Enter the Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives. They did not like this provision and simply stalled acting on the Senate version of the bill. As a result, this act has now expired and its future hangs in the balance. While they explained it differently, needing more time to study the Senate bill and so on, the real reason behind the Democrats action is strictly political. The Republicans have accused the Democrats that their motives are very obvious: They want to strip the immunity provision out of the bill so that one of their major donor bases, namely Trial Lawyers, can go after these companies, file lawsuits and make lots of money in the process!
This is an absolute outrage! To play with national security in the interest of campaign fund donors and contributors is such an egregious action, it borders on treason! It is one thing, to let lawyers go after companies who might inflict damage on the public’s health; i.e., the tobacco companies and insurance firms, just to name a few, but to open companies up for such action who support our government in obtaining information on our countries enemy’s communications is truly beyond the pale and simply inexcusable. It should come as no surprise if these same companies will now be somewhat reluctant to continue this cooperation with the government, who can blame them. On the one hand, they are asked to provide information to our countries intelligence services in the Executive branch, yet the other branch, the Legislature says to them: “Do not do this or our buddies (who give us campaign donations), the trial lawyers will come after you and sue you for invasion of privacy and infringement of our civil liberties.”
It is very clear that by their action, the Democrats do not think that we are in a global war on terror. They call it fear mongering on the part of President Bush. Has anybody taken note of the fact that we have not been attacked on America’s soil since September 11, 2001? Does anybody think that they, our enemies would not attack us again if we let our guard down and made it easier for them? Or could it have something to do with the fact that our current President is taking national security very, very serious? We think the latter is the case!
It is shameful for the Democrats to play political games with this issue. While there can be disagreement between the parties over all other topics, national security should be off the table, period! It should definitely not be weakened in favor of the financial interest of political donors. It now remains to be seen what will happen once Congress comes back from their ten-day vacation. And once again, the liberal mainstream media in this country is playing along with the Democrats in that they cover this item in the back pages of their magazines and newspapers and hardly broadcast it on television or radio. It is for them also not an important enough issue to place it on page one. The consequence of this is an uninformed or should we say, under informed public and that is by design. If this issue would get the attention in the media it deserves, those Congressional Representatives would get an earful from their own constituencies back home and do what is right for America instead of playing games with our security.
We here at this site once again can only write about this as we see it from our common sense perspective. We believe that the fastest way for our country to go down in a hurry, economically and in all other areas is to relax our national security while just hoping for the best. We really have to wonder what makes Democrats in power (Congress) tick. They have all the time it seems to investigate steroid use in Baseball by bringing players before Committees and accusing them of lying etc. They have plenty of time to pursue political investigations into actions of former and present members of the current Administration but when it comes to what matters to every American, there is simply not enough time for that!
Words like shameful, disgraceful, outrageous and even Un-American are not strong enough to describe the Democrats in Congress, at least those individuals in charge! We have to wonder if it takes another major terrorist attack in America the likes of what happened on September 11, 2001, for these people to get real or should we say, serious. Or would they, the Democrats just do what they do best: Blame President Bush? Time for Congressional Term Limits, don’t you think?
This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Dangerous Politics is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>It is very interesting watching members of the Democratic Party in American on television. There are twists and turns on a daily basis that make it very hard to understand their positions. Until they took over both houses in Congress as the ‘Majority’ party, they were unified and focused: They consistently opposed everything Republicans and President Bush in particular proposed, suggested, recommended and acted upon. And they, the Democrats voted accordingly. And they were proud of it, they called themselves the loyal opposition and they considered it virtuous. The Democrats spent their entire energy on coming up with reasons why they could not go along with whatever the Republicans and the President proposed.
But then came November 7, 2006. the Democrats won majorities in Congress and were getting ready after twelve long years to take charge of things in the Legislative branch of Government. And so they did last January. They presented impressive agendas for what they wanted to accomplish during the first one hundred hours in Congress. Their power surge also encouraged them to attempt taking over foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq. After all, that is “what the American people wanted when they voted for them’ according to the Democrats. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (from San Francisco) became Speaker of the House and Senator Harry Reid (from Nevada) became the Majority Leader in the Senate.
