fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

Trump Likes Snub From Republican Elite

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Memo Pad Middle East National News Politics Top News

Trump Likes Snub From Republican Elite

Share
Former U.S. President George W. Bush visits Warren Easton Charter High School in New Orleans, Louisiana

From on high they have spoken to us, we the people.

The neocon foreign policy elite vigorously embraced and enforced President George W. Bush starting three wars going into the 21st century: Afghanistan, Iraq and the global “war on terror.” Detainees, drones and now ISIS in Syria are tearing apart the Middle East. Now these wise men are warning us against Donald Trump, 13 years after they swung the wrecking ball, many as W’s aides and appointees.

Nice. Thanks, guys.

Fifty Republican national security experts have graced us with a letter stating that Donald Trump is a threat to our national security. They say Trump would be the “most reckless president” in American history, in part because of his volatile temperament, poor understanding of diplomacy and NATO, and chumminess with the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin.

My, how they’ve grown.

But not a word about the Iraq War, which they supported to a man, with false “intel” on weapons of mass destruction and ties to 9/11.

Many served in the George W. Bush administration at high levels, such Michael V. Hayden, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

So do go on.

Eight of the 50 signers belong to the Aspen Strategy Group, which meets every summer, breathing lofty summer air in Aspen, Colorado. Nicholas Burns, head of the Group, is another prominent former Bush official. He is virtually alone among them to endorse Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, as he makes the public case against Trump.

Why should we care?

Here’s what one anti-war political scientist says: “If this crowd (read: white-collar warmongers) is worried about Trump using force, that’s powerful.

“Then they find him a scary individual. They’ve learned since the war began.”

She — my mother, Professor Judith Stiehm — thinks the letter gives a green light to upper-middle-class Republicans to vote against Trump. They need a polite shove, official permission to dissent from their party nominee. And it might make a difference in a battleground state such as Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.

What about Trump’s base?

The letter will not change a thing among the Trump loyalists. In fact, the more elites talk, the less they listen.

The Republican letter might actually help Trump by egging him on. He shrewdly thanked the signers for coming forward so “the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” The elites have not sent their sons (and daughters) to Iraq and Afghanistan in the all-volunteer military. On the contrary, it’s Trump’s white male voters who are more likely to know the lines of fire, with a clearer picture of the futility of the mission(s).

Anti-intellectuals in Trump’s core base of white, working-class men feel completely left out of the conversation President Obama has been conducting for seven or eight years as he reluctantly re-started the Bush wars he hoped to lay to rest. A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama has also picked up the pace of drone warfare — a terrible way to wage war — and failed to close Guantanamo jail, a massive human rights stain in the world’s eyes. The irony runs rich. The 21st century, if it were a Broadway show, would have closed by now.

Very few people have sat in the “room where it happens,” in the tight Obama White House Situation Room or the Oval Office, where he reviews picks for the “kill” list. The president’s top-secret Osama bin Laden raid in Pakistan did not signal an end to it all. But it gave the lie to Bush’s foolhardy strategy of sending the Army into the desert storm after one man to avenge 9/11 – an operation carried out by 19 hijackers.

To his credit, Obama never said he was a “war president,” a phrase Bush deployed. He also dislikes the phrase “War on Terror.” He has repaired a lot of the damage Bush has done, at home and abroad. Except for a functioning secular Arab state where women played a part in education and the professions. Iraq has been crushed into a wasteland with more civilian casualties than we care to count — more than 50,000. The Pentagon did what it does: Followed orders. The Army has carried the weight of a war that few can tell us: What for? More than 7,000 soldiers laid down their lives and too many have lost limbs. Bush never seemed to have lost a sound night’s sleep on it.

Just because the establishment has spoken does not mean people will listen.

If the 50 Republicans experts express regret for past wars or hopes for a future peace under Hillary Clinton, then let us praise them.

To find out more about Jamie Stiehm and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit Creators.com.

Photo: Former U.S. President George W. Bush delivers a speech at Warren Easton Charter High School one day before the ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana, August 28, 2015.  REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman

Tags:

45 Comments

  1. Sand_Cat August 12, 2016

    They don’t regret past wars; they’re the same thing they’ve always been, that is, mostly hypocrites.

