Barack Obama’s Revolution in Foreign Policy

For the first time in fifty years, a U.S., President has done the right thing, a conservative thing to develop and implement a foreign policy based on friendship and treaties rather than animosity and hostilities. His approach brings long term peace and security to them by turning enemies into friends and partners in peace and cooperation.

Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com    

Barack Obama's revolution in Foreign Policy
Courtesy : Atlantic Magazine

It is a criticism I have heard from more than one person who has worked with President Obama: that he regards himself as the smartest person in the room—any room. Jeffrey Goldberg’s fascinating article reveals that this is a considerable understatement. The president seems to think he is the smartest person in the world, perhaps ever.

 

Power corrupts in subtle ways. It appears to have made Obama arrogant. As described in Goldberg’s story, he is impatient to the point of rudeness with members of his own administration. His response to Secretary of State John Kerry when he hands him a paper on Syria is: “Oh, another proposal?” “Samantha, enough,” he snaps at the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “I’ve already read your book.” We learn, too, that he “secretly disdains … the Washington foreign-policy establishment.”

 

The president is also bluntly critical of traditional American allies. He is said to have told Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain “would no longer be able to claim a ‘special relationship’ with the United States” if it did not “pay [its] fair share” by increasing defense spending. The Pakistanis and the Saudis get especially short shrift here, as—predictably—does Israel.

 Continued http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-revolution/473481/?utm_source=SFTwitter

 

Dangerous Presidents in America from Day # 1

Cruz, Rubio and Trump are the three most dangerous men whom America has ever given birth to, and they are set to ruin the American economy and the American way of life.  

 On Day #1 - they want to repeal Obama care. Forget their hatred for the President, but look at their political meanness to deprive 22 Million Americans of their health insurance. Many of those Americans may be facing life threatening ailments, when they repeal Obama-care on Day # 1, a number of them may die for lack of access to the necessary health care. Does life of Americans matter to them? 

For the first time in American history, the U.S. Government has put the money to right use, to care for Americans rather than blow it on destroying other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan. For the first time pre-existing conditions were covered by health insurance, it is important to know that many American lives have been saved and will continue to be saved.  These three men care less about ordinary Americans. While they can afford to buy any insurance, the average Americans living from pay check to pay check cannot. 

Our country needs a strong defense system to fight off external aggression as well as internal health aggressions. The three should be grateful to Obama for having implemented the measures and means of paving the way for a healthier America and saving American lives.

Furthermore, on Day #1 – they also want to tear up the Iran deal.  That would certainly appease Netanyahu, but completely disregards the long term security of Israel, and as a consequence it would free Iran to pursue the Nuclear Weapons program which brings uncertainty and instability to the region.

President Obama has removed a potential threat to Israel with this deal; and the American Jews have the wisdom to recognize this and support it.  

President Carter, the architect and the facilitator of a permanent Peace Treaty between Israel and its onetime arch enemy Egypt brought relief, after that Israel had one less enemy to worry and thus saved tension, tanks and lives.   I am sure the thoughtful American Jewry will express their gratitude to President Carter. Indeed, Israel should install a statue of President Carter at the Ben Gurion Airport to express their gratitude to him.

President Clinton on the other hand took out another enemy on the east; Jordan, and
President Obama has given the iron dome to Israel and has removed another enemy; Iran.

Tearing up the Iran Deal would be one of the gravest blunders in the US Foreign policy. It would amount to recklessly rejecting Iran’s partnership treaty with Russia, China, UK, Germany, France and the United States.  How do you build coalitions if you are disrespectful to nations that work with us on common goals of reducing conflicts and focusing on economic development?  If we mess with this deal; Iran is likely to become another Rogue Nuclear nation like North Korea and pose a direct and greater threat to Israel.

For the first time in fifty years, a U.S., President has done the right thing, a conservative thing to develop and implement a foreign policy based on friendship and treaties rather than animosity and hostilities.

We may destroy Iran, but we will also destroy ourselves much more.  Gas prices will go up for millions of servicemen/repairmen to make service calls, as it happened towards the end of the Bush era. Small businesses will fold, divorces will become routine, home foreclosures will be back, loss of lives of our men and women, and a few more trillion dollars of deficit will be added to our budget.

