GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--Nov. 18, 2003-- President George Bush will be the first American President in the history of the nation to make an official "state visit" to England that includes staying with the Queen of England.

      The closest "state visit" in American history was in 1918 when President Woodrow Wilson stayed at Buckingham Palace during a Christmas visit to then King George V, however, that visit was not considered a "state visit," full of pomp and ceremony honoring the visitor in regal fashion.
      But, there is more at stake than pomp and ceremony with President Bush and his wife sleeping in Buckingham Palace.  There is a great risk the visit will be marred by the footprints of the Beast of Terror who will line the streets in the thousands protesting the relations between Great Britain and the United States over the war in Iraq.
     More than 14,000 police, triple the normal amount, will be on hand to keep protestors angry over President Bush's visit from turning the event into a radical left-wing spectacle. 
     Ironically, the British people have endorsed the visit in a tacit manner.   
     According to a public opinion poll published this week in the Guardian newspaper, 62 percent of Brits agreed that America was "generally speaking, a force for good."   On the opposite end of the spectrum, 15 percent thought the USA was "an evil empire."
      Conducted by pollster ICM, the survey noted that 43 percent of those asked said Bush should visit Britain versus 36 percent opposing his presence.

      Prime Minister Tony Blair, under constant attack for supporting the United States, fared well in the ICM poll of 1,000 respondents over support of the war in Iraq.   Forty-seven percent supported his decision to go to war in this weekend's poll, up from 38 percent from a similar query taken in September.   Opposition to the war lost favor.  It sank 12 points to 41 percent.
      The swing of 21 percent is worthy of note--9 percent up in favor of Britain's role in Iraq and 12 percent down, against the U.K's involvement..   In September, 53 percent of those polled were against British involvement in Iraq, dwarfing a mere 38 percent who were in favor of it.   Now, the majority opinion favors British Vigilance in Iraq--47 percent pro vs. 41 percent con.
      What happened to the 53 con vs. 38 pro position within British citizens? 
      Why would a vast majority against involvement in Iraq make such a shift in such a short time?

      One answer is the growing arrogance of the Beast of Terror, and the growing threat that that Terrorism is a growing not diminishing threat to the children of the world.
       As more and more Americans and British troops die in Iraq trying to bring democracy and freedom to the 24 million citizens of that land, the footsteps of the Beast of Terror thunder clearer and louder in the ears of those who sit on the sidelines.  The threat of the encroachment of Terrorism widens rather than shrinks.
        The shift in public opinion in Britain in such a short time might be directly related to history.   To turn our backs on Iraq is a virtual guarantee that tyranny and oppression will flood back into Iraq's vulnerable veins.   It suggests that Terrorism will regain its strangle hold, perhaps with more strength than ever before.   Running from Iraq at this moment in time is not unlike the scenario of all the citizens of Britain hiding in their cellars when Nazi Germany threatened to invade the small island during World War II.   Instead of running, the citizens of England stood boldly on the borders, thrust out their chests and dared the Beast of Nazi Terrorism to force them to capitulate.
       In a stretch of history, the Iraqi issue is not unlike the one England faced six decades ago.   The more people run and duck and weave to escape the wrath of the Beast of Terror, the stronger the Beast becomes for he feeds on Fear, Intimidation and Complacency.
       Four-hundred Americans have been killed in Iraq and some 52 British since the start of the war in March.   One might think that an escalation of deaths in the post-war reconstruction of Iraq would add fuel to the fires of protestors, and drive those against the war into larger numbers rather than shrink them.
       The recent surge of deaths in Iraq has done the opposite to the British people, at least in terms of the most recent ICM poll regarding the pros and cons of British involvement in Iraq.  The shift from 53 percent against and 38 percent in favor to 47 percent in favor vs. 41 percent against is a dramatic mirror of responsibility .

      Saddam Hussein is allegedly paying Terrorists to kill as many allies as possible in constant guerrilla attacks.  All of them are designed to weaken and cripple public opinion, to send shock waves through Iraqi citizens that Saddam will regain power and anyone who aligns with the allies will be punished when he regains power.
       But the British aren't buying that logic.
       At least, the poll suggest they aren't.
       If they were, the numbers of protestors against the war would be growing not shrinking.   But the opposite is happening.  
       The more deaths that mount up on allies ledger, the more support seems to swell on the British side of the pond.   It is as though the public opinion in Britain was sending a message to Saddam and other Terrorists that the more they try to drive us into states of Complacency, the more we will thrust out our chests and fight.

        In other words, the citizens of Britain are becoming more Citizens of Vigilance, Parents of Vigilance, than victims of Complacency.    The British may be realizing that turning away from the Beast of Terror today will only invite his visits tomorrow.
        Then, there is one more factoid to throw into this pot.   The ICM poll also underscored that 62 percent agreed that America was "generally speaking, a force for good."
        Despite all the criticism of the radical left, and the ease one might take in wanting to turn away from conflict in far-off lands that appears to fly in the face of global diplomacy (i.e. unilateral attacks), the British realize America is not fighting in Iraq for personal, national glory or bounty.
        America, despite its critics, does what is right even if the world thinks it is wrong.  And, it doesn't take spoils of war for its efforts.

          The "force of good" endorsement means a lot to every American.   When our men and women suffer and die in combat, we often wonder why we are putting our young people in harm's way.   Then the quote:  "force of good" rings across the sea.
        President Bush may meet a lot of hollow Voices ranting and raving along the public paths he takes from the left who attacks anything that moves in righteous paths.    But, if he has the vision that has brought him this far, he'll hear the Voices of the Sentinels of British Vigilance.
        They will be shouting:  "Don't Listen To The Forces Of Protest--We Are With You--We Are Your Forces Of Good Voices..."    And, the sound of the symphony will be 62 percent greater than the grumbles and roars of the Beast of Terror's foot soldiers.    

Nov. 17--Two Faces Of Vigilance

WELCOME || CONTACT || FREE PLEDGE OF VIGILANCE || GUEST BOOK || THEMES || SOPHIAS WISDOMS || DONATE

©2001 - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design

The Pledge Of Vigilance