Let’s just look at a few drastic examples as to what has happened during the past year:

1.         Do we all remember when gasoline prices at the pumps throughout the country jumped to over $4.00 per gallon, based on oil prices of up to $147.00/barrel this past summer during June and July? The ‘experts’ forecasted that these prices would be with us for a while and might even go up to over $5.00/gallon or $200.00/barrel. This was immediately responded to by calls for more domestic oil drilling and building of nuclear power plants among other such proposals. Energy independence was a major campaign element propagated by both Presidential candidates and many others as well. Bumper stickers called for “Drill, Baby, Drill” and the only recognizable action taken during this time was the lifting of an Executive Order by President Bush to allow Offshore Drilling for oil. Well, five months have passed since then and what do we have? We have seen oil being sold for about $40.00/barrel and a gallon of gasoline has sunk to about $1.75. And guess what: There is no more talk about offshore oil drilling or building of power plants. The topic ‘High Energy Costs’ cannot even be found anywhere in newspapers and magazines let alone being discussed on television. It simply has gone away and is no longer a priority in peoples minds.

2.         The war in Iraq was a major element during this year’s election cycle and every candidate had a plan as to how to end the war in Iraq. Some even had specific timetables. Then-Senator Barack Obama committed to a complete troop withdrawal in sixteen months should he be elected President. He told everybody that the ‘surge’ had failed and that he had been against the war from the beginning, newspapers listed daily casualty figures, the Iraqi government was non-functional and on and on. And where are we now? The surge has obviously worked, as a country, Iraq is stabilizing and becomes more and more self-sustaining, American troops are being withdrawn out of cities and there is a total withdrawal agreement in place ending in 2011. Things have gone so well in Iraq, that while nobody wants to call it a victory for the United States military yet, the topic is no longer an issue of daily articles or debates on television. This all has happened in a matter of several months during this passing year, it’s almost as if the war was over.

3.         The other hot topic in times past was “Global Warming” and the Presidential candidates all lined up in favor of tackling the problems caused by this man-made and world-destroying ‘fact’. Now then, where has this high priority monster gone? Statisticians and record keepers are slowly coming out with facts stating that increases in global warming have not occurred in the past several years and the number of scientists no longer fanatically endorsing this phenomenon is growing by hundreds. In fact, some even recognize that the sun has become less active in terms of flares and that we might be in for a period of ‘global cooling’. We do not believe that it will be difficult to convince residents in Houston and New Orleans when they experience snowfalls in their towns in December that global warming is not really taken place at this time. This does, of course, not mean that this issue has gone away, absolutely not. The climate change enthusiasts are attending currently a major international conference in Poland where they debate and discuss proposals how to fight global warming and climate changes in the near future. These junkets are just too important for these climate doomsayers to postpone them. We wonder if these people feel deep inside a sense of irrationality when they discuss these topics while the outside temperatures are at or below freezing in Poland. But as a daily ‘doomsday prognostication’, global warming is pretty well gone away as a high priority for the worlds population. Unfortunately, the only people who still firmly believe that they have to take drastic action against global warming and climate change are politicians, better known as our elected officials. They are undeterred by realities and facts and they keep on pushing to pass more laws restricting lifestyle freedoms of their constituents.

            Now then, what has caused all this, the changes in priorities? It is called economics also known as a downturn in the well-being of people in general. Even though, there were signs of economic troubles on the horizon for many months, in fact, almost since last year in the housing market, it was not until mid September – a mere three months ago – that the problems suddenly surfaced when the credit markets dried up and the Federal government asked Congress for a 700 billion dollar emergency fund to free up the credit by providing funds for banks and similar institutions. This was followed by additional funding requests for insurance giant AIG and  also Citibank as well as the three major American auto makers in Detroit. Companies across the labor spectrum announced major cuts in employment driving the national unemployment rate steeply upward with no end in sight. Banks have failed in great numbers and in all, the economy is currently topic Number One! Nothing else matters right now and will not even get honorable mention in the media in the near future with the sole exception of the Obama Presidency, starting on January 20, 2009. Now then, is there a message in all this? We think there is and it is called the pocketbook of the American people. People have their priority and it is the well-being of their immediate family! We do not proclaim to know what lies in the future for this country but we would hope that individuals would learn at least one lesson and it is called “Putting money away for a rainy day”. In other words, get off the credit lifestyle and cut back some, get away from the instant gratification of purchasing whatever is desired and instead earn the money before you buy. It could be a great New Years resolution, we think.