Why is little Rubio screaming in every sentence to save our ally Israel? Israel does not need friends like him who will ruin their long term security. Israel needs prudent, wise and visionaries like Obama, Clinton and Carter who will bring long term peace and security to them by turning enemies into friends and partners in peace and cooperation.    

The things Rubio has been clinging on to are repeal Obama-care, tearing up the Iran Deal and supporting Israel’s paranoia.  Every sentence he utters is about supporting Israel, and I am sure Trump supporters resent that, because they want America first and not Israel.  Rubio’s non-sensual rhetoric may increase anti-Semitism in the form of resentment. He and Cruz are dangerous to Israel not only from Americans, but also from those five nations (Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) whose nuclear contracts with Iran they plan to trash, and it is like spitting in their faces.  The costs of the idiotic behavior of Rubio will not fall on themselves, but on the average. I wonder if Saudi Arabia, Germany or UK can throw enough bones at him to let him bark for them. He does not give a crap about the 22 Million Americans’ health care or our economy. He has a serious character flaw.

Ted Cruz, the bloody war monger will carpet bomb other nations like Bush did,  and he will add a few more trillion dollars of deficit to the budget, and shoot the unemployment rate through the roof to go up to 12%, more divorces will follow, home foreclosures will rise, and businesses will start closing down.  Yes, neither Cruz does care what happens to America. He and some of his macho men may draw sadistic pleasure from destroying other nations, but we the people do not want destruction, for which we end up paying again.

Furthermore, Cruz has been disrespectful towards the Supreme Court Justices and their decisions.  Is he above the law to use such vulgar language about them?  He does not seem care, he would let our government shut down and ruin our credit ratings, and he does not give a rat’s ass about the 22 Million Americans’ health care either. Voting for Cruz is regressing to the big bad times of Bush Administration.

Trump will turn his back on nuclear Non-proliferation Deals and peace negotiations just to advance his own agenda, and not necessarily what is good for America. Foreign leaders are not his employees whom he fire at his whim; instead they will turn around and tell him to take a hike. The Muslim nations, some 56 of them would not want to be humiliated by these idiots and will turn to Russia or the UK to purchase their military hardware. Who will be the losers? The men and women employed in our export and defense industry. That is a large number of people and it may hurt our economy severely.   

These three men, Rubio, Cruz and Trump are wrecking balls, and we will be screwed on Day # 1 if we were to elect them as our President. It is time to redefine conservatism; none of the three loose mouths are conservatives in my books.
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit his 63 links at

The most dangerous presidents on Day # 1

Mike Ghouse

Cruz, Rubio and Trump are the three most dangerous men that America has ever given birth to, and they are set to ruin American economy and the American way of life on Day # 1 in their office. Do we want to put them in?

The article is submitted to Huffington Post, and until it is published, I am supposed to wait, it will be out out Tuesday AM, if it is delayed, I can publish it at www.TheGhouseDiary.com and www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.comMonday evening, right here... let's hear your opinions.

Thank you

Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text

Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.

Bill O'Reilly appeals to Trump to join the Fox debate

Do we want a President who throws a fit with someone he disagrees with and does not want to talk about it? Will he throw fits against every world leader who disagrees with him? He is too arrogant to be a leader. Remember Ross Perot? He was good, but he could not run a government, like him Trump would be on the edge to fire every one... then who will he be left with?

Bill OReilly's argument is by far the best, Trump is acting like a spoiled toddler, if he does not join the debate, he has created more problems for himself. 

Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-debate-megyn-kelly-fox-023921731.html 

Bill O'Reilly Tried Really, Really Hard to Get Trump to Do the Fox Debate

Ken Tucker

Ken Tucker

January 27, 2016

“Don’t walk away from it!” yelled Bill O’Reilly to Donald Trump on Wednesday night’s O’Reilly Factor on Fox News. O’Reilly scolded, cajoled, and very nearly begged Trump to reconsider his decision to spurn Thursday’s Fox-sponsored debate because of the candidate’s hurt feelings regarding moderator Megyn Kelly’s previous inquisition of the Presidential candidate.