While the House approved several of the highly trumpeted new laws such as a hike in the Minimum wage and others, not one of them have been approved by the Senate, i.e., none of the bills have reached the President’s desk for his signature. One bill that has gotten all the attention is the War funding bill wherein the President requested approximately 100 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats added about 23 billion dollars worth of pork barrel spending in order to get it passed in the House and attached stringent deadlines for troop withdrawals. The President had firmly and repeatedly promised to veto such a bill (and he did on May 1) and Congress will not be able to override such a veto because it requires a 2/3 majority. Knowing this, the Democrats had delayed submitting this bill to the White House. They are truly playing political games with this issue and it is shameful!
The Democrats also went on a foreign policy offensive when Speaker Pelosi and a small delegation went to visit Israel and the Syria (over the specific objections from the White House). Whatever she heard in Israel from the Prime Minister, she promptly bungled the message when she visited Damascus and told the Syrian President, Basher Assad, that Israel was ready to talk peace. The Israeli Prime Minister promptly rebutted her but that did not deter her from making other statements such as, and we quote: “the road to Damascus is the road to peace in the Middle East”. She hailed her foreign policy trip as highly successful and lectured everybody that it was time to have more dialogues, even with ‘our enemies’. She has been hinting at making a trip to Iran to meet and talk things over with their President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.
When she came back to the States, President Bush invited her and Majority Leader Reid for talks at the White House. Their first and instantaneous reaction was by both of them to promptly refusing to go. They then invited the President to visit them in Congress. Whatever happened next, the Democrat leaders visited the President in the White House after all. While President Bush did not say anything about the meeting, both Pelosi and Reid could not wait to get in front of microphones to say that nothing of substance was discussed and therefore nothing came out of the meeting! One can only conclude from all this that the Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths. Why is it perfectly fine, in fact, desirable, to have dialogues with dictators and supporters of terrorism (Syria and Iran) while one has to think about talking to President Bush and accepting his invitation for a dialogue or discussion in the White House? It is confusing, to say the least!
A few days later, Senator Reid ratcheted up the rhetoric when he unequivocally stated, speaking about Iraq: “The war is lost!” A day later, he amended his declaration when he tried to clarify what he meant by that. He said that the war was lost if we continued to follow the wrong direction that Bush was pursuing, the President’s strategy was wrong, wrong, wrong! Fearing a potential backlash to the initial statement by Reid, some of his fellow Democrat Senators tried to explain his statement away in even more foggy terms with incredible attempts as to what Reid had meant to say. It is called “parsing words” and their master in this, of course, is former Democrat President Bill Clinton who tried at one time under oath to explain several years ago that something depended of what the meaning of the word “Is” is.
To us here at ‘Back to Common Sense’, we do not need explanations, we fully understand the meaning of those four words “The War is Lost!” You cannot say it any clearer than that. Senator Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, has told the world that the United States has lost this War in Iraq, he has told our soldiers that they have lost, that they are losers and since he, Harry Reid, knows it, he is trying to end this lost cause and bring the troops home by pushing for deadlines on troop withdrawals! All his subsequent clarifications and explanations are meaningless and are nothing more than ‘weasel attempts’ by a person truly entrapped in his hatred for President Bush. But by making this statement – the war is lost – he has gone too far. Words have consequences and we have to wonder what the soldiers in Iraq, the entire military personnel and their millions of family members and friends think when they hear this from the leader of the United States Senate.
What is amazing in all this is that the self-proclaimed unbiased media has treated this four-word statement as nothing more than a minor event and at worst a poor choice of words. Had these four words been uttered by a Republican leader instead, the reaction by the media would have been the opposite. They would have been writing and talking about it for weeks if not months on end. So much for our neutral and unbiased media members, common sense cannot possibly allow us to believe this incredible claim of neutrality.
It appears that the Democrats who were in the minority in Congress for twelve years were not and still are not ready to lead. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are their prime examples of total ineptitude when it comes to leadership. With leadership come responsibilities and that includes making statements of propriety and not mouthing off regardless of the consequences.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Questionable leadership of the Democrats: Confusing to say the least is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Among the things that irk us here at this site, in no particular order, are intolerance, double standards, hypocrisy, truth twisters, people without convictions and principles, and so called preachers who do not practice what they preach. They could be called other things as well but let’s leave it at that for now. Applying some degree of ‘common sense’ can easily identify these individuals or groups when they act, demand or threaten others or society as a whole.
