Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, January 17, 2019

DERRY, N.H. — The beheadings of Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff by the Islamic State enraged and horrified the nation. But someone who knows her state down to the block and town green level said the killings were felt even more deeply here.

The threat from the Islamic State “is personal for us in New Hampshire,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. “You know, Jim grew up in New Hampshire and Steven Sotloff went to school at Kimball Union Academy in Meriden.” More than most, she said, her constituents see the Islamic State “as the threat that it is.”

Thus has Shaheen, a Democrat up for re-election this year, taken a hard line in supporting airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. She speaks in favor of help for “the fighters on the ground in Iraq” and building a broad international coalition to push back the terrorist group.

But a campaign advertisement that Scott Brown, Shaheen’s Republican opponent, started airing last week underscored a truth about politics: that a candidate’s actual positions often have a very strained relationship with what an opponent says about them.

Brown, the former senator from Massachusetts, decamped over the border after his defeat two years ago in an attempt to return to what its members extol as the world’s greatest deliberative body. Yet his ad had little to do with deliberation and played instead on emotion and innuendo. It reflected Republican confidence that whenever the country gets scared by terrorism, it reflexively moves to the GOP.

“Anyone who turns on the TV these days knows we face challenges to our way of life,” Brown says. At this point, a figure clad in black and carrying an Islamic State flag parades across the screen. “Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country. President Obama and Sen. Shaheen seem confused about the nature of the threat. Not me. I want to secure the border, keep out the people who will do us harm, and restore America’s leadership in the world. I’m Scott Brown, and I approve this message because protecting the homeland is the first step to making America strong again.”

There is nothing quite like hyperbole to grab your audience, so why not stoke fears about “the collapse of our country”? Then notice Brown’s abrupt shift to the need to “secure the border.” Here he’s exploiting the threat of terrorism to smuggle the immigration issue into the campaign dialogue. Since Obama chose not to sign executive orders on immigration before the election, Republicans have had to find other ways to keep anxieties at full boil.

Then there’s the attack on Obama and Shaheen for seeming “confused,” the ultimate weasel word that tells us nothing about Brown’s own views. And this is where Shaheen goes on offense.

“What does he oppose?” she asked during an interview in the athletic director’s office at Pinkerton Academy before she spoke at the school’s 200th anniversary celebration last weekend. “Does he oppose the airstrikes? Does he oppose building an international coalition? Does he oppose doing something about financing and recruitment?” She added: “If he doesn’t like any of those things, then he’s got to be for putting troops on the ground, and, you know, at some point he’s going to have to acknowledge that.”

Shaheen’s volley hints at how the debate over the Islamic State could take another turn before Election Day. As she suggests, it is hard to be more hawkish than Obama already has been without supporting the commitment of substantially more American forces. But this is one place where most Americans don’t want to go — a fact not lost on her or on other Democrats, most recently Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado, facing Republican broadsides on terrorism.

There is also at least some evidence that Obama’s tough stand may have abated his party’s vulnerability on the issue. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found Americans approving Obama’s Islamic State policy by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent. It was the first time since January that Obama had cracked 50 percent approval on any issue.

Nonetheless, Shaheen, who leads in the polls by an average of 6 points, would be quite happy to campaign on matters other than terrorism, not the least being Brown’s convenient adoption of New Hampshire as a new political base. When the former governor addressed the Pinkerton Academy dinner, she mentioned that her daughters had competed for state volleyball championships in Pinkerton’s gym. There is nothing at all “confused” about where her roots are planted.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is Twitter: @EJDionne.

Screenshot: YouTube

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 63

57 responses to “Will The Election Turn On Terrorism?”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    As difficult as it is to understand the perception that so many Americans have about the effectiveness of Republican policies in fighting terrorism, that is actually a perception that many voters, including some Democrats, share.
    The idea that the party that was in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, when 9/11 occurred, the part that was unable to capture Osama bin Laden, the party that declared Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the Al Qaeda terrorists that planned, financed and executed 9/11, a Most Favored Nation immediately after 9/11, and attacked a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, is nothing short of amazing.
    How is this possible? Because of the failure of the Democratic party to articulate the failures of Republican presidents and members of Congress in foreign policy, ranging from the removal of Mossadegh from power and supporting the rise of the Shah, to dealings with the Ayatollahs, the cut and run in Lebanon, supporting death squads in El Salvador and Colombia, and the removal of Saddam Hussein and members of the Baathist party from power in Iraq. These decisions are among the most important elements in the proliferation of terrorism throughout the Islamic world, and the root cause for the emergence of ISIL and their plan to establish a Caliphate or Islamic State in Iraq, Syria, and as far as Lebanon and Jordan (the Levant).
    The decisions cited above, coupled with the myopic decision made by Great Britain at the end of the British Mandate, when they lumped three factions (Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds), that hated and fought each other for centuries, under one umbrella called Iraq, are the main reasons we may have no choice but to put boots on the ground once again, and babysit both Iraq and Syria in perpetuity to avoid, or at least minimize, the likely of a resumption of sectarian violence.
    The question is “how many Americans understand the root causes of the problems we are having in the Islamic world, and how many are willing to sacrifice our young to ensure Muslims stop killing each other and brutal elements don’t assume power in a part of the world where brutality is almost a way of life?

    • ps0rjl says:

      Most people don’t understand how these three peoples hate each other or how far back this hatred goes. Also nothing give people more of that “John Waynes” feeling than when we put “boots on the ground”. They just don’t want those boots to be theirs or their families.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Some also see it as an opportunity to get a good paying job working for “security” companies such as Blackwater USA. For some, a permanent presence means money, a powerful element in the decision making process of some people.

    • InformedVoter says:

      Mr. Vila fails to mention that GW was in office less than 9 months when 9-11 occurred. The failed foreign policies of Bill Clinton and his party led to the 9-11 slaughter. Just think about it, how could anyone put together such an elaborate plan in less than 9 months! The murder pilots were taking their air training before GW was even elected! Mr. Vila regularly posts and in most cases displays the type of reasoning and story telling that shows how uninformed and ill prepared most liberal voters are.

      • barneybolt12 says:

        You failed to mention that GWB was handed his daily briefing that mentioned there was a threat to the U.S.while on vacation in Texas,and yet did nothing to prevent this attack on 9/11.