    Reply
    1. Oddworld August 12, 2016

      Oh come on Sand_Cat, why so critical? You should be happy that our military was finally able to use some of it’s old inventory to clear the balance sheets for new weapons. Think of the money some great Americans were able to make
      from the wars and don’t forget about the flowers and adulation that our troops received after the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, those were bullets and IEDs. Oh well, USA, USA, USA, USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat August 13, 2016

        You forgot the candy that rained on them when they “liberated” Iraq.

        Reply
        1. Oddworld August 13, 2016

          No I didn’t… I think the poor Iraqi’s ate the candy themselves. We sure as hell didn’t leave them with much else to eat after we destroyed their country.

          Reply
          1. Sand_Cat August 14, 2016

            :>)

            Reply
        2. Oddworld August 13, 2016

          I’m sorry Sand_Cat. My reply was a harsh for your comment. I do appreciate the humor and sarcasm:-)

          Reply
          1. Sand_Cat August 14, 2016

            Absolutely no offense taken.

            Reply
  2. Oddworld August 12, 2016

    The article almost sounds like an endorsement for a Trump presidency or at the very least a poor attempt at explaining Trump’s populism. We know who started the wars, we also know the intelligence was designed to allow Bush the war he’s always wanted. What I would like to know is why the very people who were
    calling Bush a great American for invading two sovereign nations are now suddenly championing Trump for being critical of the wars. Are these voters hypocrites or were they suffering from a “Yankee Doodle” delirium? Were they only supportive of the the wars as long as they thought we were winning, hell everybody likes a winner right! It couldn’t be that perhaps they had a change of heart could it? Quite frankly I don’t believe they’re capable of such a noble concept because if they were they wouldn’t be voting for Trump.

    Reply
    1. Jim Samaras August 13, 2016

      The advent of information available on the internet that has flourished since the war began has influenced many peoples thinking on the war, politics and foreign policy in general charleo. The world changes and thinking people look back and realize mistakes that have been made.

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat August 13, 2016

        But not you, obviously.

        Reply
      2. Oddworld August 13, 2016

        Uh JIm, I’m not charleo. Since your comment does correlate with mine I have to assume that was a gaffe on your part. I agree with you in principle but
        the weapons inspectors kept saying from day one that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
        Detractors of the inspectors were making claims that Saddam had the weapons but he moved them to Syria. Other detractors claimed they knew Saddam had the weapons because the U.S. sold him the weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. I believe
        the latter to be factual. Some of us didn’t fall for the narrative from the beginning. And contrary to what others thought of Bush at the time, I was neutral because I was apolitical before 911.

        Reply
  3. 1standlastword August 13, 2016

    IMHO, these are neoconservatives who resonate with the paleo-conservative tradition of Reagan who spent a lot of American capital to break up the Old Soviet Empire.

    Now here comes DJT, who has “personal interests” in Putin’s Russia for his own concerns (maybe fearing for his life and the safety of his family).

    As for hypocrisy it doesn’t compute for the aforementioned. They believe their actions have made the world safer!

    They are convinced that DJT’s narcissistic fetish with Putin would allow the ex-KGB agent to reconstitute elements of the Old Soviet Empire (he’s already started) and that would present a power shift favoring Russia more than it would benefit American foreign power.

    They see a president Trump “the isolationist” giving away too much to Russia.

    They see a president Trump “the nationalist” alienating our allies, weakening their confidence and allowing opportunities for Putin to make deals with our “pet” allies to quell their existential fears.

    I think they have the right call on Trump as he would make the world a much more unstable place–and the key term here is “unstable”. DJT would set us on a war footing in a defensive posture opposed to the offensive posture we are most comfortable in.

    DJT would sacrifice the initiative the neoconservatives, and paleo-conservatives believe America should maintain at all costs.

    It’s impossible to predict what kind of world we’d have if we were less proficient at breaking other people’s homelands (both in defense of our homeland and when we felt threatened). But our world is already made as it is like it or not and I like that we can hold the upper hand of force because I wouldn’t want to be ruled over by the Chinese nor the Russians!

    It’s just unfortunate that our foreign policy always seems to appear wiser in retrospect.