About two months ago, we asked in a column if ‘Islam is really a peaceful religion?’ Not that we expected a lot of responses on this question but we would have welcomed a comment from someone in the know. So, we decided to look into the religion of Islam for ourselves and see if we could answer the question ourselves. Here are some of the facts we found:
Islam’s Holy Book, the Koran is quite voluminous and has, it seems, something for everybody based on personal interpretations by whoever is reading the entire Koran or just portions of it. How else can one explain the belief by Islamic terrorists that they are doing the right thing, i.e., Allah’s will when they declare a jihad against all non-believers based on the Koran. While the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with these fellow Muslims, we have not seen a groundswell of open outrage and attack by the majority against this evil minority. Giving lip service to us non-Muslims is not enough in this day and age, we would expect to see more.
One thing that could be changed for instance is the teaching of Wahhabism in all countries where it is being taught, first and foremost in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism is named after its founder Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab who lived from 1703 until 1792. It is reportedly the harshest and most intolerant creed within Islam and is the only version of Islam allowed in that country. The so called Wahhabis differ from the orthodox Sunnis in that their laymen do not follow any specific method or school of jurisprudence but claim to interpret the words of the prophet Mohammed directly themselves. Isn’t this like when some Christian group or sect would decide which one of the Ten Commandments are good and therefore to keep and which ones are to eliminate? Wahhabis see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. For example, they believe that there are many practices that are contrary to Islam:
Photographs or drawings of human beings or other living things which contain a soul
Praying while visiting tombs (such as the tomb of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam)
Non-literal explanations of God’s attributes
Celebrating the birth of the prophet
What they call innovations in matters of religion
When the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mekka and Medina in 1924, the Muslim holy cities, it gave them control of the Hajj (the annual pilgrimage) and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. In subsequent years until the present, many Saudis including its ruling family have donated untold tens of millions of dollars for the establishment of Koranic schools also known as the Madrassas (religious schools for boys only) in many Islamic countries where the imams teach only the Wahhabism version of Islam. They apparently do not teach math or sciences, history or geography or other such topics. They only learn endlessly to recite the verses of the Koran. It is generally perceived that all those who have joined the Islamic extremist groups have attended these Madrassas. Wahhabism is the form of Islamic religion that none other than Osama bin Laden and the membership of Al-Qaida firmly espouses. One can easily deduce that the Madrassas are the recruiting grounds for Islamic terrorists, past, present and future if allowed to continue. Has anybody ever heard a Muslim cleric, Imam, Mullah or other explain this in a rational way to the non-Islamic people of the world, or more particular here in the United States?
To the contrary, we are Not being told anything of substance by them and their silence is deafening on this topic. All we hear from them and unfortunately also from our Christian political leaders is that Islam is a peaceful religion and we, the non-Muslims, have to respect them, their religion and their associated dress codes and traditions. After America was attacked on September 11, 2001, by Muslim extremists, we, the people, were asked to go on with our lives but to be also more vigilant in our surroundings and report any suspicious behavior to the authorities. This brings us to the following incident and its aftermath:
On November 20, 2006, six Muslim Imams acted suspiciously at the Minneapolis airport before, during and after they boarded a US Airways flight to Phoenix and their behavior caused great concern among the other passengers and the flight crew. Passengers became nervous when these six Imams prayed and chanted in Arabic loudly before boarding the plane. On the plane, the Imams asked for seatbelt extenders with heavy buckles and since they were not seated in one section of the plane, they moved freely among themselves from the front to the rear of the plane and continued their more than suspicious behavior. As a result, airline personnel asked them to leave the plane and after a security check, the plane departed without them. This outraged them to such a degree that they have filed a lawsuit against US Airways and now threaten to file a lawsuit against passengers of their flight. The clerics claim that they had been humiliated and are seeking unspecified damages from the airline, the Minneapolis airport and some ‘John Does’ (passengers to be named later).
It is outrageous to think that these individuals think that they can behave any which way they want and when being told that this is not acceptable, they SUE! This kind of double standard is simply not tolerable! Anybody who acts suspiciously, and there are many examples, on an airplane would warrant this result. The occurrences of 9/11 have heightened the awareness of suspicious behavior. But when you are a Muslim in America, you can do whatever you want including behaving ‘suspiciously’ on an airplane. You have rights under the United States Constitution and that includes the right to file a lawsuit against anybody who might humiliate you when you behave in a way that is dubious and not normal under the circumstances. This kind of arrogance is simply not acceptable and has to be confronted and fought.