“I don’t like being used,” said Trump regarding Kelly. “She’s a lightweight… I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly.” “And anyway,” Trump added, “it’s not that important.” O’Reilly tried a number of tactics:

Religion: O’Reilly said, “I know you don’t go to church very often—” “Not true!” yelped Trump, seeing Evangelical Christian votes slipping away even as O’Reilly formed the words. “Maybe I don’t go every week, but…” O’Reilly told Trump that one of the “tenets of your church is forgiveness,” so why not forgive Kelly and show up? “I guess so,” said Trump, “but it’s also called an eye for an eye, too.” Ooh, a New Testament vs. Old Testament throwdown!

Related: Megyn Kelly Has Defeated Donald Trump

Shame: O’Reilly said Trump was shirking his responsibility to “the folks” (translation: that’s O’Reilly-speak for “ordinary people” — i.e., voters) by “walking away” from the debate. “I’m not walking away — I was pushedaway,” snapped Trump. This man really feels abused by Megyn.

Bill O'Reilly Begs Donald Trump to Reconsider Attending GOP Debate

Donald Trump was interviewed on the The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday night, and the White House hopeful spent the entire time deflecting Bill O'Reilly pleads for him to join tomorrow's GOP debate. Trump was adamant about not attending the debates for multiple reasons, the first of which he said, "I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly." Trump also felt that FOX News had taken advantage of him and that he had nothing to gain by attending the debates.

Brutal Realism: O’Reilly told Trump that, when he first entered the race, “people thought you were a buffoon,” but that he’d proven them wrong. Trump hated that. “That’s not a very nice way of expressing it!” he bellowed, clearly stung by the word “buffoon.” “I’m a very successful businessman, I had one of the most popular shows on TV…” Bill was getting nowhere. He was desperate.

“Would you just consider [it]; say, ‘I might come’?” O’Reilly asked. There was also something in there about how, having known each other for 35 years, Trump owed Bill a lot of milkshakes (huh?). Couldn’t Trump “forgive” Kelly, and “go forward”? 

Trump then said something few people reveal on television: “Even though you promised not to ask that, I’m gonna forget it and answer you.” The answer was no.

O’Reilly became a tad flustered, allowing that, yes, he may have promised Trump not to ask a certain question before they went on-camera, but, mustering his bluster, the host said that no one tells himwhat questions to ask. 

All to no avail. I picture O’Reilly, when the little red camera light went off, ripping his lapel microphone off and thundering, “Well, Roger Ailes, Itried!” 

Indeed he did. And you know what? If I was a betting man, I’d bet that there is still a chance that Trump will reconsider, that he just might show up on Thursday night anyway. 

The Republican debate airs Thursday, Jan. 28 at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News. 

 

January 27, 2016, 08:11 pm

Trump refuses to reconsider debate in fiery Fox interview

Courtesy - The Hill

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday night lashed out at Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in his first appearance on the network since he announced he’d boycott the next GOP debate.

 

He also refused to reconsider his decision to sit out the network’s Thursday night debate – the last before the Iowa caucuses in five days – and said he’d move forward with his own competing event to raise money for wounded veterans.

 

Speaking on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump continued his long-running feud with Kelly, who he has been criticizing ever since she challenged him on his past derogatory remarks about women at the first GOP debate in August.

 

“I have zero respect for Megyn Kelly,” Trump said. “I don’t think she’s good at what she does and I think she’s highly overrated. And frankly, she’s a moderator; I thought her question last time was ridiculous.”

 

Kelly is also set to moderate Thursday night’s debate on Fox News.

 

Trump is instead holding a rally in Des Moines at the same time as the Republican debate that he says will raise money for wounded veterans.

 

In the contentious interview with O’Reilly, Trump rebuffed the anchor’s attempts to convince him that he’s making a grave error by skipping the debate.

 

“I believe personally that you want to improve the country,” O’Reilly said. “By doing this, you miss the opportunity to convince others … that is true.

 

“You have in this debate format the upper hand — you have sixty seconds off the top to tell the moderator, ‘You’re a pinhead, you’re off the mark and here’s what I want to say’. By walking away from it, you lose the opportunity to persuade people you are a strong leader.”

 

But O’Reilly’s pitch fell flat with Trump. The GOP front-runner dug in his heels, insisting he intended to retaliate against the network by depriving them of ratings.