      • JPHALL says:

        Which is why Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden twice. Of course Bush and tye Republicans laughed and said Clinton was trying to cover up the Lewinsky scandal. See:

        Oh yeah, both Clinton and the CIA warned Bush about Bin Laden. See:

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Let me make sure I understand it, President Obama is criticized when he admitted that he did not have a strategy in place one week after two Americans were beheaded, but W should not be criticized because he only had over 8 months to react to the daily security briefings – that he delegated responsibility to attend because he was too busy chopping firewood in Crawford or reading primer to children in Florida – which reiterated the warnings passed on to him by the CIA, the NSA, and the Clinton administration? How long did he need to put our law enforcement and intelligence agencies on high alert? More to the point, how long did it take him to decide that invading Iraq on false pretenses was a great tool to give the illusion that he was doing something to avenge 9/11? How long did it take him to declare Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the 9/11 mastermind, its financiers, and 15 of the 18 terrorists that carried out the attack? I could go on and on, but it would be a waste of time. There are some among us whose idea of being informed is limited to towing the line for the party, or pretending that any tragedies during their tenure was someone else fault. I would not be surprised if, in your opinion, the near collapse of the U.S. economy in late 2007 was also Clinton’s fault, or maybe Obama’s since there were rumors circulating at that time that he was considering running for President. When something goes wrong while a Republican is in charge, the buck stops anywhere but at his desk. If in doubt, call Lt. Col. North.

        • InformedVoter says:

          Since you brought up the 2008 financial meltdown, it was a result of the Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate in the 2006 mid-terms. The Democrats pushed through economic policies that led to the crisis of 2008!
          Obama has had 6 years to make his policies effective. He has failed miserably. Just look at the crises he’s started with his open border policy. We now have Ebola in our country with school children having been exposed. We have TB in several states because of the open border policy with Mexico.
          As to just following along, by far its the Democrats that lock step and the reason why is to continue their handouts! President Obola’s numbers are now lower than GW’s ever were. And the reason GW’s numbers were low was because of the lame stream media constantly printing propaganda. Meanwhile, Obola has had 6 years of royal treatment from the media so the only reason his numbers have gotten so rotten is that people are beginning to see that the emperor has no clothes.

          • Independent1 says:

            What utter nonsense!! The Dems had NO TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO WHERE THEY COULD ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING UNTIL 01/20/09!! Any legislation or viable fed rules pass were passed and put into effect before 2009 had to have been signed by GWB or approved by the GOP appointed head of the fed!! Get off your pathological lying rhetoric!!

            The Dems only had filibuster free control of the Senate for less than 1 year with a Dem in the White House so they could get ANY LEGISLATION PASSED. The Dems lost filibuster free control of the Senate on 8/15/09 when Ted Kennedy died and then had it for a couple more months after when Mass appointed a Dem as a temporary replacement for Ted. But when Scott Brown was elected to replace Ted in a special election they lost control again and have not gotten it back. That’s why filibuster Mitch has been able to use the fake filibuster more than 425 times to thwart anything the Dems have wanted to accomplish.

          • Independent1 says:

            Since you seem to love the GOP so much, why don’t you try making excuses for GOP Governance when it creates such disastrous states:

            9 of the 10 states with the most gun related violence are Red States

            § States with most Gun Violence per 100,000 – 2012: Homicides/Assaults/Violent Crime

            § LA-9.53/99.51/555.3
            § AK-4.22/80.47/606.5
            § AL-5.92/40.50/420.1
            § AZ-4.24/57.36/405.9
            § MS-6.91/51.69/269.8
            § NM-3.69/87.26/567.5
            § MO-5.59/88.90/447.4
            § GA-4.57/58.64/373.2
            § AR-4.53/100.56/480.9

            7 of the 10 most violent states are red states
            Violent Crimes per 100,000 Population – 2012

            23 of the 25 states with the highest auto fatality rates are Red States. Here’s a list of the 1st 10:

            Auto Fatalities per One Million Miles Driven – 2010

            -11 of the 12 states that have the highest infant
            mortality rates in the nation are GOP-RUN STATES? With Mississippi having the highest infant mortality followed by Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, S. Carolina, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Indiana & Ohio.

            -20 of the 24 states that have more than 12% of their population struggling with incomes below the poverty level (the states that need the most welfare assistance) are GOP-RUN STATES. The only Blue States in the top 23 are California, New Mexico, and New York. While for 2013, the 8 states with the highest average incomes, including the 3 with the highest minimum wage standard, are all Blue States.

            – 15 of the 20 states with the highest average rates of homicide over the past 5 years are GOP-RUN STATES. With Louisiana being by far the murder capital of America followed by Mississippi, New Mexico, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama,
            Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, N. Carolina, Nevada and Florida.

            -9 of the 12 states with 6 or more public servants per 10,000 public employees convicted of
            corruption are GOP-RUN STATES: led by Louisiana with 10.5, Kentucky – 8.5; S.Dakota – 7.5, Delaware – 7.2; Mississippi – 7.1; Alabama – 7.1; Pennsylvania – 7.1; N. Dakota – 6.9; New Jersey; 6.7; Montana – 6.5; Ohio – 6.3 and Tennessee- 6.0.

            -12 of the 15 states that get back the most federal aid for the tax dollars they send to Washington are GOP-RUN STATES; And all 10 that get more than $1.75 back for each $1 they send to Washington in tax revenues are red states. Of the 17 states that get back less tax dollars in federal aid than they send to Washington in tax revenues, ONLY 3 OF THEM ARE GOP RUN STATES. All 10 of the
            states that get the least federal aid for the taxes they pay (less than .75/$1) are BLUE STATES. All this implies that it’s 14 Democrat-run states that are supporting the nation, because the 3
            GOP-governed states get back between 96-99 cents/$1 of taxes so they’re not doing very much to support America.

            8 of the 10 most corrupt states are GOP-Run states: Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Kentucky and Florida.