In our humble opinion, the judge who gets assigned this case should throw out this lawsuit as frivolous, period! We do not know anything about the background of these six Imams, not even their names. The print and television media has suspiciously kept silent on this matter. Are the members of the media afraid of some legal repercussions, i.e. getting sued by the Imams as well? That would be ridiculous and irresponsible. The media should in fact present profiles of these six Imams inclucing their country of origin (if not born in USA), their background, their specific brand of Islam, the places where they worship etc, etc.
We here at Back to Common Sense believe that it is time for people to be treated equally regardless of their cultural and sociological background, religious beliefs, lifestyles and professions in an effort to wipe out certain double standards that are being applied under the guise of being tolerant towards some members in our society. We would expect any group of Rabbis, priests, pastors and bishops to be treated equally if they had behaved similarly. We are doing this with all others who behave irrationally or unruly. Let us not repeat in reverse the way the Japanese population was treated in America after the Pearl Harbor attack. By not holding everybody without exception to acceptable behavior in public is detrimental to our way of life. We all have to behave civilly to preserve this standard and whoever thinks otherwise will have to accept the consequences. There are no exclusions to this rule and no exceptions will be granted be they for cultural, religious or other reasons.
Is there a double standard when it comes to Islam? is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The religion of Islam has been for the vast majority of Christians just another religion about which was not much known beyond facts that their god was being called Allah, his prophet was Mohammed who lived in the seventh century and the equivalent of the Christian bible was the Koran. Their holiest places were in Saudi Arabia called Mekka and Medina. Members of this religion were called Muslims and generally considered peaceful people. As proof for the peaceful nature of Islam we saw in the past prominent sports icons such as Cassius Clay (now Muhammad Ali) and Lew Alcindor (now Kareem Abdul Jabbar) and many others convert from Christianity to Islam. These conversions were fully accepted by the general public.
Even though there were numerous acts of terror committed by Islamists (airplane hijackings, the killing of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich just to name a few) since the early 1970’s, these were isolated incidents and we, the general population did not consider there to be a trend. More recent events also did not really wake us up until the horrible events of September 11, 2001. Wow, this was unthinkable until then. Four commercial airplanes being hijacked and used to slam into the World Trade Center twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington D.C. and the intended attack on the Capitol Building or the White House that was spoiled by some brave passengers when that plane was downed in a field in Pennsylvania. We had been attacked on our soil by 19 terrorists of Arab descent, all of them Muslims.
This definitely got our attention and since that fateful day in 2001, we have been fighting the War on Terror with some success. But this war is far from over and is expected to last quite a long time into the future. As a result of these events, the general population has spent time trying to deal with this new threat. The acceptance of so-called ‘Multi-culturism’ in the past several decades in our country has had the effect that we have tried not to be judgmental and condemn all Muslims for these terror acts. Far from it, we have been told continuously that Islam is a very peaceful religion and that these terrorists are just a very small band of extremists. Anybody who has stated otherwise has been viciously attacked in the media as intolerant and hateful. We have been told that we should continue to embrace our Muslim brethren and accept the fact, that even they, the vast majority of Muslims, cannot do anything about these terrorists.
This brings us to the fundamental question: Who are these terrorists and what produced them? One essential element to be a terrorist is ‘Hate’! It is the fuel that lights their fire and sustains them in their agenda to attack Israel and the West, especially America. We are the central focal point of their attacks. Now then, where does this hatred come from? A new-born baby does not bring hate into the world, it must be taught to hate. Are there parents who bring up their children and tell them from the earliest moment on to hate Americans and all Jews? We find this hard to believe and outright reject this possibility. There must be something more compelling at work to teach young Muslims from an early age to hate.
Enter those who are the early teachers of young Muslims…the religious clerics be they Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams or whatever else they might be called. We all have seen on television some of them in their mosques or even in public places spouting very strong rhetoric against the enemies of Islam, the so-called ‘Infidels’. While we did not understand a word they said (and had to rely on accurate translation of their words), their demeanor was more than convincing. They were spewing Hate as they whipped up their followers during speeches and rallies, which too often were followed by violent acts of terror against mostly innocent people. Of course, we fully realize that one or two such speeches does not possibly produce these kinds of results and we have to check a little deeper by going into the teachings at the religious educational institutions such as schools like the Madrasah and others as well as the mosques where for all we know, the sermons include hateful speech. One similarity that Christians and Muslims share is the fact the religious leaders mostly read and quote from the Holy Book, be it the Bible or the Koran. Is it unreasonable to think that the Koran might include some hateful passages against us Christians, the infidels?