    Reply
  4. Dominick Vila August 13, 2016

    One of the most obvious differences between the Republican “establishment” and Donald Trump, is that the former did not hesitate to use force, deceit, and unconstitutional methods to advance their geo-political agenda, and The Donald is only interested in what is best for The Donald.
    The mayhem that dominates life in every corner of the world did not start 7.5 years ago. It has been part of the history of humanity since we realized that brutal force, and the imposition of our will on others, is the easiest way to accumulate wealth and protect ourselves against the ambitions of others.
    Imperialism, despotism, greed, the absence of moral values, fear, and hatred, are some of the attributes that contributed to the invasion of Iraq, and its consequences. ISIS, and its goal to establish a Caliphate called the Daesh, based on ultra conservative Islamic principles, did not start 7.5 years ago. The founder of ISIS, the first person to adopt the nom de guerre Al Baghadadi, conceived the idea of establishing a Caliphate while serving time in a U.S. prison camp, along with thousands of other Sunni, Baathist, prisoners. He put his idea into action after his release, for good conduct. He became a target, once again, when the dangers of his concept, and its growing popularity, became apparent to the neocons. Al Baghadadi was killed during an air strike, but his idea did not die. He was quickly replaced by another fanatic, and when that one was also killed, by another and another.
    The expansion of the concept of a Caliphate, embraced by ISIS, has grown, and it is likely to continue to grow, not because we withdrew from Iraq in accordance with W’s withdrawal schedule, but because of our decision to invade a former ally, remove the Sunnis from power and from the offices they held, and transfer the balance of power to Shiite aligned to Iran.
    What is happening today is the direct consequence of our actions, our refusal to accept responsibility for our actions, and the belief that exacting physical punishment on those that embrace al Baghadadi’s concept will end what has become an ideal for tens of thousands of Muslims who fear and loathe the foreign influences that are destroying their culture and their way of life.

    Reply
    1. Jim Samaras August 13, 2016

      I agree with just about everything you say Dom but what if DT actually did do what he says he can do and actually did something to change the world’s perception of us? Very similar things were said of Ronald Reagan (not that he sets the standard) before he was elected and I believe the country did pretty well, by and large, under his influence.

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat August 13, 2016

        What if pigs can fly?

        You might fly away and no longer bless us with your wisdom!

        Funny how one day you can appear here as a nasty and mindless right-wing zealot, and the next you agree wholeheartedly with “Dom.” You guys friends, or are you just being a presumptuous ass as usual?

        Reply
        1. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

          You sound like a suck richard pos. stay out of my conversations with the thinkers please

          Reply
          1. Sand_Cat August 14, 2016

            WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, calling them YOUR conversations? The
            only thing you own around here is your own wacky “opinions” and the lies
            you imagine support them, and you refuse to take ownership for either
            of those.

            You call yourself a “thinker,” and you’re trying to weasel your way to respectability while supporting Trump? TRUMP? Sorry I don’t leave conversations by dishonest non-entities who flatter themselves as “thinkers.” The only thing you seem to think about is being devious and craven enough to try to cozy up to some of us while hiding your imagined superiority.

            Reply
          2. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

            I take ownership for everything I say on here or any other site. I choose which of these liberals I can have an intelligent, reasonable conversation with and you are certainly not one of them. Back to the basement with ya little man

            Reply
      2. Dominick Vila August 14, 2016

        Some of the things DT has said include dismantling NATO, letting Japan and South Korea acquire nuclear weapons, encouraging the Russians to spy on us, isolationist policies that would end our global economic dominance, tax reform that favors the wealthy, and a return to trickle down economics. None of those proposals would not make America Great Again. They would compromise our national security and will contribute to the demise of our economy and the middle class.

        Reply
        1. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

          While NATO has been around for many years and has been a positive for the world, who says at this time it’s in OUR countries best interest? The “establishment”?

          Nuclear technology has been around for almost 80 years. Is it not quite pompous of us to think we’re the only one’s who should have access?

          Perhaps if our media were doing it’s job we wouldn’t need a foreign country do it for us. Literally days spent discussing Trump’s obvious tongue in cheek comments without a mere mention of the new evidence out there that has motivated 3 different US Attorney offices to launch an investigation on the incestuous relationship between HC and her family foundation.

          I have heard nothing from the Trump camp to intimate “isolationist” policy. Our global economic dominance is waning because of our policies that have taken many of our good paying jobs overseas. He has spoken of a renegotiation of NAFTA and other policies that have obviously been a failure but isolationism is a left wing stretch of the truth.

          His tax reform policy has 3 different brackets of which the highest income Americans pay the most percentage of their income. How does this necessarily favor the wealthy? I’m sure you’d agree that small business drives this nations economy. Why would you invest millions in a startup only to realize that you may give up to 70% of it’s profits to the government when an investment of the same into the market, for example, can give the same returns at less than half the tax the way things are set up now and promise to continue under a Clinton administration? Not to mention the lost revenue from the tax paying employees that aren’t there due to the fact that there is no job.