            – More than 75% of food stamp recipients live in GOP-RUN STATES. Six of the top 10 food stamp-using states are GOP-RUN states and beyond that the greatest food stamp using states are the sparsely populated red states. And of the 456
            counties in America that use more than 90% of all food stamps, 421 of those counties (92%) voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

            – the GOP-RUN STATE most Republicans probably look to as a shining light for the GOP, Texas, which is the second largest economy in America behind California, compares very poorly to other states in America. Texas ranks in the bottom 5 in more than 90% of 23 subjective measures when compared to other American states! Even though the GOP has had 20 plus years to turn it into something other than a job creation machine, Texas continues to
            shortchange its residents living standards and exposes them to many hazards; including living in the most polluted environment in America.

            -Finally, all 15 of the states with the lowest life
            expectancy in the U.S. are GOP-RUN STATES?? Such that there is a large disparity in longevity between Red States and Blue States: on average,
            residents of blue states live 2 years longer than residents of red states. To the extreme, the Blue State residents of 9 states with longevity projected to 80 and older, live as much as 5-6 years longer than the residents of the 4 shortest-lived GOP-RUN STATES of MS,WV,AL & LA. Follow this: starting with longevity projections for red states of 75 in: Miss., W. Va., Ala. & LA.; to 76 in: Arkansas, Kentucky & Tennessee to 77 in: S. Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio & N. Carolina; while no Blue State has a longevity projection
            of less than 78, and many Blue states have longevity projected to 80 and over: N.J., N.H., Vermont, N.Y., Mass., Calif., CT, Minn. & Hawaii; Only one red state has longevity projected to 80 Utah (80.2), while 2 Blue States have longevity projections of over 81 –Minn. & Hawaii)

          • Independent1 says:

            And if what I listed for you previously wasn’t bad enough, how about the fact that GOP-run states also lead the nation in being the most miserable states to live in:

            9 of the 10 most miserable cities in America are in Red States:
            Huntington/Ashland, WVA, Charleston, WVA, Redding, CA, Spartansburg, SC, Hickory–Lenoir-Morganton, NC, Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX. Columbus, GA/AL, Shreveport/Bossier City, LA, Mobile, AL, Evansville, In/KY.

            All 10 of America’s poorest cities are in Red States: Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas, Dalton, Ga., McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, Gadsden, Ala., Lake Havasu City-Kingman, Ariz., Albany, Ga., Monroe, La., Cumberland.W.Va., Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla, Pine Bluff, Ark;

            While 9 of the 10 richest cities are in Blue States: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md.,
            Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn., San
            Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif., Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, Mass.-N.H. , Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif., Anchorage, Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii, Manchester-Nashua, N.H., Napa, Calif.

            All 10 of America’s most miserable states, those with the least “well-being factor” for their residents are GOP-Run states with the worst being West Virginia and then: Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Arkansas,Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and last but not least – Louisiana.

          • InformedVoter says:

            You are a typical brainwashed liberal. Blah, blah, blah, “IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!”.
            I’m sure all of the folks that have used guns, had traffic accidents, etc, are ONLY Republicans.
            As to the nice places to live, did you mention that California, Hawaii, Illionois and New York, plus other “not so nice” states are in a financial death spiral with way more residents collecting from than are paying into.
            President Obola has spent what, $300 hundred to $500 million on his many vacations. When a crisis hits, or when a decision has to be made, he’s off campaigning! During the Bin Laden take down (which was a result of GW’s work) Obola was playing pool!
            Financial experts agree that the 2008 financial meltdown was a result of the Democratic policies that were put in place after they took control of the House and Senate in 2006.
            Even Michael Moore has given up on Obola and has been quoted as saying that Obola has been a great disappointment and that the ONLY thing Obola will be remembered for will be he was the first black elected president. When someone like Moore, who undoubtedly hates the color red begins to make public statements like that, you know damn well things are really bad!
            I will give you credit for not using the claim that most liberals use – blah, blah, blah, you’re a racist! Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.

          • Independent1 says:

            Talk about brainwashed – everything you just posted is a blatant lie!!!!!!!! I’m not even going to waste my time refuting most of the obvious lies – I’m just going to blow away your idiocy on Obama’s vacations!!!

            Obama has clearly taken far less vacations and spent far less time playing golf than any president since Truman.

            And here’s an article from FactCheck that PROVES THAT!!!

            Q: Is it true that George W. Bush took more vacation days than Barack Obama?

            A: Yes. Before his two-week trip to Martha’s Vineyard in August, Obama’s count was 125 full or partial days and Bush’s total at the same point in his presidency was 407.

            But keep this in mind too. Like all of the last 4 GOP presidents, Bush cost the taxpayers millions upgrading their homes to be suitable as a White House away from DC. And guess who has reaped the benefit of those millions that WE THE TAXPAYERS SPENT?? Of course it’s been the GOP presidents who cost us that expense so they could spend every chance they could in those FAR AWAY 2nd White Houses like in Texas and Florida and California. Costing us taxpayers even more millions flying back and forth to those 2nd White Houses… Bush did it 78 times during his 8 years in office, costing us taxpayers more millions than Obama has even dreamed of spending. Remember, aside from the travel expenses associated with getting a president to a vacation spot, THE PRESIDENT PAYS FOR EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH HIS VACATION!! THE MEALS, THE LODGING, EVERYTHING!!! The president even gets a bill every month for all the food used at the White House that hasn’t been used to entertain a foreign dignitary.

            So here’s more on just how extensive Bush’s vacations were – leading all modern day presidents with almost 900 days vacation in 8 years!!!!!!!!

            Our inbox is chock full of questions about who took more vacation days, Obama or Bush. (The short answer: Bush. The long answer: There’s no such thing as a true non-working vacation for the president.)

            The recent barrage from our readers coincides with Obama’s 15-day family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard — he returned to the White House on Aug. 24 – which occurred during major news events including the beheading of a U.S. journalist by Islamic militants and protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old black man. The vacation also occurred during the funeral of Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene, the only general officer killed in Afghanistan.

            Obama faced criticism for being on vacation during these times, but those types of complaints are nothing new — either to Obama or presidents in general.

            Readers may recall the criticism directed at Bush for the August weeks spent at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Others may remember Democrats chastising President Dwight Eisenhower for spending time on the golf course.

            We last dealt with the who-took-more-vacation question in January 2010, at which point Obama had spent 26 days on “vacation” during his first year in office, fewer than the first year totals for Presidents Bush, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Our numbers are all courtesy of CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and tracks the commander in chief’s travel.