Changing Priorities – Real or Political? is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Wow!  Every American should listen to this message.  We don’t hear about this from our main-stream media, do we?  Although it would make sense for American media to support America, we are not asking for that.  Rather, Common Sense Politics would like our main-stream media to report the positive side of the news too.  There are many great things coming out of our efforts in Iraq, but you would never know it listening to our biased press.

Mr. Obama – Loud and Clear! is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Accurate numbers are very hard to nail down so we will stay with approximations here. The war in Iraq is reportedly costing between ten and twelve billion dollars per month, an annual total of between 120 and 144 billion dollars. This is a large sum of money, no question about it. And since the Federal Government has not had a balanced budget for the past forty or more years, this amount is added annually to the national debt that is currently approaching 9.5 trillion dollars. That is a number 9 with 12 zeros behind it. Almost unimaginable but factual!

Now then, we came across a report entitled “What costs more per year than the Iraq War?” It was on a well sourced website and carries the above title. In 14 categories, it lists the costs spent annually on Illegal Aliens and then totals those numbers up to $338.3 billion. Please spend the time to visit this site and check the individual categories for yourselves. These expenses are being incurred not only by the Federal Government but shared with the States, County and City governments across the country. At the bottom of this article is a list of 49 United States Senators who voted during 2006 to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens in 2008. The list includes 38 Democrats and 11 Republicans.

While costs are shared by Federal, State and local governments we have estimated the Federal share to be about 120 billion dollars (out of the total of $338 billion). That is almost the same amount the Iraq war is costing U.S. taxpayers annually. Of course, in Washington D.C., legislators are only concerned about the expenditures of the war and want to end the war as quickly as possible to save money. Democrats constantly whine about this money and elaborate on what better projects we could spend these amounts of ‘greenbacks’on. But not a word comes out of their mouths about the hidden costs to America for having millions of Illegal Aliens living in this country. To the contrary, liberals and even moderates believe that we cannot live without these people, which we would all starve because it’s these people who put food on our tables. If they would not be willing to work in the fields and harvest produce and fruit, we would have nothing to live on.

We here at Common Sense Politics have to simply shake our heads over such utter nonsense and wonder, once again, why they do not get challenged by the media when they make such ridiculous statements. To the contrary, the media membership is only too happy to cooperate with these folks and spread their words so that we all understand how important the Illegal Aliens (they do not call them that, they are simply undocumented workers) should be to all of us. While this is ludicrous, we have to wonder why the members of Congress are unable to legitimize these 12 to 20 millions undocumented workers without any great effort. And even go a step further and open our borders to all hardworking people around the world to come and “put food on our tables”. Bring them here as soon as we can process them, by giving them drivers’ licenses and citizenship without tests, etc….

Is this crazy or what? It lacks even the smallest degree of common sense! But these 535 elected officials in Congress have no problem telling us, the taxpayers of America, that we will not survive without millions of Illegal Aliens as they do the work Americans refuse to do. There is only one final question to ask after this: “Why are we collectively electing these people year after year to membership in Congress and reward them every couple of years with re-elections? There is no common sense answer to this!

Outlandish Costs of Illegal Immigration is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

At issue though is the eagerness and steadfastness with which the media has been reporting them, we cannot shake the feeling that the media members can hardly wait for the day when they (finally) can report that the 4000th death has occurred. As a result of the current military strategy in Iraq with the surge in troops; the so-called ‘counter-insurgency’, there have been fewer casualties in recent months and they had to wait a bit longer. This is cynical to call it mildly especially in light of the fact, that now when things are going better in Iraq; the war is off the front page of newspapers and no longer the first story on the evening news. The media is apparently guided by the old axiom “If it bleeds, it leads!” This is also taken to mean “Good news is no news.”

We decided to look into casualty statistics of previous Presidents and the results were truly startling and surprising. The Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Analysis Information Division lists casualties by year (see below for summary view) going back to 1980. According to them, under President Bush Sr. (four years from 1989 to 1992), there were 6223 casualties of active duty military personnel, under President Clinton (eight years from 1993 to 2000), 7500 military deaths occurred while for the six years from 2001 to 2006 under the current President, 8792 soldiers died. Adding the 899 casualties in 2007, this adds up to 9691 in total deaths for seven years of George W. Bush’s presidency. Even if this number should grow to 10,500 by the end of his current term, the total number is by comparison about 3000 more than the one under his predecessor Bill Clinton when America was not even involved in a war. Taking these numbers as averages, under President Clinton there were 938 casualties among military personnel per year while the number is 1313 annually under President Bush. The difference is 375 deaths per year with six years of war in Iraq and even longer in Afghanistan.

