"However, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing clarity in communication."
On the contrary, we are discussing clarity in teaching the theology of The Church and the Creed is exactly and precisely that. Understanding the Creed also answers your question about whether or not the Son is the Father. The very question itself is either intentional sophistry or evinces an appalling lack of understanding of basic Christian Trinitarian theology (I vote for the former).
From the most ancient extant Liturgy of The Church, the Divine Liturgy of +James:
"Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, the triple and single light of the one Godhead, that exists singly in Trinity and is divided without division. For the one God is Trinity, whose glory the heavens declare, while earth proclaims his dominion, the sea his might and every physical and immaterial creature his greatness. For to him belongs all glory, honour, might, greatness and magnificence, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages."
And from some hundreds of years later:
"God is known and understood in everything in three hypostases. He holds all things and provides for all things through His Son in the Holy Spirit; and no one of Them, wherever He is invoked, is named or thought of as existing apart or separately from the two others." +Gregory of Sinai
"Please respond to the following. Some appear afraid to do so:
"Pres Bush's policies led to a war with Iraq."
Is that as accurate as it could be? Or would you think it more clear to distinguish between Potus 41 and Potus 43?"
I don't see that a distinction between 41 or 43 would add one bit of clarity to your statement which is essentially false.
How so?