 

“Fox was going to make a fortune off this debate,” Trump said. “Now they’re going to make much less.”

 

O’Reilly said he was merely trying to convince Trump that his approach “is wrong because it’s better for people to see you in the debate format.”

 

He gave the example from 2012, when former Speaker Newt Gingrich was asked an embarrassing question by a CNN debate moderator at a South Carolina debate about allegations he had an open marriage.

 

Gingrich shut the moderator down and went on to win South Carolina, O’Reilly noted.

 

“That’s the kind of guy you are,” O’Reilly said. “You stick it to them and let them have it.”

 

Responded Trump: “Newt is a friend of mine and I thought it was an unfair question. But equally unfair was the question Megyn Kelly asked me.”

 

O’Reilly then sought to appeal to Trump’s capacity to forgive, reminding the billionaire businessman that he’s a Christian, even if he doesn’t attend church all that often, and that the Bible says to “turn the other cheek.”

 

Trump shot back, saying he’s a regular church-goer, and that the Bible also says “an eye for an eye.”

 

“You could look at it that way too,” Trump said.

 

O’Reilly accused Trump of being “petty,” and said he was allowing things that are out of his control to have outsized influence over his decision-making process.

 

“I don’t like being taken advantage of,” Trump said. “In this case I was being taken advantage of by Fox. I don’t like that. Now when I’m representing the country, if I win, I’m not going to let our country be taken advantage of. … It’s a personality trait but I don’t think it’s a bad personality trait.”

 

O’Reilly ended the interview asking Trump to just at least consider showing up Thursday night. Trump said the two had agreed beforehand that O’Reilly not ask that question.

 

“I told you up front don’t ask me that question because it’s an embarrassing question for you and I don’t want to embarrass you,” he said.

 

- Updated at 9:17 p.m.

TAGS:

Had George Bush not gone in to Iraq none of the nonsense would have happened. He destroyed America and other nations, and is responsible for the deaths of nearly 5000 of our men and women and nearly half a million innocent Iraqis and Afghans.  There should be at least investigations.

Mike Ghouse 

Did GOP create ISIS? Why Rand Paul says so.

The Junior Senator from the Bluegrass State is not afraid of speaking what's on his mind. 
And his feelings on this country's foreign policy are no exception.

By Husna Haq, Correspondent MAY 27, 2015

Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, who is a candidate for his party's 2016 presidential nomination, has created a national brand as a man unafraid of challenging party orthodoxy.

That was on display Wednesday when Senator Paul credited the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group to hawks within his own party.

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS," Paul said in an interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that aired Wednesday on “Morning Joe.” "They’ve created these people."

Recommended: 17 Republicans definitely (or maybe) running in 2016
As severe as his statement appears, it's not surprising: Paul is known for his unflinching attacks on his own party. He recently wrote that the Republican brand is "broken." And a central theme in his campaign is challenging Republican hawkishness abroad and the national security state at home.

17 Republicans definitely (or maybe) running in 2016

PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the weekend

Republican hawkishness has long gone unchallenged within the party – critics have alleged that hawks in the George W. Bush administration dragged the nation into the Iraq war on exaggerated evidence. Are Paul and the GOP's libertarian wing changing the party's narrative?

He's certainly trying.

In April 2013, when news emerged that US contractors reaped $138 billion from the Iraq war, Senator Paul told the Christian Broadcast Network that his party is too enthusiastic for war. "Part of Republicans' problems... I think [they] have appeared too eager for war," he said.

In December 2014, when President Obama announced he would restore ties with the Castro regime, Republicans decried communist appeasement. But Paul allied with the president and said he supported normalizing relations with Cuba.

And as a majority of Republicans offer a full-throated defense of the Patriot Act, Paul has spoken out against it and against government surveillance programs. “I’m the only one out there saying the Patriot Act went too far,” Paul said in Wednesday's MSNBC interview.

His contrarian stance resonates: Some 60 percent of Americans believe the Patriot Act should be reformed “to limit government surveillance and protect Americans’ privacy," according to a new poll commissioned by the ACLU. Most Americans also oppose the NSA's collection of phone records, according to a January 2014 poll.
And as for the Iraq war, Americans appear to be nearly united, with 75 percent saying it wasn't worth the costs, according to a June 2014 CBS/New York Times poll.