            But, as we noted then, presidents never fully escape from the job. Knoller told us he doesn’t consider these days away from the White House real “vacation” days. He said then in an email: “I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation. The job — and its awesome powers and responsibilities — is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing.”

            Bush officials called the Crawford ranch the “Western White House” to emphasize the days there involved plenty of official business, and Obama’s recent Martha’s Vineyard break included several presidential statements and two days spent back at the White House in the middle of the “vacation.” Presidents may clear brush or hit the links, but they are never actually off the clock.

            Still, much is made of these presidential vacation days — and how to count them. Knoller doesn’t include visits to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland often used to host foreign leaders. On Aug. 8, the day before Obama left for Martha’s Vineyard, Knoller tweeted that Obama had spent 125 full or partial days on vacation, and at the same point in Bush’s president, he had spent 381 days at his Texas ranch plus 26 days at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a total of 407.

            When we emailed Knoller on Aug. 26, Obama was up to 140 days by his count. Bush’s total for his two terms in office is 533 days, which includes 490 at the ranch and the rest at Kennebunkport. For comparison’s sake, President Bill Clinton’s total is 174 days, and Reagan hit 390 (349 at his ranch and 41 in Palm Springs), according to Knoller.

            Adding in Camp David visits would bring Obama’s total to date to 223 (that’s 83 days at Camp David) and Bush’s total for his entire time in office to 1,024 (491 days at the presidential retreat). Note that Obama still has more than two years in office to narrow the gap.

            Deciding how to count these “vacation” days can create some confusion. CNN recently listed a count of 879 days for Bush and 150 for Obama, numbers that came from a Washington Post “Outlook” piece on “Five myths on presidential vacations.”(Myth No. 1: “Presidents get vacations.”) The 879 figure, it turns out, is from March 3, 2008, at which point Bush had spent that many days at the ranch and Camp David (but it doesn’t include days in Kennebunkport). The numbers are in a 2008Washington Post piece and attributed to Knoller.

            If readers want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, the best solution is to use Knoller’s figures as of August 8, cited above: Bush, 407; Obama, 125. But the numbers say more about how many days the presidents spent away from the White House than they do about how much time the presidents spent not working.

            – Lori Robertson

          • InformedVoter says:

            I was waiting for you to quote Factcheck as most know that Factcheck is funded largely by Soros and upon independent inspection, Factcheck has proven to be incorrect 79% of the time in favor of the left.
            But to use part of your own source, Reagan and Bush WORKED from their home states. Meanwhile Obama spent $300 to $500 million on vacations to Africa (perhaps his home state?) or on extravagant vacations for his wife and kids in the Caribbean, etc. But the big difference is that Obama was truly on vacation and refused daily updates. And how much to fly the dog to Camp David?
            Don’t be so close minded. It is apparent that the Obama administration is trying to destroy the American way of life and to make the US population dependent upon government handouts. In the past 6 years, besides the mushrooming national debt, the number of unemployed has skyrocketed. Likewise with the number on food stamps and just plain welfare.
            People express concern over Social Security or Medicare running out of money, but no one ever worries about welfare or food stamps running out of money. In the first instance, the money is for those who worked and paid into the system. in the latter case, it’s those who are not paying into the system. What’s wrong with this picture?
            Stop falling for the lies the administration is telling and at least question their moves and motives. You might be surprised in what you discover. If things are going so great with Obama’s 6 years, they why all the concern about losing the Senate (no chance to capture the House)? I know, everyone but you are misinformed. Get real!

          • Independent1 says:

            You’re without question the biggest pathological liar I’ve come across on the NM – what absolute rot!!!!

            Obama has taken one trip to Africa – Georgie Boy and Laura took 2 trips there and Laura took 3 trips with their two daughters on their own. Africa is basically the only place on the planet Georgie Boy can travel without being arrested for crimes against humanity. Keep up with those bald faced lies!!! Wow!! You can spew them faster than a speeding bullet!! Go bury your head in the sand if you can ever get it unstuck from your butt!!!!!!!

          • InformedVoter says:

            You are so out of touch with reality. Jack Nicholson, in the movie “A Few Good Men” used the line “the truth, you can’t stand the truth”.
            That is your problem. Whenever a liberal enters into a debate or dialogue and gets the ass kicked (as what happened to you), they revert to quoting meaningless facts and then resort to name calling. The facts you provided about happy states and auto accidents has nothing to do with political party.
            The truth is Obama spent $100 million for his Africa trip and another $40 million for his daughter’s birthday party in the Bahamas. In total, Obama has spend nearly $500 million for his “don’t call me while I’m on vacation” vacations. Reagan (western white house) and Bush (Texas white house) worked while away from DC. Obama spends his time fund raising and golfing. It’s apparent that you haven’t the mental capacity to comprehend true facts. To continue to communicate with you is fruitless!

          • Independent1 says:

            You really are a dimwit aren’t you ??? You just fail to understand that there’s absolutely NO WAY Obama could cost the taxpayers that kind of money.


            EVERYTHING!! EVERYTHING!! The President spends when he’s traveling COMES OUT OF THE PRESIDENT’S POCKET!!!





            And if you’re talking about going to Africa, George and Laura Bush DID THAT UP IN SPADES!!!!!!!!

            in 2003, Bush laid the groundwork for making aid to Africa his legacy. One of the areas where Bush drew praise was that he spent billions of taxpayer dollars on aid to Africa. Why could the country afford to spend billions of dollars during Bush’s no growth economy, but they can’t afford to spend at least $60 million for the sitting president to travel today?

            Giving aid to Africa to combat malaria and AIDS is a very noble cause. It literally saves lives, but 5 goodwill visits to Africa aren’t cheap. Laura Bush
            wasn’t flying all alone on a commercial flight. Her trips cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

            During Bush’s 2nd term alone, Laura Bush made 5 trips to Africa. President Bush made the trip twice during his presidency. Here is former First Lady Bush at an event the night before their
            trip in 2008, “Tomorrow, President Bush and I leave for what will be my fifth trip to Africa since 2001, and his second trip to Africa since 2001. I’ve seen the determination of the people across Africa — and the compassion of the people of the United States of America.” George and Laura Bush loved to go to Africa on the taxpayers’ dime…a lot.