Once again, every death is one death too many as far as Common Sense Authors is concerned, our simple question is: Why do the media members think that this information is only important to report when a Republican is occupying the White House? Can anybody remember that these statistics ever made it to the front pages of America’s major newspapers from 1993 until 2000? We cannot! This appears to be an agenda item for the liberal leaning media in our country and that is shameful. Their opposition toward war and bias toward Republicans twists their brains to such an extent that they do not care who they are harming and hurting. The families and friends of those who pay the ultimate price for our freedoms suffer losses that are unimaginable for most of us. By trying to create in the general publics’ mind a sense of futility and fomenting hopelessness when it comes to the war, the public believes this after the continuous reporting of bad news when it comes to this war.

With that, they are doing a disservice to the relatives of the soldiers who have died by making it appear that it has been a waste of effort and therefore a useless death. What about those families who lost relatives among the soldiers who died under Bill Clinton? Their deaths were honorable?  Those among us old enough to remember the end of the Vietnam War know that the same tactics were used by the media in those years and it resulted in the returning soldiers to be mistreated and even spit on by people who thought that that war was a lost cause as well. It is shameful that the constitutionally guaranteed ‘Freedom of the Press’ is protecting the media’s agendas and biases in that they report on whatever they believe is worthy of reporting. They should report on everything that is happening in this country and the rest of the world and leave it up to us, the readers, to analyze it and form opinions on the facts. Let’s learn to think for ourselves and not accept at face value what the media says are our thoughts.

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.
.

Military casualty Countdown is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Retreat was the answer or so it appeared. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to resign from the Pentagon, the President was being blamed daily for all the things that went wrong in Iraq, the infighting between the various sections of ethnic groups in the country and among the duly elected politicians, the presence of foreign terrorists and especially Al-Qaida made it appear more and more hopeless to end this mess. Iraqis were fleeing the country by the hundreds of thousands; daily bombings resulted in tremendously high numbers of fatalities and casualties among the locals and the American troops. The war in Iraq became the major concern for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Calls for a new strategy and a change in course of direction became the number one daily news story in the media together with the constant drumbeat of how the President had gotten us into this mess. At the beginning of 2007, members of the new Democrat majority in Congress thought they had the solution to this nightmare: End the war and withdraw our troops! Acknowledge our failure and abandon the country of Iraq! The American generals in charge in Iraq were tired, worn out and submitted their resignations or asked for re-assignments. It simply was not worth it any longer and appeared un-winnable.

Enter General David Petraeus. When called upon by the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, he accepted the assignment to take charge in Iraq and implement a new strategy, part of which was an increase in American troops by approximately thirty thousand called the ‘surge’. The U.S. Senate confirmed the General by a vote of 86 to 0 in February. The approval of the additional funding took three months to approve by Congress and the mobilization of those additional troops to Iraq was not finished until June. But the General and his superior staff had completed their planning for the implementation of the so called ‘counter-insurgency’.

What has happened since then can only be called amazing; there has been a turn-around of incredibly magnitude: Fatalities are way down, the country is seeing a strong trend towards normalcy, thousand of Iraqi refugees are returning to their country. Al Qaida and other terrorist groups and militias have been attacked and essentially destroyed, they are on the run and the most important elements in all this are the various factions of people in Iraq. They have decided to fight the terrorists, band together with the American and Iraqi forces to help stabilize the situation. Entire provinces, previously known as strongholds for terrorists and Al Qaida, have been cleared of those groups and are seeing a strong return of normal life, safety and security.

We have to ask now, how could this happen? How is it possible that the people of Iraq who looked at the American troops as invaders and occupiers in 2006 and earlier are now joining forces with them and supporting their efforts? Is this a miracle without explanation? We think not. The answer is simply that a man of extraordinary abilities as a military leader had also the skills and sensitivity as a common sense based person to approach this nearly hopeless assignment with a strong plan and conviction that it could be achieved. He never wavered in his pursuit of the mission, he did not let criticism by members of Congress and in the media bother or sidetrack him. He knew more about the people of Iraq than all others together, he knew how to approach them, talk to the many sheiks and other civic and religious leaders in Iraq, gain their trust and in return received their commitments to identify the real enemies of that country and then to fight them together and chase them out of their nests and strongholds throughout the country.