Could someone in the know shed some light on this by having open discussions on the subject for us ill informed average citizens? We have heard on numerous occasions that the Koran teaches only such things as peace and justice and encouragement to worship Allah. If that is true, then where is the hate coming from? Are there passages in the Koran that might include encouraging believers to attempt to convert us non-believers to Islam? Are there limits to these conversions, do they have to be peaceful attempts or are there options in methodology that can be applied for those of us who are not willingly want to become members of Islam and can we therefore be eliminated, i.e., be killed in the name of Allah? Did the prophet Mohammed encourage his followers to go out into the world and convert all infidels, even if it means to do so by the sword? And while we are at it, can someone please clear up the so-called myth about the seventy some virgins who are waiting for every martyr in heaven? Is any kind of terrorism an accepted form of martyrdom?
We are told that the Islamic extremists are just a very, very small group in numbers compared to the overall Muslim population of well over one billion people. If that is true, then why do we not see a stronger effort on the part of the peaceful Muslims to fight these outcasts? Most certainly, the extremists do not have their own mosques, or do they? Can we not assume that they are members in many mosques all over the world where they go and pray to Allah several times every day and if so, how come the good Muslims tolerate them in their midst? Is it against the Islamic religion to report on them? Can we not expect in exchange for our tolerance towards them some cooperation in the fight against these terrorists? Multi-Culturism should be a two-way street and as a rule, it should apply to everybody who lives not only in America, but for that matter anywhere in the Western world. If we are to accept their customs, i.e., dress code etc, should we not expect them to tolerate our customs without prejudice?
These are all questions in our opinion that we should try to address and get answers to from those in the know. A stronger dialogue between Muslim and non-Muslim leaders should possibly be started in a more open way and in public between the various groups, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims or members of other religions, and not just here in America and Western Europe but also in the Islamic countries where for instance, the wearing of Christian symbols such as crosses are forbidden! These efforts should all be coupled with an immediate organized campaign worldwide to flush out those places where terrorists are being trained and indoctrinated. If this means reporting these extremists to the authorities by fellow Muslims, then so be it. As Christians, we cannot enter and violate their mosques and other places of worship; it has to come from within. Otherwise, the great divide between Islam and the other religions will remain if not grow. To remove existing and growing doubts about the peaceful nature and character of Islam, we here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ strongly believe that a major burden falls on the Muslims who want us to believe that.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Is Islam really a peaceful religion? is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Should we change the Constitution?
The recent days have brought us a plan by President George W. Bush for an increase in mobilizing more military in Iraq in order to get control of the grim situation on the ground there, especially in Baghdad. The President had not even given the speech when the political opposition already criticized his plan. Since his speech on January 10, everybody has now come out and has given us his or her personal opinions and the American people have been polled and they are by a margin of more than two to one against the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. And of course, the media and most politicians in Washington are equally opposed to the President’s plan. Their criticism ranges from “It cannot work” and “It will never work” to Bush does not listen to them or take their advise, is stubborn and incompetent. But then, as one sarcastic man once said: “Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one!”
Who is in Charge?
This article will not address nor analyze the Pro’s and Con’s of the new Bush plan and the deployment of additional troops. Instead, we would like to remind everybody that in situations like the current one, there is still a Constitution in this country. This constitution is the foundation of our country as its spells out how we are to govern ourselves. According to this document and its many amendments, every four years, the voters of America elect a President to a four-year term by a specifically designed method, i.e., the Electoral College voting system. This has worked for well over two hundred years and we should not try to change it now. The President is also the Commander-In-Chief and that means, he is in charge of the military forces in this country. The constitution also states that only Congress can declare war on another country and that it is up to the Commander in Chief to conduct the war as he sees fit.
Now then, let’s review what has happened in recent years. On October 2, 2002, the members of Congress voted to authorize the President to go to war, i.e. use military force if the President thought it was necessary. The President then pursued through the United Nations Security Council by means of another resolution to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with previous U.N. resolutions. Failure to do so could result in drastic measures including the use of military force. This then resulted in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the overthrow of the Hussein regime.