          So I disagree with your entire assessment of a Trump presidency

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila August 14, 2016

            In addition to NATO being an effective deterrent to Russian expansionism, it has allowed us to get the cooperation of other NATO members in fighting terrorism.
            The problem with Trump’s suggestion to let Japan and South Korea acquire nuclear weapons has nothing to do with arrogance or ignorance, but with the fact that the last thing the world needs is nuclear proliferation.
            The Clinton Foundation, like the Gates Foundation, and others, has been doing wonderful world throughout the world, especially in Africa and Latin America. there is no proof to support the accusations directed at Hillary, including claims of pay for play and conflict of interest. Until tangible proof is provided, the whole thing is nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.
            The centerpiece of Trump’s economic plan involves isolationist and nationalist premises. Protecting our interests is paramount whenever we negotiate international agreements, and that is exactly what we have done. NAFTA has been a bonanza for American corporations. The problem is that the profits our corporations have realized from it, have not filtered down to the average American. That has nothing to do with the agreement itself. It is a problem that must be addressed internally.
            The problem with Trump’s tax proposal is not so much the tax brackets, but the fact that exemptions allow the wealthy, including himself, to realize huge profits, and pay little or no taxes. That, by the way, is the reason he refuses to make his tax returns public.

            Reply
          2. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

            We would like to think there is no nuclear proliferation but the genie is out of the bottle but is in fact too late.

            No comparison between CF and the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is not a politician. You go ahead and live in a fantasy world that HC isn’t as dirty as they come. The hammer is about to come down on the lying witch.

            NAFTA has been a bonanza for big American business but the fact that you expect the profits to filter down to the little man makes you sound like a socialist. The small business has not benefited and is the backbone of our economy. Big business is now in control of Washington and Trump is the only one to change it.

            The only exemption that was spoken of was one for child care in his proposal which could be utilized by all people.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila August 14, 2016

            The nuclear threat, and its potential to destroy our planet is, indeed, a reality. That is why it is inconceivable to hear a candidate running for the presidency of the USA endorse nuclear proliferation.
            The contributions made by the Clinton Foundation worldwide are real and verifiable.
            The fact that U.S. corporations are benefiting from NAFTA, and every trade agreement we ever signed, is a fact. Again, the fact that the corporate hierarchy has not shared its bounty with its employees is not the the agreement’s fault, or even the fault of the Republicans that traditionally support trade agreements. It is also not the fault of our government, since our form of government is the exact opposite to a totalitarian regime, and we cannot force anyone to do things they do not wish to do under existing laws.
            Small businesses are, indeed, the backbone of our economy, and the vehicle that very often allows the middle class to prosper. I support government policies that help create new businesses, and helps them prosper.
            Ivanka’s decision to copy the popular childcare proposal in Hillary’s plan, in her Dad’s economic plan, was a great move by her. Not sure how many Republicans support such example of socialism and “big government” though…

            Reply
          4. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

            The Clinton Foundation will soon be exposed for what it is. Until then we’ll agree to disagree although one would have to be very lenient while ignoring all the coincidences that have occurred within.

            While government can’t “force” business to do anything it certainly can persuade them to by giving tax breaks or alternatives when profit sharing with it’s employees

            Reply
  5. docb August 13, 2016

    No he does not…He is just attempting to make lemonade without the sweetener…

    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.htm

    LIar ,liar, short pants on fire!

    Reply
    1. Siegfried Heydrich August 13, 2016

      Would be kind of nice if the link worked.

      Reply
      1. docb August 14, 2016

        Sorry…Try this…It is the 8/12/2016 issue

        http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html

        Had to cut and paste..It did not work live!

        Reply
  6. charleo1 August 13, 2016

    I’ve talked to several really die hard Trump supporters. And the most common traits among a majority of them starts with a viseral loathing of the Democratic Party. Spoiler alert! Right? But also, and this is what’s new. A burning hatred of the current Republican Party as well. They see them as a corrupt, self serving club of elite, well paid prostitutes, being protected in all instances by a complicit main stream media that lies constantly to cover up the entire incestuous mess going on between both the Left and Right. I need an antacid just talking about it! And the attraction to Trump comes from the idea that somehow, whatever else he is, he’s not any part of that. And many have told me they believe he’ll upset everything that’s going on, and they have no problem, nor fear, of what might be the consequences of him doing that. Their, “excuse,” being that, “things,” are already so bad, after Obama….And Hillary, as Ben Carson described her parroting them, “is Lucifer,” So we can see that’s how the conversation heads off the deep end from there. The thing is, they don’t care. They don’t care what he says. (He’s probably kidding, not a regular politician, to so what? We need to get tough with… then fill in the blank with their own favorite villain. Be it immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, whatever. It is a sight to listen to!