General David Petraeus was the one person who could answer the call for this task that many had considered simply unachievable. The previous vast divide between the three religious sections of Iraq appears to be narrowing and while there is a lot of work yet to be achieved, all indications are that they will be achieved. And it is General Petraeus who had the plan and he has to be given the full credit for the results we have witnessed so far. His resume is impressive and we encourage you to check it out on Wikipedia.

At the same time, credit is due to Petraeus’s deputy and day-to-day commander, General Ray Odierno, who helped in the execution of the counterinsurgency campaign. Let us not forget the 160,000 American men and women in uniform who have performed heroically and whose contributions and sacrifices are spoken of but never really fully appreciated by the American public. Last but not least, some credit goes to President Bush who always believed to have the war executed by the military commanders on the ground and not by himself, his cabinet, members of Congress, media, or those influenced by media.. 

Nevertheless, our 2007 Man of the Year is General David Petraeus!

This article and others on Common Sense Author 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.

2007 Man of the Year – General David Petraeus is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The eagerly awaited opening statement and progress report to Congress by Four-Star General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on the status of the military and political situation in Iraq is history. The two of them briefed the members of the House of Representatives Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees on Monday, September 10 and on the following day the members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees. The General submitted a comprehensive report with view graphs and statistical support data as did Ambassador Crocker and then answered questions by members of those four committees in a consistent and realistic way in approximately twenty hours of testimony.

For those of us able to witness the proceedings, it was a solid and sober presentation based on the realities in Iraq as seen by the two witnesses regardless of ones personal opinion on the war. There was no spin, wavering or duality of speech in the answers, the General was in firm command of his facts and remained consistent and professional in his testimony as did the Ambassador. All in all, any objective observer had to call it an impressive performance. It was the performance of the members of Congress that has to be questioned.

Democrat Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards has been talking for years about the “two Americas” in this country, referring to the gap between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots, the well-offs and the struggling people. In fact, this is one of his main themes of his campaign and he has promised to address and do something about this situation once elected President next year. Edwards is partially correct, there are two Americas but it is not so much the difference between the rich and the poor as it is between the political Left and the Right, Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. That is the real difference in America today and that divides this country in such a polarizing way, it is a disgrace.

Coming back to the hearings in Congress: During the week prior to the actual testimony, several Democrat Senators questioned the independence of the General’s report, that he would just say what the President would want him to say to Congress and similar questions were raised in an obvious effort to undermine the General’s integrity. In fact, it was called the Bush-Petraeus report on the floor of the Senate. Democrat Senator Joseph Biden, who is also a Presidential candidate, stated on ‘Meet the Press’ on Sunday that the General was and we quote: “flat out wrong” about the situation in Iraq.  These attacks reached its pinnacle when a full-page ad in the New York Times on September 10, the day when the testimony commenced before Congress, showed a picture of the General with text: General Petraeus or General Betray Us as well as Cooking the books for the White House! This ad was paid for by a very left-wing organization called Move-On.Org. at a significantly reduced advertising rate. Financier George Soros financially funds and supports this group and he is a person who openly hates President Bush and has opposed him on everything and every action the President has taken. Needless to say, the Senate Republicans were outraged about this ad and presented a non-binding resolution to denounce the ad, the Democrats denied them bringing this resolution to a vote and Democrat Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois called the ad and we quote him: “A poor choice of words”.

But now came the actual hearings. Congressman Tom Lantos (D) from California told the General in his opening remarks that he, Lantos, and we quote: “would not buy whatever the General had to say”. Several others on the Democrat side followed suit over the next two days including three Democrat Presidential candidates, Senators Joseph Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Their statements took up pretty much the entire amount of their allotted time with lecturing and grandstanding. The prize has to go to Hillary Clinton when she told General Petraeus and we quote: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Ok, she is entitled to her opinion but to call this General a liar to his face goes well beyond the norms of free speech. This was outright shameful! This woman wants to be the next President and therewith the ‘Commander-in-Chief’ and she had the gall to talk to a four-star general in a public hearing like this. Where is her sense of decency? Can we speculate what went at that moment through the General’s mind? Was he thinking of retirement when this woman becomes President rather then wait to be fired by her? His demeanor did not change, he just sat there and listened to what she said, a class act!  He did this even knowing that Senator Clinton voted to appoint him into his position.  Senator Clinton votes to have General Petraeus command the war in Iraq and then won’t believe what he says, even going so far as condemning his unspoken words before they left his mouth.  The hypocrisy that is evidenced by these actions is beyond belief, and it is shared by many in the Democrat Party.