From the beginning of that war, the critics warned that the President had not sent enough troops to Iraq and that he had turned a deaf ear to those Generals who advocated this. This criticism has been consistent throughout the past years. The sectarian strife in Iraq has had a devastating effect on the situation there and the relatively young government, elected in a free election by the people of Iraq, is having severe difficulties to get a hold of and uniting the country and its religious divided populace. The Iraqi military and police forces are not strong enough to do the job by themselves and U.S. forces find themselves in the middle of what seems to be a near civil war, it is a truly bad situation.
What is President Bush Doing?
The President has now decided that the previous strategies have not worked out and he has decided, after lengthy discussions with his advisors in the military and his Administration to deploy another 20,000+ troops to Iraq. This is in his judgment a new attempt to counter the continuing insurgency and the sectarian violence by using different rules of engagement in a new strategy requiring more troops. The next several months will tell if his new plan will work since it also relies heavily on stronger participation by Iraqi forces and cooperation by the Iraqi government.
In summary, President Bush is not yet ready to accept defeat but thinks instead there is still a good change of winning this war. As President he also represents this country and has contact with foreign leaders and hears their opinions and we are not privy to that until some time in the future. As Commander in Chief, he had to console many families of falling soldiers and he told everyone he met on such somber occasions that “their son or daughter, brother or sister or father had not died in vain but for a good cause while defending the freedom of America.” Can we really fault him for thinking this? Would not every President console the loved ones of falling soldiers this way? Would not every President try every possible way to win this war instead of just accepting defeat as inevitable? What if President Frank D. Roosevelt in June 1944 upon hearing of the thousands of casualties the American forces had suffered on D-Day in France had decided that they could not win that war and just pull out?
Regardless of which side any individual stands on the war in Iraq, there are three choices for everybody: One can agree, one can disagree or one can openly critique and oppose the President. Those are our constitutional rights. But we should also remind ourselves that we only have one President at a time and cannot change that unless we revise the constitution. We cannot remember a time in American history when a President had to ask Congress for approval and support for an increase in American troop deployment. This has never happened. Congress has the power to stop funding a war but a President does not have to ask for approval of military application.
It is ironic in all this that all those earlier Iraq war critics proposed a larger deployment of troops to Iraq and constantly criticized the President for ‘under deployment.’ Now these same folks and self-anointed experts cry wolf that the President does exactly that. This smacks of raw political action by the President’s opponents for whom he could never do anything right. We have to also recognize that the additional troops will not exceed the maximum troop levels in previous years in Iraq when up to 160,000 troops where there to fight this war. The current deployment increase would not exceed this number.
Should we replace our President with a Prime Minister?
If this is to be the norm from now on in that politics and polling by the American people will determine the course of actions any President can take, then we should seriously consider changing the Constitution. Maybe instead of electing a President, we should just leave it up to Congress to appoint a Prime Minister as they see appropriate. This could happen at any time by giving the appointed person either a vote of confidence or kick him/her out of office by giving him/her a vote of ‘No confidence’. Italy, for instance, has done this since World War II and they have had about fifty Prime Ministers since then. If we were to follow suit in our country, we could change Prime Ministers every couple of weeks, months or years depending on how Congress evaluates his/her performance in office.
We here at Back to Common Sense do not believe this will ever happen in America. Our constitutional system has worked well for us and it is not broken, therefore there is nothing to fix. The more than a dozen or so members of Congress who are declared or yet undeclared candidates for the Presidency in 2008 should just state their positions but refrain from this constant drumbeat of severe criticism of the President. Besides, do they not realize that this is certainly undermining the morale of our fighting men and women in uniform?
Unless something unforeseen happens to him, George W. Bush will be the only President this country will have between now and January 2009. There cannot be a Presidency by consensus or committee unless we ignore (and therefore violate) or change our Constitution. Is anybody ready and compelled enough to take on this task? We do not see anybody in the current crop of politicians who is willing to go there. Therefore, we think that the presidential hopefuls and wannabees should concentrate on presenting themselves to the American electorate in a positive way with ideas of what they would do if elected President. All other Bush critics should just bide their time, hold their fire, keep their powder dry as the saying goes and see what happens with this new plan for Iraq. If it fails, you will have even more to criticize by stressing that you had it right all along. If it works, you will have something to apologize for. Only time will tell.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
War on Terror is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>