom and how to defend it based on the reality at hand, only because they do
not truly
understand freedom, although we would think they do understand freedom.
The most salient
safeguard, the most powerful preserving grace of freedom, lies
in the stipulation that freedom is for all, not for just a chosen few.
To sacrifice even one life or one sector of a nation of
people for some categorical reason
which goes counter to the universality of freedom in a true democracy such as
ours, is to endanger
that democracy in some way. If other nations, rogues, or bands of terrorists
gain the say
through destructive power to point out that the freedom practice of a nation is
indeed
imperfect, then that nation, ours, will become increasingly vulnerable to
further attack. The
entire war to free Iraqis to a democratic state of their own is the feat of
George W. Bush
and his administration. By even attempting to lead to freedom the wartorn
and thoroughly terrorized people of Iraq, the Bush administration has reclaimed
the world stage
for an America which had been badly battered, and thus have they transformed
that stage
and our hopes into one of hope for our ever-lasting peace and survival in a
world made
most uncertain by the monstrosity of 9/11. Search your hearts and your simple
consciences, fellow people, and assess George W. Bush for the president he is
and
should remain for a second term. Who else will carry on the work for America and
world
peace at the level of George W. Bush? If you listen to the changing winds of the
opportunistic John
Kerry, you will not serve your conscience. This decision as to how to vote in
this presidential election
can be resolved if you see the situation, and listen to your heart for freedom
-- your own freedom, our
own freedom, and also that freedom of Iraq, though it is yet to be fully born.
Let us indeed vote for the re-election of George W. Bush. Some people have
political savvy, but do not have the gift of leadership because in the practice
of political process they are not one-pointed. Senator Kerry means well,
but is proven by record throughout his life to lack a one-pointedness of mind.
Kerry purports to lead, as he shifts his viewpoints and votes in the Senate to
the vagaries of the mind currents about him. Vote for Bush. Vote with like
vision as you vote for Bush. He has envisioned and carried forth his
vision with the awareness which matches a one-pointed mind, as should a true and
great leader. Vote Bush, vote vision.
Marilynn Stark
October 13, 2004
Note: Please see the link Miscellany
for a poem entitled, Bring Back the Days, also by this author, and
which poem speaks to the effects of terrorism on the United States due to 9/11.
For a poem which discusses the more rarefied metaphysics of war
itself, please click onto the icon here below. It will lead you to a poem
entitled Catster's War Poem, which can be found in the
story of Giant Little at the Giant Little link on the navigation
bar, also.
Please click here: 
|
