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.