On 20 January 2004, George Bush Jr. President of United States gave his last (?) State of Union Address. In this article, I will point out 25 fallacies of speech on war on terror.

Fallacy 1. "By bringing hope to oppressed and delivering justice to violent, [the American servicemen and women] are making America more secure." Apologists of war on terror are quick to point out that there have not been any major attacks on U.S. since September 11, 2001. But what of numerous terror alerts? And how did deadly toxin ricin recently find its way into US Senate for second time! Or did ‘Senator' Ricin, ‘terrorist,' win a re-election into upper house? Does that not show that terrorists still present a clear and present danger? Clearly an early warning signal!

Fallacy 2. "Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America."

Americans and indeed world should not live under false hope of being protected by intelligence officers. Because terrorists themselves are becoming more creative. Who has ever heard of shoe bombers before?

The U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi exposed this illusion in her speech: "One hundred percent of containers coming into our ports or airports must be inspected. Today, only 3 percent are inspected. One hundred percent of chemical and nuclear plants in United States must have high levels of security. Today, Bush Administration has tolerated a much lower standard. One hundred percent of enriched uranium and other material for weapons of mass destruction must be secured. Today, Administration has refused to commit resources necessary to prevent it from falling into hands of terrorists." In this case, is America protected? If answer is no, what about other countries with less security measures and porous borders?

Fallacy 3. "We have not come all this way, through tragedy, and trials, and war, only to falter and leave our work unfinished." The war on terror is an unfinished business.

In fact, battle has only begun. Commenting on this, New York Times Magazine said that war on terror "is beginning of an epic battle." And to support this, La Repubblica newspaper said: "Today we get feeling that we are living in middle of a tornado, an unparalleled catastrophe." Those are not right words to describe end of a story.

Fallacy 4. "And by our will and courage, this danger must be defeated." That is a very upbeat statement. On 24 July 2003, US Vice-President Dick Cheney also sounded oracular when he said: "One by one, in every corner of world, we will hunt terrorists down and destroy them."

Al-Qaeda has now mutated into multifaceted anonymous groups. And this new phase is more dangerous than former centralized visible organization. Take a warning: Do not go to some radical Muslim country to search for terrorists. Because that your prodigal son, or your estranged husband, or in fact, that distant relative of yours may be a terrorist. A roll call in prison at Guantanamo Bay reveals that even some Americans and Britons—citizens of two nations in forefront of war on terror—have been "Talibanized."

Besides, these groups are becoming more desperate. They have succeeded in their use of surface-to-air missiles (SAMS)—tumbling down military aircrafts at will in Iraq. And make no mistake about it: these cave dwellers may crack a dirty nuke somewhere someday, or unleash a deadly plague. In that case, how would world respond? Detonate a nuclear bomb? So you can see that "we are perilously near a new international anarchy" according to Washington Post. The war on terror, therefore, is not winnable.

Fallacy 5. "And one of these essential tools is Patriot Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets." Terrorism can not be wiped out by legislation. After all, these are man-made laws and man himself is imperfect. There must be loopholes, and terrorists exploit weakness of system. Now, what if they stop living in cells? Or what if they stop keeping their money in banks? Then they would be as elusive as shadows.

Fiction. That literary genre, supposed to be for dreamers, is growing fast. Not in number of writers churning out fairy tales, but even among politicians—first citizens. And number one citizen of world for that matter—the President of United States!

Not that George Bush actually wrote an epic novel. But what he told Fox News recently, if crafted into a story, could make a best seller and go on to win next Pulitzer. When asked why he invaded Iraq on excuse that country possessed weapons of mass destruction when it actually had none, President gave three reasons as to how weapons disappeared.

First reason. ‘It might have been destroyed during war.’

He meant that fighting army during war in Iraq destroyed weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps those heavy military tanks shelling into desert country destroyed it. Or those bombing military planes. In that case, weapons were not hidden underground when UN inspectors visited before war. Or they were bribed. The weapons were conspicuously displayed in buildings—within reach of everyone, even enemy army.

If this were so, we should hold these ‘liberators’ accountable for destroying this very bit of evidence. Not only did they destroy weapons, they incinerated everything and scooped ashes into River Tigres so that David Kay couldn’t find any evidence. I propose that an International Court be set up to try these servicemen and women for destroying weapons of mass destruction. And ‘members of coalition of willing’ should be re-named ‘members of coalition of destruction.’

But if you are so skeptical not to believe this, there is another story.

Second reason. ‘They might have been destroyed by Saddam.’

My God! there is nothing that this Saddam can not do. Even in midst of war, he managed to destroy his dangerous weapons. But did he not need it to fight ‘infidels’? Why should a good soldier destroy his weapons in center of battle?