            For some odd reason, the GAO (General Accounting Office) records on the cost of the Bush family’s Africa travels seem to have Vanished. The media has contacted the GAO, but no specific numbers have been provided yet. President Clinton’s Africa trip in 1998 cost taxpayers $42.8 million. George W. Bush’s
            two trips five and ten years later were likely more expensive.

            President Obama hasn’t made any trips to
            Africa, except a 22 hour stopover in Ghana in 2009, so it is pretty clear that Secret Service is basing their cost estimate on the cost of the Bush trips. Since George W. Bush made two presidential trips to Africa, it is likely that he spent more money in today’s dollars as President Obama will on his trip.

            The reality is that presidential trips are expensive. It would be fair to be opposed to all of them, but the hypocrisy of only being outraged when certain presidents travel is unacceptable. George W. Bush appears to have had himself quite a little African spending spree, but apparently cost only matters when Barack Obama is the president who is doing the traveling.

          • Independent1 says:

            And just an aside: When the Bushes took a trip to England during his two terms, the British Press equated his enterage to that of a maharaja . He brought along so many staff members (over 700) that the British press was dumbfounded. When Obama took a similar trip, he took along less than 2/3s that number. NO PRESIDENT, ABSOLUTELY NO PRESIDENT HAS SPENT MONEY LIKE GWB!!!

          • Independent1 says:

            Remember this little paragraph from the Huffington Post Article on George’s travel costs:

            When we emailed Knoller on Aug. 26, Obama was up to 140 days by his count. Bush’s total for his two terms in office is 533 days, which includes 490 at the ranch and the rest at Kennebunkport. For comparison’s sake, President Bill Clinton’s total is 174 days, and Reagan hit 390 (349 at his ranch and 41 in Palm Springs), according to Knoller.

            Note that Bush’s 490 days of vacation at his Ranch in Texas required either flying hundreds of White House staff members back and forth from Texas to Washington 78 times; or more than likely, having duplicate staff members that taxpayers paid for in the two White Houses.

            And the same is true for Reagan’s 349 days vacation at his ranch in California which he flew back and forth from 63 times. Incurring all those travel costs moving all those staff members or once again, paying the salaries of duplicate staffs in both places.

            And Nixon was even worse – he had 3 White Houses, one in Miami, one in California and one in DC – to which he was constantly shuttling and paying for all those travel costs and/or duplicate/triplicate staff members.

            Remember, those 2nd and 3rd White Houses had to be maintained and looked after so they would be in great shape should a President decide he wanted to run to one of them on the spur of the moment.

            But now picture that neither Clinton or Obama has a 2nd White House. Clinton spent most of his 174 days of vacation time at Camp David. And Obama has spent about 1/2 of his 150 days or so at Martha’s Vineyard which is a stone’s throw from DC.

            You can’t even BEGIN TO COMPARE THE VACTION COSTS OF THE LAST 3 GOP PRESIDENTS AND THE LAST 2 DEMOCRATS. Reagan and the two Bush’s vacation related costs are astronomical compared to those of Clinton and Obama.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Let me make sure I understand your logic. Former President Bush is not responsible for 9/11 because that tragedy took place 8 months after his inauguration, but the near collapse of our economy, which began in late 2007, was caused by unspecified economic policies passed by Democrats?
            Do you honestly believe that the resumption of deficit spending, one year after W was selected president, was an accident? That the need to raise the national debt 8 times during W’s presidency had nothing to do with his economic and fiscal policies? That borrowing to fight two crusades without Congressional appropriations did not affect the economy and the national debt? That deregulation and Wall Street greed did not contribute to the mess we are finally overcoming? That Lehman Brothers, AIG, ENRON, and the Bernie Maddof affair were not symptoms of the corruption and fraudulent activities that resulted from deregulation and lack of oversight by the Bush administration? That the response to Katrina was symptomatic of an inept administration and evidence of social injustice in the USA? I could go on and on, but this post would turn into a book if I did.
            As for President Obama’s policies I would start by saying that the stimulus package, tax relief to small businesses, incentives to first time home buyers, incentives to people who traded old for new and energy efficient appliances, and other such policies helped stimulate the economy and helped create 8 million new jobs in 6 years. Compare that to the dismal job creation record during W’s tenure.
            Obama reduced our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan dramatically, and by so doing ending the carnage of young Americans in those countries, the redistribution of wealth from the public to the private sector (to the tune of well over $1T), and helped cut the budget deficits by 2/3.
            The DOW Index has gone from the 7,000 range when Obama became President to the 17,000 range, and the S&P has almost tripled. Companies are posting record profits, investing and hiring. Consumer confidence has gone up dramatically…and Republicans continue to talk about economic Armageddon!
            I could provide you with a long list of President Obama’s achievements, if that makes it easier for you to become informed, but I doubt you are interested in specifics.
            Blaming President Obama because a Liberian immigrant went to his homeland to visit relatives, became infected with the Ebola virus, and showed no signs of being infected when he was examined in Brussels and in the USA when he returned, is the epitome of hyperbole. The Presbyterian hospital staff in Dallas blew it when he first checked in showing signs that should have been associated with Ebola, or at least should have prompted the attending medical staff to ask the patient, who apparently speaks English with a heavy accent, if he had been in Africa recently. Instead, they gave him some antibiotics and sent him home!
            Regarding the tuberculosis claim, don’t forget that President Obama’s policies on illegal immigration include the deportation of an average of 36,000 illegal immigrants a month, an unprecedented record. That the number of illegal immigrants entering the USA is considerably lower than it was when Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, our “simpatico” President was in office. The couple of cases of TB have been identified, the patients have been isolated, and there is no evidence of a TB outbreak in the USA.
            What your post demonstrate is a desperate attempt to hide the GOP record on foreign and domestic policies, and make accusations that range from bizarre to unsubstantiated.