Is Paul changing the GOP foreign policy narrative? Not quite. Some in the party are "nearing a critical mass of impatience with what some call “Rand-ism," writes Politico's Alexander Burns. From center-right South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham to center-left New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, they're lashing out at Paul and his foreign policy philosophy.

In fact, there is evidence that Paul himself is changing, adopting a more hawkish tone to appeal to his party base as the 2016 race heats up.

He proposed an increase in military spending in March, calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years, seen as an olive branch to defense hawks.

And as the Financial Times pointed out, "After spending years criticizing Republican colleagues for demonizing Iran, he was one of the 47 senators who signed last month the now-infamous letter to Iran’s leaders warning them not to trust any deal signed by Mr. Obama."

But it was his presidential campaign announcement tour that best summed up Paul's evolving foreign policy.

"I envision an America with a national defense unparalleled, undefeatable, and unencumbered by overseas nation-building," he told supporters in Louisville in April.
His backdrop for his South Carolina announcement? The aircraft carrier USS Yorktown.

Thank you

mike
Mike Ghouse, Speaker
(214) 325-1916 text/talk
........................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, thinker, writer and a commentator on Pluralism, Islam, India, Israel-Palestine, Politics and other issues of the day. He is a human rights activist, and his book standing up for others will be out soon | He is producing a full feature film " Sacred" to be released on 9/11 and a documentary "Americans together" for a July 4 release.  He is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News and syndicated Talk Radio shows and a writer at major news papers including Dallas Morning News and Huffington Post. All about him is listed in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at www.TheGhousediary.com - Mike is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.
..............................................................................................................

• 

  Jim Young/REUTERS/File

  View Caption

Rape and Republicans - Brian Kurcaba

Republicans are either insensitive or do not care to learn about science, shamefully, their counterparts in India by the name BJP do and say the very same things.I am glad I am not a Republican. Read my article Republican no more on this site.

Mike Ghouse, Independent
Center for American Politics
# # #

West Virginia Republican says rape can be ‘beautiful’ if it produces a child

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/west-virginia-republican-says-rape-can-be-beautiful-if-it-produces-a-child/comments/

West Virginia Republican says rape can be ‘beautiful’ if it produces a child
DAVID FERGUSON
06 FEB 2015 AT 09:25 ET

Republican state lawmaker in West Virginia said on Thursday that while rape is horrible, it’s “beautiful” that a child could be produced in the attack.

According to Huffington Post, Charleston Gazette reporter David Gutman was on the scene when Delegate Brian Kurcaba (R) said, “Obviously rape is awful,” but “What is beautiful is the child that could come from this.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Kurcaba made the remarks during a House of Delegates discussion of a law outlawing all abortions in the state after 20 weeks’ gestation. At 20 weeks, anti-choice activists and lawmakers allege, a fetus can feel pain and is therefore too viable to abort.

The bill was passed by West Virginia Republicans in 2014, but vetoed by Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. Now the state GOP has revived the bill and voted to remove an exception for victims of rape and incest.

Kurcaba’s remarks echo a string of embarrassing statements by Republicans regarding rape and women’s bodies.

In 2012, Missouri’s Rep. Todd Akin said that pregnancy can’t result from rape because “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that while sexual assaults are unfortunate, the resulting pregnancy is a “gift from God.”

Libertarian favorite Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) made statements of his own implying that women routinely fabricate rape stories in order to get abortions.

“If it’s an honest rape,” said Paul, physicians should allow the victim to abort, but otherwise, women should not be able to terminate their pregnancies just because they claim to have been raped.

Republican leaders convened an emergency meeting in 2013 urging the rank and file to stop talking about rape altogether lest it further alienate women voters, who have been abandoning the Republican Party in droves.

Nonetheless, Kurcaba — a financial advisor who was elected in 2014 — appears eager to bring discussions of rape back into the dialogue about women’s access to reproductive health care.

Next president animal or human?

