A ‘point’ should be lethal upon first contact, and all contacts should be in critical zones powered by fatal energy.

A point is a stabbing weapon, designed to critically injure the enemy by inducing a lightning deep wound that bleeds proliferously through holes in internal organs. It’s not a stick Bush should wave around, beating himself with. It’s also not something that Bush should wave it around, trying to look tough and “credible”.

Here’s the reality version of the ‘point’. Kofi recently complained to Israel that they bombed one of their UN observation posts. Israel did the right thing, they said they would investigate. Here’s my modifications. Israel should, tomorrow, bomb two more UN observation posts, and make twice the amount of public apology and consternation. When Kofi Annan complains again to the world, and makes more fuss. Two days later, Israel should bomb 5 more UN observation posts. If Kofi Annan calls for more investigations, you should ‘leak’ an assassination order to Mossad to kill Kofi’s son.

The point is something people get instinctually, because nobody needs to describe fatal wounds, you can see it. You can see it, smell it, feel it, and sense it. A point that must be described is a plaything, it’s a non-serious attempt at “talk”.

The ‘point’ that it is not healthy for Kofi to complain about Israel, can be made with art and subtlety. Or it can be spelled out in blunt terms, which Bush is adept at. Or it can be avoided all together because of human rights concerns, in a war, as Israel is doing.

I favor straight line thrusts and dagger thrusts. Bush likes to swing his club around as if it is a stick that people will praise him for having.

Given the material and anecdotal stories I read about rulers, spycraft, and political decisions, the Kabuto dance among the world, the US, the UN, and Israel appears so fake to me. I expect there to be layers within layers, but it seems to be what it presents itself as. Bush means what he says, Israel means what they say, with their enemies playing 2, 3, or 5 moves ahead of them in diplomacy. I cannot believe that you can win diplomatic games if you say what you mean. It just doesn’t seem possible to me.

People might wonder what’s my beef with, given stuff. Well, my beef is that I already know when the right decisions are made by rulers. Because I’ve already visualized, read, and seen the consequences to wrong ones. The Iraq War, Afghanistan, Empires, history, all this stuff translates into an instinct for when I know when Bush and Israel did something incorrect. And what’s more, when a ruler rules correctly, his people prosper. When a ruler makes wrong decisions, his people suffer. That is perhaps The definition for the WoT and Israel.

While I might not always have the alternative solutions to current events, I would if I had the intel portfolios of the prime players. But Israel and Bush HAS the intel portfolios, they knwo the character of Kofi Annan and Syria better than I. So why do they keep making missteps in terms of both policy and media perception? This is not a case of inexperience, Bush knows what he is doing, he’s been doing politics for a long time. It reminds me of the idealistic Emperors and Kings in the past, that could do “nothing” because the bureacrats and courtiers foiled them at every step with their cunning and viscious power plays. But this is not true for Bush, Bush has all the Presidential powers he needs, given that he doesn’t use half of them, the veto and the pardon, to wage war with. Hell, ignorance is bliss.

I cannot answer why Bush do not step more wisely, because I do not have spies in the Bush inner circle.

I can’t explain instinct, because instinct is not knowledge or skill. However, there are real world examples I can point to as positive examples Bush should follow. Go to Pat Dollard’s site on the net, and watch the videos and hear his interviews with punditreview. These questions of to crusade or not to crusade, of religion or not religion, of what is iraq or what is not iraq, is answered there.

I liked how Pat Dollard distilled Iraq down on the net. He said, “Iraq is basically American teenagers in the military allying with Iraqi civilians that just want a decent life, against two gangs of terroists, Al Qaeda and Baathist local members.

Bush is effective when he is angry, he is clear and shows a sense of purpose. But if that anger does not translate into action, it means nothing.

When President Bush makes a point, a real point, it should be so devastatingly lethal that there can be no real defense against it (5 days after 9/11, complete silence). Everyone is silent because to speak would be to commit political suicide. That is a real ‘point’. Political duels are just as deadly as duels in war. Except it is even more vicious, complex, and ambiguous in politics. That is why the first strike must be lethal, you cannot bleed your enemies to death like in guerrila warfare.

I know Bush’s character and his philosophy, he’s been America’s President for 6 years, and the media has attempted to portray any possible flaw in his past. I’ve seen Bush after 9/11, before Iraq War at the UN, in this and that conflict. Haiti. His behavior is almost completely predictable to me. His speeches and his policy actions no longer surprise me, because I know them already before he makes them. But the one thing I cannot tell you, and do not know, is why Bush acts the way he does. Was it because of God and alcohol, his father and high expectations, or a lack of purpose in the life of a Bush family member? I cannot say, because I do not know. Psychological profiles and predictive analysis only goes so far into a person’s heart and soul.

Bush’s best ally is the military. Can you imagine what would have happened if the military had scions of George Soros, Donald Trump, and high profile Democrats in the officer leadership of the Marines, Navy, Army, and Air Force? You know how much corruption there is in a system in which the army provides loyalty to politicians in return for promotions?

Bush had the loyalty of a military that was the best in the history of the human race, not just America. In terms of merit, discipline, ability, power projection, and intelligence, Bush had the best of the best of the best.

His policies would have failed outright with the army of Vietnam days. So, how does Bush treat the military? Better than Hollywood, but not as good as I would have expected given the military’s loyalty to him and the nation. Why didn’t he do more landings on air craft carriers? The sailors loved it. Can you just imagine if Bush didn’t have milbloggers supporting his policies and educating the people? Can you just imagine his poll numbers without people like Michael Yon, Black Five, and Special Forces bloggers? It’s too scary for even me to analyze.

Again there is this shift. I expect a good ruler, Emperor, and President to make decisions that are not only right, but are 5 moves ahead of the opposition. Bush is not on this curve, for some reason. Historians in a 100 years will probably find out why, I envy them for their future hindsight. Well, that’s it.

Take Arab “civilization” as it is, add child cannon fodder” and the total is lower than the bribe of a border guard.

Would you say then we are in the oft-named ‘clash of civilizations?!’

I think so. Michael Yon allowed me to see the Arab world at close hand. I see values we can share. Our forces are exhibiting daily the worth of America. And Iraqis must be listening. NO, our foes in this country are not; they throw up every vile thing they can find. But we believe in who we are. That is the President’s point.

Like when Bush said “bring it on”, he should have kept saying it for 2 more years. That’s taking a visible stand in the propaganda war, and showing that criticism has no effect. When people know that their criticism in the media has no effect on human behavior, they will either stop or concentrate on soething else. Bush has always kept rewarding this behavior. Not only does Bush not appear on prime time television and make cogent and logical arguments like Reagan did, to counter his opponents’, Bush also gives people the perception that if you criticize him, he’ll modify his behavior. Not in the most basic policies, like Iraq, but certainly miscellaneous topics.