We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ cannot fathom where this is coming from or where it will be going in the future. We fully realize that we truly have Two Americas, we are a divided nation but when it comes to matters of national security, wars, our military personnel, we should not be this divided. Hillary Clinton called the commander of our 168,000 troops in Iraq essentially a liar. Is this acceptable under the First Amendment’s right to free speech? This is so un-American that we challenge anybody to defend this. It appears that the Democrat Party has made a not insignificant move towards the Left; this reminds the older ones among us of the times before the Vietnam war was ended by the Democrats in the mid-seventies. As a matter of fact, the returning soldiers, the majority of them were drafted in those days, were not only critiqued but booed and even spit on. Will we see a rerun of this despicable act in the future? We most certainly hope not for it would mean the end of our military!

When Democrat Congressmen and Senators show this kind of disrespect towards a four-star general and with it the entire military in a public hearing, accusing him of misrepresenting the facts on the ground in Iraq, in other words, lying for the President, this country is in much deeper trouble then we think it is! General Petraeus has more integrity and intelligence than all members of Congress combined because he does NOT play in politics; he deals with facts and acts accordingly. He is one class act and our elected officials in Congress came across like mental midgets! America should consider itself fortunate that we have this caliber of men and women in our military!

Since the issue is ‘troop withdrawal timetables’, maybe we should consider another type of troop withdrawal. Maybe some of these ‘congressional troops’ should be withdrawn by simply not re-electing them next year. While this might come across as very partisan on our part, it is not! We are just attempting to get people to think for themselves and apply Common Sense when it comes to these issues. And we report on extreme behavior from whatever side it comes, especially if it is beyond the pale of decency and reason.

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.

The General versus Congress is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On November 26 of last year, we posted two articles here entitled: ‘Election Results and Analysis’ and ‘The People have spoken’. Based on the closeness of the various races in the House as well as the Senate, we concluded that the results reflected a shift among moderate voters, the consistent 15 percent of the American voters who determine the outcome of elections more times than not. They are individuals, who have no political party allegiance, nor do they appear to have a very strong value system, they are neither conservative nor are they liberal. They can switch their votes from election to election as to how they see things from their flexible perspective. They claim to be true intellectuals in that they can perceive issues from their neutral positions. They also claim to have high moral standards based on their own definition of such standard. Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘moderate’ in nine different ways, all essentially being not extreme, not excessive and keeping within reasonable limits and so on.

In the run-up to last November’s congressional elections, the Democrats and the media kept the focus on the Republican excesses in the previous years, they continually pounded the apparent corruption among Republicans and then got about six weeks worth of negative propaganda about a Congressman from Florida who had sent dubious e-mails and instant messages to a former page of his in Congress. The Republicans did not have an effective defense against these charges and so, the moderates decided that it was time for a change and voted ‘Democrat’.

While it is way to early to seriously think about the next elections in November 2008, it would be interesting to find out how the switch-voting element in the American voting public, our average middle-of-the-road moderate, views the performance to date by the Democrat leadership in Congress. Since they are moderates and despise extremes, they cannot possibly share the hatred the so called ‘Left’ shows towards President Bush. But are they genuinely impressed by what the Democrats have accomplished in their first four months in charge of Congress? Do they agree with the political football the Democrats are playing with the funding of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan while claiming to fully support the troops? Did they like it when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried her craft at foreign policy when she visited dictator Basher Assad of Syria while she then had a hard time finding it in her heart to accept an invitation by the President in the White House? Is it ok for the moderate switch voters when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid makes a definitive statement about the status of the war in Iraq? Can a moderate voter figure out what a Democrat means when he or she is against the war but supports our troops even though he or she votes against providing funds for the troops in Iraq?

It would be interesting to hear from the switch-voting moderates who were so bothered by the corruption of Republicans and the impropriety of a House Republican who sent questionable e-mails to a former employee that they decided, it was time for a change in Congress. We wonder who in the media or in polling institutions would find it worthwhile to check into this matter and come back with answers from those moderates.

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.

How do switch-voting Moderates feel now 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.

