Why is CONFUSION the Direction of Choice?

Please don't get me wrong here. If I had owned a computer and knew what a blog was, through the Clinton years, I'd have been typing like crazy then, too. But I didn't, so now that I do own a computer and do know what a blog is, I am going to utilize my free speech to at least ask a few questions. Is anybody in power listening to their constituents or to the words coming out of their own mouths? I have a real problem "outsourcing" some of our ports, well any of our ports, and especially to a nation that we do know has been linked with at least one of the very terrorists that was involved in 9/11. I've always known it was odd that we had to attack Iraq and somehow over half of the population swallowed that rationale, hook, line, and sinker, all the while considering themselves to be among the intellectually astute or at least the informed elite. Now that our President has absolute power and unquestioned authority, why have we accepted so many new meanings to words and concepts? Why do we call ourselves an ally to one nation, while funding their enemy? Why did we attack a country for possible weapons and terrorist ties, when we know the home country or at least the national passports held by most of the 9/11 terrorists? Why have so many soldiers died in Iraq after the MISSION was accomplished? Why did our President recommend to PM Sharon to negotiate with terrorists, when America has stated we refuse to do so? Why does America allow an ally to be subject to the attacks and whims of terrorists, while our leader says we are hunting down terrorists all over the globe? Why are we negotiating with Hamas? Why did we refuse to accept the UN decision to wait, concerning Iraq? How does Iraq not compare to Viet Nam when it continues to quagmire and already proposed through 2009? Why are we doing what we are? Why does this make sense only, to our leader's loyal subjects? Why are we allowing our national ports to be manned and operated by a country with known terrorist ties?
Why is confusion so acceptable?
For G~d is not the author of confusion . . .