By Marilynn Stark          









Home ] Feedback ] Contents ] Search ]


Giant Little

Giant Little Part Two

Catster's War Poem

Political Commentary

On T.S Eliot      

On Shakespeare

On Goethe

On Latin Inspiration  


On Skiing  



               On Political Commentary

    By Marilynn Stark                                                         

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:    


mail to: with questions or comments about this web site
Copyright 2004 - 2010 by Marilynn Stark