    Reply
    1. Jim Samaras August 13, 2016

      Has this administration not lead you to believe that regardless of whose in office that the war machine must go on? I believe Obama may have had the best intentions before getting into office but once there discovered that the powers that be would never allow such an agenda. The fact that the elitists on both sides are rebuking him should tell us that perhaps Trump, who will not be controlled by these profiteers, and the the unknown “consequences” of a his presidency may not be as bad as the continuance of the policies that have us hated around the world since the LBJ administration.

      Reply
      1. charleo1 August 13, 2016

        This administration has not lead me to believe anything about the easiness of getting into a war via faulty premise. Or the difficulties, and risks involved in extricating ourselves from them. This we should have learned from Viet Nam. If anything Obama has erred on the side of doing too little, or withdrawing too soon, in the wake of Bush, and the Neocon’s rush into preemptive action against weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed. And who could claim we aren’t paying the price of that folly? Or that the Mid-East isn’t a boiling cauldron that now does require some force, if only to protect our allies, oil supplies, and geo political interests in the region?

        Reply
        1. Buford2k11 August 13, 2016

          wow, yes…Obama inherited a bigger mess than the media has reported…PBO was honest in intentions, but when that first big briefing hit home, I think he was pragmatic and smart…he didn’t over react, or fly off at the handle…he did his job…smartly, and we, our country, came first…that should be his legacy…

          Reply
          1. charleo1 August 13, 2016

            In truth, it has been the over reaction to, and the politicization of,
            the risk of international terrorism, where we have made our greatest mistakes while spending outrageous amounts of money. And by no small coincidence, it seems the military industrial complex has been the greatest benefactor of this. Funny how that’s played out, eh? Not to minimize this too much. But the average American has about as much chance of being harmed by an ISSL Agent, as being struck by lightening. Less even. Now, it’s political fodder for Trump whenever there’s a terrorist strike anywhere! It’s always Thanks Obama for founding ISSL! It’s a a bit ridiculous. I thought we were supposed to be the land of the brave?

            Reply
        2. Independent1 August 13, 2016

          My only question here is – Where has Obama done too little and pulled out too soon? Afghanistan?? He’s still committed troops there I believe.

          And there was absolutely nothing Obama could do to keep us in Iraq longer than Bush had negotiated with al-Maliki. The Iraqi parliament nixed virtually every proposal Obama made with respect to keeping our troops there longer. His last proposal was keeping 3,500 troops there longer.

          See this from PolitiFact:

          “I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq,” Long said. “But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political.”

          Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left — and mostly in Syria at first.

          Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.

          “They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave,” Preble said.

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/18/jeb-bush/obama-refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

          Reply
          1. charleo1 August 14, 2016

            Sorry, I was so long in getting back to agree with you…My yacht was being remodeled… and… No, of course, you’re right on the status of forces agreement. The reality was, and we both know this of course. The Iraqis, including the ones that greeted us as liberators, (snark) wanted us out of THEIR Country. Our allies were leaving, the UN mandate was ending, and the Right will never admit the truth on this. But just like George Bush before him, Obama was given no option in the matter from a legal standpoint, but to get out. There was no option to leave behind this magic contingent force the Right now claims would have prevented everything that happened later. Like a lot of their jive, it’s total bumper sticker bs. The rebuttal I was making to commenter Jim S. who was trying to brand Obama as a guy who ran on ending the war, had lied about it, and was still in Iraq. The point I was making, that if anything, Obama was just the opposite. Thought it wiser to stay out of the mess as long as possible, and allow the Iraqis to defend themselves. After all, it was not as if Obama did not offer to stay in Iraq longer, and help. The Iraqis made it impossible to stay, so we left. And, so he’s blasted by the Wingers for that too. Oh, and by the way, what about those terrific approval numbers this two term President is enjoying? After nearly 8 solid years of this kind of hackery, he’s more popular than the Republican Party is with their own base!