          • InformedVoter says:

            Once again you’re grabbing at straws! The stimulus was a failure and certainly did not create anything near the fake 8 million number you quote. The real estate market is what killed the economy and that was led by the left’s push for anyone should be able to buy a home, even if they can’t afford to pay for it.
            The claim about deporting more than in the past is also fictitious. They are counting those that never were counted during GW’s years and you should know that. Shame on you for continuing to spread lies!
            You are part of blah, blah, blah it’s Bush’s fault crowd. Obama has been just about a complete failure at running the country. His approval numbers are lower than GW’s and this despite the fact that the liberal press consistently slammed GW on a daily basis while during Obama’s 6 years they have protected him. More states are turning red and many Democrats running for office are shying away from Obama and his policies in order to have a chance on getting elected.
            Honestly, I can’t see how you can defend such a woeful excuse for a leader as Obama.
            Obama’s response to Sandy was worse than for Katrina! Obama’s statement “eliminate the red tape” admitted that there was red tape. Even now, folks are sill waiting for relief from Sandy. Talk about an inept leader!
            For the record, I voted for Obama in 2008, but it didn’t take long to figure out that he was/is truly unqualified for the office.
            Based upon many of your prior posts, it would appear that you haven’t a clue as to what’s really going on with this administration.
            That you are so closed minded is truly sad, not only for you, but for our country.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            § Terrorist attacks during George W. Bush’s tenure:

            2001 – World Trade Center, New York and Pentagon, DC; 3,000 killed.

            2002 – U.S. Consulate in Karachi Pakistan attacked, 12 killed; 51 injured.

            2003 – International Compound, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed .

            2003 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 2 killed.

            2004 – U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan, 2 killed 9 injured.

            2004 – U.S. Consulate Saudi Arabia, 8 killed.

            2006 – U.S. Consulate, Karachi, Pakistan, 4 killed including a U.S. diplomat.

            2006 – U.S. Embassy, Syria, 1 killed and 13 wounded.

            2007 – Grenade launched into the U.S. Embassy in Athens. No casualties.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy, Serbia, attacked by thousands, no one killed.

            2008 – U.S. Consulate, Turkey, 3 killed.

            2008 – U.S. Embassy in Yemen bombed, 13 killed.

            – Terrorist attacks during George
            H, W, Bush’s tenure: 12 Embassy attacks with 60 killed.

            Weekly attacks against U.S.
            interests, civilians, and against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

            GOP reaction: George W. Bush
            transformed into a war President, and is praised for keeping us safe!

            Healthcare reform (ACA)

            Stimulus package, cash for
            clunkers, subsidies for appliance replacements, help to first time home buyers

            Saved two major industrial
            giants (GM&Chrysler)

            Turned around an economy on the
            verge of collapse, record bankruptcies/foreclosures, and jobs losses in spite
            of obstructionism

            Wall Street reform

            Recapitalized banks

            Created more jobs in 5 years than
            his predecessor did in 8

            Ended the war in Iraq

            Ordered the raid that brought justice
            to Osama bin Laden

            Ordered a reduction in U.S. military
            presence in Afghanistan

            Ordered attacks against Al
            Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan

            Helped topple Moammar Kadaffi

            Reversed Bush’s torture and
            rendition policies

            Tightened sanctions on Iran

            Restored U.S. international credibility

            Repealed DADT and championed
            marriage equality.

            Lilly Ledbetter (equal pay for

            Fought for lower student loan
            interest rates

            Coordinated activities to solve
            the global financial crisis

            Championed the Veterans Program
            Improvements Act of 2011

            Championed and signed credit
            card reforms

            Nominated two excellent
            candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies

            Invested in renewable
            technology and focused on alternate energy source development

            Expanded hate crime protections

            Improved school nutrition program

            Expanded stem cell research

            Terminated the unnecessary F22

            Proposed investment in
            infrastructure to address national concerns and create jobs (killed by GOP)

            Proposed Veterans Jobs Act
            (killed by GOP)

            Proposed expansion of Reagan’s
            gun control act (killed by GOP)

            Proposed immigration reform
            (opposed by House Republicans)

            Reduced civil servant workforce

            The effect of his policies
            contributed to revenue increases, reducing the Federal government deficits by
            2/3, and a dramatic reduction in the need to raise the national debt ceiling.

            No foreign terrorist attacks on
            U.S. soil, and reduced attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions from 11 to 1.

          • InformedVoter says:

            OMG! More troops have been killed in Afghanistan in the last 20 months than in the all 8 years of Bush!
            Your list of “supposed” Obama accomplishments is full of lies and Democratic propaganda. This is an extremely weak response to the growing disappointment with Obama. Why would a staunch Democratic supporter like Michael Moore claim and loudly that Obama has been a failure? If Obama is doing so well, why are so many Democrats who are running for office distancing themselves? The stimulus was a big failure. No new jobs were created, except in the mind of those who want to ignore the truth.
            I’ve said it before, you have made many posts in the past and do nothing but quote the rhetoric and propaganda the Obama white house has handed out. Don’t be so naïve! The fact that you proudly provided their list of accomplishments says you are not really informed and are one of the sheep who blindly believe the garbage Obama has handed out. I weep for you and those like you who have fallen for their lies.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Typical Republican response. Somebody provides you with a list of Democratic accomplishments since President Obama became president, and your retort is to change the topic or provide generalities.
            Regarding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, don’t forget that when President Obama suggested withdrawing from those countries about 3 years ago, Republicans such as McCain and Lindsay responded that doing so was reckless. Which not only contributed to more deaths, but confirmed that the GOP wants perennial babysitting in the Persian Gulf and Middle East.