On closer review, it is truly baffling when one begins to look into the matter deeper and attempts to find out what is behind this, and so, we begin with a recollection of facts:

First, ever since the war in Iraq started, the Democrats have criticized President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for not having enough “boots on the ground in Iraq”, that the deployment level of between 125 and 160 thousand soldiers was far too low and that that was the obvious reason why things did not move forward in Iraq. A former Army General Eric Shinseki had advocated a much larger troop deployment and he was referred to constantly by every Democrat as having been correct on this matter.

Second, the President and his Defense Secretary conferred frequently with the Generals who were conducting the war and he stayed steadfast that “conditions on the ground” would determine the troop levels. Based on such conditions, the troop levels were adjusted and this number varied between 125 and 160 thousand troops. For his decisions, the President was consistently criticized by the Democrats and other war critiques.

Third, when conditions in Iraq turned seriously bad late last year by sectarian violence and other infighting especially in Baghdad, the President reviewed the strategies in place and came up with a new plan that he also conferred on with the current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. It was agreed that a new strategy should involve American and Iraqi troops should be fighting side by side to clear the capitol of the violence it suffered. The new plan also included the replacement of General Casey who had been in charge in the country by General David Petraeus together with an additional deployment of 21,500 troops to achieve this mission. These additional troops would bring the total troop level to about 160 thousand and was not exceeding previous highs in this regard.

Fourth, the President’s plan was instantaneously critiqued by all Democrats as wrong and that it would be ineffective and could only lead to more death of American service men and women. They indicated also that they would do everything in their power, having just taken control of Congress, to stop this additional deployment.

Fifth, the choice of General Petraeus was praised during the confirmation hearings and he was confirmed by the Senate in early February by a vote of 81:0, every Senator at the hearing wished him ‘luck and God speed’ in his new assignment. We should also mention that General Petraeus strongly indicated to the Senators that his mission would require the deployment of the additional troops.

One has to wonder what in the world is going on in Washington? Based on the above, the Democrats who were proposing for over three years more troops in Iraq are now against it because the President is for it. The Democrats in the Senate confirm the General who is now in charge, wish him well but deny him an important element in his mission, the additional troops. The Democrats will continue to attempt to pass a so-called “Non-binding resolution” in the Senate to indicate to the country and the world that they (the Democrats) are against the additional deployment of American troops while they at the same time claim to “support the troops” (and apparently also General Petraeus). If this should fail, they, the Democrats even have indicated that they will try to rescind and re-write (based on a new criteria) the October 2002 War Resolution (giving the President the authority to invade Iraq etc) and write a new one that will restrict the affairs of the military in Iraq. In other words, they want to take over the management of the war in Iraq which could also be called playing “Commander-In-Chief”, a role that belongs constitutionally to the President of America.

As reason for their action they claim that it represents the will of the people who voted them into power last November! Even if one forgets the narrow margin of victory in the Senate where the Democrats have to count on two Independents to have this ‘majority’ (there are 49 each Democrat and Republican Senators), the American people did NOT vote for the Democrats to trample the United States Constitution. By rescinding past resolutions and wanting to interfere with the day-to-day managing of the War, they are doing exactly this!

This is nothing more than shameful politics on the part of the Democrats! The only thing Congress, i.e., the Democrats can constitutionally do is cut off funding for the war (as they did by the way thirty-some years ago to end the war in Vietnam). But they will not do that because that would take a great deal of courage! They would have to tell the American people their reasons for ending the war in Iraq by leaving an unfinished job. And they know full well that the American people would not necessarily be convinced and buy their arguments. Besides, it could backfire when the next round of elections rolls around in late 2008 and they, the politicians, fear nothing more than not getting re-elected.

Americans have always admired courage on the part of individuals and groups and it is in this spirit that we here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ challenge the leadership in Congress to show us the courage of their convictions. You want to end this war, cut off its funds as you are empowered to do by the constitution of this country. Put your money and political careers where your mouths are and show us your convictions and the courage to do it!

Otherwise, shut up and work on matters that are less critical in this day and age, whatever that may be. How cynical are you that you wish General Petraeus well in his new assignment during his confirmation hearing but then you turn around and do not support what it takes for him to do his job: an increase in troop levels? Who are you to tell him how to do his job? He was not sent there to do the best he could, instead he was sent there to win this war and bring peace, stability and strength to a struggling democracy in the face of multiple enemies.

The more you keep this up, you Democrats in Congress, the more you look like a bunch of yapping Chihuahuas in the proximity of true American Heroes. The current Congress better be aware that it could go down in history as the “Two-Year House of Barking Dogs”.

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.

Shameful Politics 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.