            Reply
          2. Independent1 August 14, 2016

            Thanks for clarifying. And I think Obama is more popular in his last year than the GOP’s vaunted Saint Reagan was. Which of course like you point out, the nutcase conservatives will totally ignore because they hate him too much for doing so much good for the country these past almost 8 years (being a Democrat); and especially because he’s black.

            Reply
      2. Sand_Cat August 13, 2016

        Were you struck by lightning recently, or have a vision of Jesus?

        But of course, the one thing it didn’t change is that you’re still a “Trumpanzee,” as Buford2k11 put it so well.

        Reply
      3. Oddworld August 13, 2016

        Jim, I thought the same thing for a long time and still do. Every president gets a briefing before the inaugural speech by the outgoing president and presumably from other powerful sources. After Obama’s briefing he was about to take the podium but the expression on his face is one I’ll never forget. It would be easy to explain it away as the President- elect suddenly realizing the enormous task at hand but what if it’s something else. I read somewhere that all presidents go in idealistically but they soon find that the job rules them, not the other way around. The machine is just too big and as much as you like Trump,
        no one man or women is going to change how the machine operates. They all think they can but they’re
        wrong.

        Reply
      4. plc97477 August 14, 2016

        The people who say that we can live through 4 years of trump are not the ones who will be hurt by trump. They are not the ones just scraping by who can’t make it if another idiot president takes us to the brink of another great depression. They are not the ones who will be lynched by dark of night. They are not the Americans whose religion will put them in danger.

        Reply
        1. Jim Samaras August 14, 2016

          Please explain to me the policies of HC that will help the ones of which you speak then I’l explain the policies of Trump that actually will help them.

          Reply
      5. A. D. Reed August 15, 2016

        Please provide evidence that the U.S. has been “hated around the world” since the LBJ administration. As an American who has traveled extensively, I challenge you to do so, as there’s very little such evidence.

        Reply
        1. Jim Samaras August 16, 2016

          When corporate America goes abroad it is rarely to the benefit of the indigenous population. I believe they hate our way of pushing our beliefs and customs on a generally resistant population. The middle east is a wonderful example of the hatred exuded toward us. It has been so since the Carter administration. By and large we are an ignorant and arrogant nation with our corrupt politicians sponsored by corrupt corporations that rape the natural resources of other nations with little regard for the average citizens who live there. While they may not hate the American people per say it’s our policies and meddling arrogance that has given them the impression that we are the bullies on the block. While it’s hard to “provide evidence” of the hatred one must only look at the self centered policy that we have pushed on the rest of the world to understand why it is so

          Reply
          1. A. D. Reed August 16, 2016

            As I thought. “It’s hard to ‘provide evidence’ of the hatred…” but “I believe they hate our way of…”

            Sorry, Jim. “I believe” is not evidence, either.

            Believe me, I’m not a fan of what American corporations have done around the world over the past century-and-a-half, from the Hawaii plantation owners to the banana republic ugly Americans in Central America. But please, get an encyclopedia or a history book. None of this, even in the Middle East, started with the Carter Administration. The partition of Palestine in the 1920s, the Suez War of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967 … all exposed hatred or resentment of the West to a greater or lesser degree. But it was the Carter Administration that got Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty that has endured for FORTY YEARS.

            Partisan BS is still BS.

            Reply
    2. Buford2k11 August 13, 2016

      I live in and among the Trumpanzees….I hear the same basic thing…it is about dominance and will do and say anything that leads to that dominance…brute strength rules over strength of character…etc..

      Reply
    3. plc97477 August 14, 2016

      They are upset with the gop because although they talked a good game about impeachment or suing the president they never actually got it done.

      Reply
  7. A. D. Reed August 15, 2016

    Despite a reasonably insightful author, one point the author makes that is incomplete, and misleading, is that “Obama has failed to close Guantanamo jail.”

    Obama failed because the president can not unilaterally take that action. Not only did he not get support from enough Democrats to force its closure during the 65 days he enjoyed with a supermajority in the Senate; but as soon as they could the Republicans pushed through budgets that prohibited the president from even holding trials for Guantanamo prisoners in the U.S.

    Obama failed? Sure. He has also single-handedly failed to overturn Citizens United and Buckley v. Valleo. What a loser!

    This is my gripe: that journalists who want to make “a bigger point” don’t bother putting in details and facts that cast their bigger point in a different light. Because then their “bigger point” might get a lot smaller.

    If you’re going to bring up something like Obama’s “failure” or anything else that impacts your story, put it in context, dammit!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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.