          • InformedVoter says:

            Talk about typical response. You provided a list that even die hard Democrats would be hard pressed to believe. Your list is straight out of the Democrats primer … even though most of the so called accomplishments didn’t really have any positive affect on the country.
            So, assuming you are a real person and not just a shill for the Democrats, and being paid to muddy up chats like this – ask yourself this since you listed immigration reform as an accomplishment:
            Now that Obama has opened the borders, especially with Mexico, how will our country protect its citizens from an ISSA attack? The ISSA folks will sacrifice their own lives to inflict pain on the USA. So, a group of ISSA, that are willing to die for their cause, go to Mexico, intentionally contract Ebola and cross into the USA (through the open border) and then scatter to say, Times Square or a sporting event or any other venue where thousands will come in contact with them. The epidemic will start and, thanks to Obama’s inept, lying CDC leaders, there will be nothing to stop it. If you really have the welfare of the country in mind, the above scenario should scare the living daylights out of you.
            I’m sure if you think about the above, you will see how the left has lied to the public. Obama will use the epidemic to declare marshal law and cancel any elections in the name of national security. Sound like Hitler? When Clinton left office he said he would have loved to be president for life, well now Obama is going to try and actually do. The fact that Obama has replaced every leader in the military will prevent the public from stopping his rise to dictator! Wake up!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Republicans will never cease to amaze me. The person that is not afraid to use his name and uses a picture of himself when I post may not be a real person, but one that is too scared to identify himself/herself, and uses a monicker instead is real?
            Our Southern border is stronger than ever, and President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants in 5.5 years than both Bushes and Reagan combined. Not too hard to do when we consider Reagan’s amnesty to almost 4 million illegal immigrants.
            Islamic terrorists don’t have to jump fences or crawl through tunnels, they enter the USA via JFK, like the 9/11 terrorists did. They come in with student or tourist visas, with their pockets filled with money, and learn how to fly at universities such as Embry Riddle before they destroy building and kill people on U.S. soil. Get a grip.
            The same goes for the Liberian tourist that managed to enter the USA, upon return from his homeland where he went to visit relatives, without showing symptoms of Ebola.
            Your anti-Obama attacks are so childish that I don’t know why I even bother to respond. Political points, such as the one you cited, may resonate in a Tea Party rally, where brain dead zombies believe whatever the Republican demagogue says, they are not going to get you too far in a forum like this.

          • InformedVoter says:

            Thank you for confirming what I suspected, that you are working for the Democratic party to permeate the forum.
            So using a fake picture and fake ID is better than using a moniker? I don’t think so. Everyone recognizes a moniker, but to use a fake picture & ID is deceptive!
            Only the truly low information voter accepts the corrupted deportation numbers from Obama. And only those being paid to say so would claim the borders are safe. Obama has forbidden the agents from asking questions and to just accept anyone who wishes to enter. And the Reagan numbers were part of the deal he worked out with the Democrats, who wanted to allow many more into the country, To claim Reagan let in 4 million and not condemn Obama for allowing 30 million illegals is shear madness – except for one being paid to keep the low information audience in the dark about the truth. Now that your have been outed, there is no reason to continue any dialogue with you. You just cut and paste from the Democratic lies book. FYI, I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative. Since you have no problem with pretending to be someone who you’re not, I wonder what other sites you troll through and for what purposes!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I admit that I am flattered by your conclusion. I wish it was true, I could use the money!

          • BillP says:

            The Dow Jones is up 107%, S&P 500 is up 135% and Nasdaq is up 198% since Obama took office. Unemployment is down to 5.9%, housing is up and consumer confidence is at its highest in over 8 years. If it weren’t for Obama’s terrible policies where might we be?

            the reason GW’s numbers were low was because of the lame stream media constantly printing propaganda. Thanks for the good laugh at this one. The media made W’s #’s bad, that is the best troll explanation that I have seen on this site so far.

            Other than popularity polls what #’s are so rotten? You trolls are so blatant in your hatred of this president if he cure Cancer you would have something negative to say.
            Keep writing this trash I need a good laugh every day.

          • Dell Martin says:

            You are delusional, uninformedvoter. But just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Actually, I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. And in case you still haven’t figured it out, the president’s numbers are lower now because the democrats who would consider themselves purists, give him a thumbs down because he continues with drone strikes and has deported more illegal aliens than all the past presidents. So which of those two points do you think he should stop doing?

      • Independent1 says:

        Bush was given 7 briefings by the CIA between the end of April and August 6, 2001 about “an imminent al Qaeda attack led by Osama bin Laden”. And 7 times he refused to let the CIA focus on trying to stop the attack. He had the CIA and FBI focused on trying to find him an excuse to attack Iraq from the 2nd week he had been in the White House and refused to let them deter from that focus to try and save our country from a terrorist attack!!!!!

        Although he refused to allow the CIA to focus on trying to stop the 9/11 attack, he was apparently concerned enough about the attack that right after the 8/6/2001 briefing, he and Cheney both bailed out of Washington and didn’t return until 4 days before the 2/11 attack occurred. Bush tied Nixon for being the only 2 modern day presidents to take 30 consecutive days away from Washington.

        And then when he returned to Washington on 9/7/2001, he immediately bailed out of town again such that he was in Florida on 9/11 reading to school children when the 9/11 attacks took place.

        Justify for me if you can, a president who had been away from his office for 30 straight days, can justify skipping town again within only a couple days of having return to the oval office. It’s pretty clear to me that although he DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO LET THE CIA TRY TO STOP 9/11, HE WAS CONVINCED THAT AN ATTACK WA GOING TO HAPPEN AND DIDN’T WANT TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE IT MIGHT TAKE PLACE!!!!!

        • Dominick Vila says:

          W also has the all time record of vacation days taken: 362!
          His recollection of his presidency, when he was asked by a journalist what did he remember most about his days in the White House says it all: the feeling of fame and power! I guess we should be thankful about him devoting his retirement to emulating Lautrec, instead of pursuing humanitarian causes like those being pursued by Presidents Carter and Clinton. Then again, he could spend his time parachuting from airplanes, trying to beat President Ford’s golf record, or listening to astrologers…

  2. cosliberal says:

    Given that the compliant media immediately jumped onto the ISIS and Ebola are coming to kill us bandwagon, it is likely that the Bush era playbook, in spite of its inherent contradiction (the guys who ignored a threat until 3000 people were murdered by terrorists will keep you safe from terrorists) will have an impact. America, the land of the free and home of the brave, has been trained over the last 14 years to be afraid, be very afraid.

  3. Dell Martin says:

    The nicest thing I can say about Scott Brown is that he’s a light-weight. He makes GWB look intelligent.

    • Reno says:

      If so, that would be an achievement.

      • Todd Nelson says:

        Could you please show me your MBA degree from Harvard that your daddy had nothing to do with because he went to Yale? Then you can tel me how dumb GWB is.

        • neeceoooo says:

          His former Harvard Business School professor recalls George W. Bush not just as a terrible student but as spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar.

