War In Iraq - In a recent national poll about 50 percent of Americans believe we will win the war in Iraq - the number is up from a low of about 35 percent. Every time a top terrorist is caught or killed presidential support numbers go higher. I expect the numbers to rise in proportion to the war in Iraq!
President Bush recently visited Iraq and met with their president. The meeting reflected the support each leader offered in the common quest to help eliminate worldwide terrorism, such as found in Iraq.
Iraqi military troops are now reportedly engaging terrorists with back-up support from American troops. It is reported that some form of U.S. military pull-out will develop over the next months in response to Iraqi troop deployment. However, most Americans support the president in trying to stop terrorism and offering a strong military defense, wherever terrorism is found. Americans have not forgotten 9/11 and the many innocent people who were killed. The post 9/11 strategy to confront terrorists wherever they would hide is working. Several top terrorists have been caught and/or killed by U.S. forces due to intelligence gained by a strong military offense in Iraq.
More importantly, can Iraq ultimately become a place of peace and democracy? The people of Iraq are slowly beginning to understand the meaning of freedom and democracy. One country divided by several ethnic and diverse political groups who dislike each other. Interestingly, it was not all that long ago when some nations around the world said the same about America. There were growing pains in American history, even a civil war … and other wars to defend sovereign land. Same will probably occur in Iraq. With help from America, Iraq has a chance to become one of the few free nations in the Middle East. (And a friend of America!)
Too high of a price-tag for some politicians in Washington?
Perhaps, but imagine if our president had done nothing to confront terrorism after 9/11. If another American city had been bombed there would have been a national outcry for stronger leadership by the president or a call for his ouster. Senators would have said whatever would have calmed the public outcry, not much different than what they did say after 9/11. Get Saddam Hussein, get Bin Laden, get the radical terrorists that the previous president allowed to go unscathed, said most U.S. senators to an anxious public wanting some form of offense against terrorists.
The outcry began in New York and spread across America as though terrorists had attacked a family member. The president had much support in attacking Hussein in Iraq. Of course, the decision could easily have been Iran instead of Iraq. As expected, when the war did not go as the media would have liked, there was negative press and support for the president dropped. As time passed, more American troops were killed and more people dropped support for the war in Iraq. Does any of this surprise anyone? No president is popular during a war, not Lincoln, not Truman … and not Bush. Time will tell if Bush made the right decision to enter Iraq to confront terrorism.
Bill and Hillary Clinton -Last year Bill and Hillary Clinton earned about $10 million, according to financial disclosure forms filed by elected officials. Most of the income came from Bill Clinton's fees for speechmaking (about $200,000 a speech.) Currently the Clintons are worth between $10-$50 million. This personal financial worth is expected to pass $100 million within the next few years (more book deals and such.) When you consider the pensions given to past presidents, healthcare, private secretary expenses, private office expenses etc., etc., the Clintons are doing quite well, thank you. Same for many other elected officials from both political parties. Rich folks, most of them.
$10 million a year income from giving speeches and such?
Not bad. Then again, I always thought Bill Clinton was one of our brightest and most charismatic politicians.
Do the Clintons relate to problems of working people in America?
You tell me. Then again, Ted Kennedy still says that he has that connection. The plain and simple fact of the matter is most Washington politicians have lost their connection to working people . . . and that is a shame on the system.
Term Limits, Self Imposed - Why is it that elected officials want to serve in office longer than they should?
Most folks know that voters, by about 80 percent, favor term limits on just about every elected official from the president of the United States to small town councilmembers. Voters know that there needs to be new views and leadership at every level of government. (And that means every level of government.)
What happens to cause this once-in-office-I-want-stay mentality?
Is it the perks, the fueling of ego, or what? Everyone knows there are other good folks who could do just as good a job in elected office - if they had a chance. However, once in elected office the incumbent creates a war-chest of campaign funds to scare-off any contenders, and possibly more important, incumbents create good connections for re-election funds and votes. It seems as though it becomes as important to plan for re-election as it does to prepare for issues involving the elected office.
It can be a head-swelling experience in elected office. For example, one day you are just another worker and the day after election you are called "Honorable John/Jane Doe" by everyone with a hand out for tax revenues. It is truly difficult to maintain ones personal character while being invited to every party and social event imaginable (mostly free of charge) while special interest groups attempt to introduce you to just about everyone at the event. It can be fun and it can wear on officials after a few years.
Why stay in office after two terms or eight years? The money? The perks? Social interactions? What?
I can understand why special interest groups do not want to change officials after eight years; heck, they just begin to know how to work the officials and new officials are elected. Not good for those folks; but, regular voters want change after eight years.
If voters had the chance they would vote for term limits every time … and that is the message to officials. Win the office - work for the people for eight long years - and move-on to regular life.
Doesn't work that way, does it?
World Cup Soccer - Team USA had a more successful game against the Italians, a 1-1 tie, than the previous game against the Czechs, a 3-0 loss.
What changed?
Game strategy. Team USA played a more aggressive offense than the previous game. If it was not for poor refereeing (too many red cards), the Americans might have won the game against Italy. Two red cards were given against USA while one flagrant red card was given against the Italians. It appears that the number of yellow and red cards given by referees thus far in World Cup games is even bothering World Cup leaders, such as Franz Beckenbaurer of Germany.
Team USA dominated the soccer game against Italy until it was forced to play two men down due to red cards. The tie means the American team must play to beat Angola on Thursday while Italy must either tie or beat Czech Republic for a chance to move-on to the next round of playoff games.
If you have been following the World Cup games, then you perhaps have noticed the mediocre play of favorite Brazil. Even though Brazil has won both playoff games, the wins have reflected a less than dominant Brazil soccer team.
Favorite to win the World Cup? Keep your eye on Germany and England, both teams have been playing good soccer.
Thursday games will decide the fate of whether Team USA gets a chance to move-on to the next round of games.
World Cup Soccer, catch the fever.