ening them with sanctions and economic penalties if they didn't leave. They all left, including the Israelis, and that was the very last time any American president had the backbone to defy Israel and its lobby.

Almost simultaneously, he refused to come to the aid of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which had overthrown the communist government and was begging for help. Emotions were running high in favor of the Hungarians. I was in London at the time, and my own emotions were at a fever pitch. At the time, I was bitterly disappointed that Eisenhower did nothing. The Soviets sent fresh tanks and troops, and the revolution was crushed in a bloody and brutal manner.

So what was the explanation for Eisenhower's actions in one instance and his refusal to act in the second? Simple. Eisenhower did not believe it was in America's interest to alienate the Arab world with its oil resources. He also saw clearly that the British and French empires were finished. Why sacrifice America's national interests just so the British and French could have a last gasp at hanging on to dying empires and the Israelis could grab land they weren't entitled to?

As for Hungary, it was behind the Iron Curtain and of no national-security value whatsoever to the U.S. It was not worth risking a war with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Like Washington, Eisenhower was a realist. He refused to be swayed by emotions.

In 1952, Harry Truman complained that Eisenhower deleted a paragraph criticizing Sen. Joe McCarthy from a campaign speech. He did, but Eisenhower was always more interested in substance than in words and appearance. He later cut the ground out from under McCarthy by inventing and asserting executive privilege.

In the meantime, Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System and the strategic triad that kept us safe during the Cold War. The Strategic Air Command, the land-based missiles and the nuclear submarines all originated in the Eisenhower administration.

The old general was content to let the press portray him as a bumbling old grandfather type when, in fact, he was one of the sharpest intellects ever to occupy the White House. He also, historians later discovered, ran his administration with an iron hand, though he did it in the background, away from public attention. With Eisenhower, it was always substance, not show, that mattered.

Compared with Eisenhower, George Bush is a mental and moral midget. He has gotten us into two wars in countries that are of no strategic interest to us whatsoever. By acting like a suck-up to the Israelis, he's alienated not only the Arab world but the entire Muslim world. People should not forget that Jerusalem contains the third-holiest site to all Muslims, not just to Arabs. With his stupid sniping at Russia, he's almost restarted the Cold War.

We should learn our lesson. When we look at a man's background and see nothing of substance, we should expect nothing of substance. Eisenhower spent his whole life working hard and accepting whatever responsibilities were put upon him. Bush spent his whole life being the son of a rich man and a mediocre politician.

When presented with candidates, we should always ask ourselves if these people have spent their lives preparing for great responsibility or spent their lives campaigning and holding office. Officeholders are good for nothing but raising money, smiling and shaking hands.

(Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802)

(c) 2006 by King Features Syndicate