          • Todd Nelson says:

            Which professor? Which course? There are a multitude of extremely left wing professors who could never say anything good about someone who is conservative. Whoever it was still gave him a passing grade and GWB still has his MBA. Do you have yours from Harvard?

          • holyreality says:

            Did you read the article?

            Nobody would say anything good about him because he was lying backstabbing weasel. He may have passed the grade, but not his peers.

            “Tsurumi’s conclusion: Bush is not as dumb as his detractors allege. “He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion,” he said.”

          • neeceoooo says:

            but I am not the President of the United States and I am not running for that position. This isn’t about me, it is about your unrelenting devotion for GWB.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            I see you dodged the response specifically addressing your original comment, and not surprisingly, because you haven’t a leg to stand on.
            You guys are always whining about our pointing out that many of the “failings” of the current administration are the result of your buddy’s incompetent and criminal actions, but always have a “liberal” professor or someone else to blame for the GOP’s mess.

          • Charie says:

            They must teach that lying thing at Harvard and Yale then, because Obama is a past master at it, even though we’ll never see his grade transcripts. You can find John Kerry’s though because he had worse grades than GWB, topped only by Al Gore. LOL

        • Sand_Cat says:

          The fact that his father was a powerful politician and wealthy as hell of course had nothing to do with it. Harvard is notorious for admitting mediocre C students, right? Obviously, you never attempted to go to a “prestigious” college or knew someone who did, at least not to an “Ivy.”

  4. itsfun says:

    Lets face it folks, it doesn’t matter what the politicians that are running for office say. When elected, they all will just do what their party leaders tell them to do.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Probably true enough of both sides, and neither has much to brag about these days, do they?

      • neeceoooo says:

        True, but I happen to side with the liberal side more than the conservative side as the policies of the GOP are not policies I agree with.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Itsfun always catches me in a bad mood, and I usually go overboard on him; don’t like his ideas or his style, but there are much worse around here. Actually, the Dems often seem to act like a leaderless party on the issues I think important, which is part of the reason I think they haven’t much to brag about, but they do follow the bosses too much, especially the bosses with the money.

          • neeceoooo says:

            I understand, sometimes I just don’t have the will to get in a discussion with some of them. You are right about the dems, they need to grow some balls and stick up for what they believe in and quit giving in. As I said, I do side with the liberal views before the conservative views.

        • holyreality says:

          [fantasy]That is why voting for a filibuster proof Democratic Senate majority can have a greater effect than not voting at all.

          Even then Reid’s seriously lame leadership will not ensure a GOP obstruction anyway.

  5. FT66 says:

    According to the data I have now, there is 20% Americans who can not read and write and who always depend on and listen on what other people say. How come if you do not fall under this category, you can’t think and reason out that someone who tells you something is there to benefit from you as you can’t make any decision depending on yourself!

  6. David says:

    GWB bought $100,000,000 worth of Chinese weapons and handed them out in Iraq. One year after those weapons arrived the CIA noted that the only ones they had record of their whereabouts were in the hands of the Sadr Army, a fundamentalist Sunni group of terrorists. Later, bush paid many millions directly to Sadr to keep his fighters from attacking the Shias so it looked like the surge was effective. Now those same Sunnis are ISIS. We have armed since the 70’s, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many terrorist groups and McCain has spent 2years trying to arm Syrian rebels, many of whom are now ISIS. We must look like the stupidest nation on earth. Unless of course we just arm our enemies to have a constant threat in order to fatten the wallets of Wall Street and the Military/Industrial complex and other groups that own our government. Then it is brilliant and not the country, but just most of it’s citizens look stupid.

    • Todd Nelson says:

      So sorry to correct such a drug induced rant, but the Sadr Army are Shias.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        Since they both hate us, is that really significant?
        Is that all you can disagree with in the “drug induced rant”? If we’re going to pick nits, it should be “drug-induced.”

        • charleo1 says:

          Muqtada al-Sadr is the fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shi‘a cleric, the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. He is also the son-in-law of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr.

          It is of importance to note the majorities of leading religious leaders, as well as the majority of Iraqis are Shia Muslims. It’s also important to note, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, assassinated the Father of Muqtada al-Sadr. Who was the man many believed could have united Iraq. However, besides being vehemently anti-American. The Bush Administration preferring what they deemed would be a more secular head of state, backed al-Maliki. The center did not hold, and the Country came apart along sectarian lines. Although the commenter David had his sects a bit backward. There is much speculation of why Muqtada al Sadr disbanded his political organization when he did. And thereby seceded the election to al Maliki. And, you’re absolutely correct, of course. Both sects hate us equally. And it becomes very important, and determinative of the eventual outcome for any politician elected, to not be seen as a U.S. puppet. In order to gain the support and trust of the Iraqi people. Or, as we observed, to have the Iraqi Army fight for them. The single hardest thing it seems for us to understand, is the fundamental difference in the way
          Middle Eastern Arab Muslims view the relationship between their religion, and their government.

      • 1standlastword says:

        And they are fighting IS with said “Bush bought” Chinese weapons.

  7. ExRadioGuy15 says:

    With October now upon us and the midterm elections just 33 days away, I see that Karl Rove’s army of Fascist GOP and Fascism-suborning Libertarian trolls have launched their attacks on the truth, facts, logic, reason and common sense of matters with Fascist propaganda, logical fallacies and just plain BS….The GOP and Libertarians are counting on enough people being too unintelligent or ignorant to notice…guess what, guys? Not gonna happen.

  8. charles king says:

    Why? People are you having trouble on deny the take over of your government by, MONIES and Capitalistic Pigs. Are you a billionaire, if not, Why? are you sitting by and let MONIES get rid of your Democracy. The VOTE and some Critical Thinking is needed to re-store your Democracy because the many STATES are using other forms of government, like Plutocracy in Pennsylvania. President Obama and his Admin are doing all they can because of NO HELP from CONGRESS. The VOTE is still Supreme so find out Who? the people are that are trying to destroy your Democracy and KICK their A**** OUT, OUT, OUT The People DO NOT NEED ANTI-Government We Need the return of our Democracy. The GOP and their Tea Party friends need their A**** KICKED. Thank You are the magic words in my book.. I Love Ya All. Mr. C. E. KINGS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.