"Think Tank" Insanity!!

This was found on the website of a "think tank" by the name of Family Security Matters. The article has since been removed from the website, but you can still see it in it's original form, complete with images and text, from Google's cached page. My commentary follows this immediately and is in bold-faced type!

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestige while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

____________________________________________________________________

Okay. My first thought would be… WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON?!?!? However, I believe I will allow the calmer and more rational side of myself to take the lead here.

In the first paragraph, he states that “He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president”. Only the first part of this statement is true. The second part of the statement is debatable due to circumstances regarding the accusations of voter fraud in Ohio. In fact, there are still questions surrounding the first time he was elected in 2000 with regards to voter fraud in Florida. So, Mr. Atkinson is basing his argument here on the debatable notion that the majority of Americans actually elected President Bush. The last time I checked, President Bush only had 47.9% of the popular vote in 2000, indicating that the majority of American voters did not, indeed, choose him in the first place. This tells me that he may not have been elected President in 2004. So, Mr. Atkinson’s statement is technically fraudulent.

In the second paragraph of this neo-conservative tripe of an article, Mr. Atkinson states that “this rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy”. He could not be more wrong about this. What he conveniently leaves out is that fact that we all know that President Bush either deliberately lied, ignored or fabricated the so-called “evidence” that he used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Initially, President Bush attempted to persuade the United Nations to enforce the resolutions that it had enacted against Iraq by way of military force. When the U.N. didn’t give him what he wanted, he chose to act on “intelligence sources” that fit his need. It turned out that those intelligence reports were, as previously stated, false or forged. See, that’s why we are angry with President Bush.

Something else that Mr. Atkinson conveniently forgets is that we have a Constitution that allows us to recall any elected official whenever we, as a people, decide that these elected officials have crossed a boundary that we feel is criminal. Considering that the invasion of Iraq was a direct violation of Principle VI, Section A, Subheading 1 regarding crimes against peace of the Nuremberg Principles, which is a treaty that we (as a nation) signed and that we (as a nation) are Constitutionally required to obey all treaties under Article VI of the United States Constitution, I would say that George W. Bush should be considered criminal. I will refrain from going into detail about, what I consider to be, the direct violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by deliberately subverting it via Executive Order simply because it really doesn’t pertain to this article.

In the third paragraph, he states that “if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands”. This statement indicates that the American people actually wanted to invade Iraq. Truthfully, most of us did. Unfortunately, we were deceived into believing the threat was real, so the folly belongs to President Bush alone. He committed this “folly” because he wanted to. More accurately, he committed this folly because he was told to. I do not believe for one second that he is intelligent enough to decide whether or not to he wants white bread or whole wheat, much less formulate a plan of this magnitude.

In the fourth paragraph, Mr. Atkinson attempts to frighten the reader with the possibility that Iraq might produce weapons of mass destruction, a point that has been debunked time and again. He also states that the electorate allowed it. Well, that part is true. However, we all (myself included) thought that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a legitimate threat because our President told us that he was. What are we supposed to believe? What reason did we have to suspect that he might tell us, the American people, a deliberate lie to get us into a war?

In the fifth paragraph, Mr. Atkinson again resorts to fear-mongering by indicating that Iraq would present a larger threat should the American military be withdrawn. I posit that Iraq was not a threat to begin with, so this is a threat of President Bush’s making. The right thing to do would be to pull out and let the chips fall where they may. At this point, I believe that a defensive posture would be more suitable than the overtly aggressive one that has been undertaken. There comes a time when the piper must be paid.

The sixth paragraph encroaches upon total absurdity. Mr. Atkinson actually states that President Bush should have implemented nuclear weapons and slaughtered Iraqis until they complied or were all dead. Then, he goes a step closer to absurdity and says that the electorate is cowardly because they would not be in favor of the use of nuclear weapons and the slaughter of millions of Iraqis. Had President Bush actually carried out what this future mental patient suggests, he would have been guilty of the worst war crime in global history. I may get flack for this, but it would have been far worse than the Holocaust in terms of loss of life. So, I’d like to ask this: Mr. Atkinson; how it is considered cowardly to not have a desire to murder tens of millions of men, women and children? How would it be considered cowardly to not have the desire to murder tens of millions of men, women and children because of the actions of one? Also; how would this be “wise”, politically, for a President to do?

This man is clearly off of his proverbial rocker and, quite possibly, genocidal. He points to this fact in the seventh paragraph where he states that “The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide”. Not only is this statement insane, it is also too limited and without depth. He goes on to imply that Israel must raze Iran. This is based on the incorrect assertion that Iran has stated their desire to “wipe Israel off the map”. This is untrue. What Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said was that “the current Israeli regime must be erased from the pages of time”. He also went on to state that he was not opposed to the existence of a Jewish State, “should the people of that state choose it”. Ending a regime is a far cry from wiping a nation off of a map, sir. Get your facts straight and stop drinking the imperial Kool-Aid!

He ends the paragraph by stating that President Bush must do what is popular, instead of what is “necessary” for the survival of America. It is true that he must do what is popular. That is why he was elected and that is the reason why we even have elections. However, killing every Iraqi is not what the people want and it is not necessary for our survival. What is necessary for our survival is that we must learn to accept that not every nation on Earth wants to live the way that we do. What is necessary for our survival is that we get help for the massive superiority complex with which we suffer and learn to get along with our fellow humans on that basis and that basis alone. Mr. Atkinson, President Bush and his cronies and the mainstream media that serves them would do themselves well to learn that.

Over the course of remaining paragraphs, Mr. Atkinson implies that President Bush should

A) Use Julius Caesar as an example and appoint himself “President-for-life”

B) Use Julius Caesar’s tactics and pacify a nation through mass slaughter

C) rid America of her only hope for freedom by liquidating Congress and the Supreme Court

D) embark on a campaign to rule the entire globe

Mr. Atkinson is clearly maniacal. He appears to actually believe that, to make America better, we should destroy everything it stands for and we should dynamite its very foundations. I am perplexed as to how this man who is undoubtedly suffering from some form of psychosis can righteously call himself an American. I, truthfully, do not know what is more disheartening or disconcerting: the fact that Mr. Atkinson wrote this drivel in earnest, or that there are people out there who agree with him.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.