This part is from my article in Dallas Morning News to be published tomorrow. "Think about it, when God created animals, he equipped them with horns, fangs and paws to resolve the disputes with fellow animals, where as he did not give any of that to us - but gave us a tongue instead; to dialogue and resolve conflicts. "

To stop uncontrollable aggression by the others, war may be needed as the very very last resort; otherwise, it shows we have not evolved from an animal to human. Those who seek war are incapable of dialoguing, they cannot think beyond bombing, killing, subduing and pushing others. We the faith leaders need to communicate that and take an assertive stand against wars and war mongers. 

Thanks to Obama, perhaps the first non-war monger president in a 50 year period, who has used intelligence to dialogue and resolve the issues rather than bomb, bomb and mess up others and mess up ourselves.  He has avoided wars and continues to seek dialogue.

On my part, I have decided to assertively campaign against war monger candidates, those whose brain cannot think peace and dialogue. On domestic policy, if any one of the candidate carry a divisive language instead of cohesive language, we will have to nail that SOB or B. 

Mike Ghouse, 
An independent American, read me more at  
http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/

2016: Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'

I am glad this comment surfaced. For the last three months Jeb made serious attempts to distance himself from his brother, but he responded differently to impromptu questions. Last week he said he would have gone to the war with the given information.. how can these guys actually believe and propagate such lies? Now he blames Obama for ISIS, that is a mistake he is making and will come to haunt him.

Actually, he would be a better candidate to go against Hillary, she will win hands down even though she had voted for the war.

Obama on the other hand is the first non-war monger president who has resisted every war and resorted to dialogue instead.

Nearly 5,000 Americans died because of the stupidity of Bush,  and about half a million Iraqi's were murdered because of the war - destroyed other nations, millions of job losses, home foreclosures, divorces and $10 Trillion budget deficit. Shame on Bush!


Mike Ghouse, Independent
Center for American Politics
# # # 

Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'

A video appears when clicked the link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/jeb-bush-isis_n_7279970.html?ref=topbar 

A college student told likely GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Wednesday that his brother, former President George W. Bush, was to blame for the rise of the Islamic State.

The heated confrontation took place at a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, according to The New York Times. Ivy Ziedrich, 19, a student at the University of Nevada, approached the former Florida governor to question him about comments he had made during the event. Bush had argued that the Obama administration's weak foreign policy was responsible for the rise of the terrorist group, also known as ISIS, in the Middle East.

Ziedrich countered that Obama wasn't to blame -- and that it was his predecessor's decision to disband the Iraqi army that made the group's formation possible.

"Your brother created ISIS," she told Bush.

What followed was a contentious exchange, according to the Times. Ziedrich accused Bush of "spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars," pointing out that under his brother, the U.S. had spent years in the Middle East, waging "pointless wars where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism."

Bush responded by defending the war in Iraq. "When we left Iraq, security had been arranged, al Qaeda had been taken out," he said. "There was a fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the sectarian violence."

Read the full Times report here.

Bush has had difficulty distancing himself from his brother's controversial foreign policy legacy, chiefly the Iraq war. On Monday, he fumbled a question about whether he would have authorized the war if he had today's intelligence, responding that he would have. He later claimed to have misheard the question, and then backtracked and refused to give a definitive answer, saying instead that "mistakes were made." At the town hall on Wednesday, he shrugged off further questions about the war by claiming they were "hypotheticals" and "a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot."

Bush has advocated a hawkish approach to dealing with the Islamic State, and has repeatedly criticized Obama for not combating the extremist group more aggressively.

"Restrain them, tighten the noose and then take them out," Bush said in February.

The Huffington Post  |  By Marina Fang

•  

Jon Stewart's take on 47 backstabbers - this is perfect and nuetral

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/watch-jon-stewart-skewers-gop-letter-iran-were-cuckoo-bananas?akid=12882.1084043.SVPkCb&rd=1&src=newsletter1033126&t=7


Thank you

Mike Ghouse

Iran-Us Relations and my Notes

It  is good to have multiple views of a given situation, so we can see different of truth to choose from. No matter what Netanyahu screams and fill our ears, here are the facts:

1. Iran has not attacked any nation as long as we are in existence
2. Iran defended Iraq's aggression that we propped
3. Iran was our friend till 1979 - it cannot become a foe on a flip of coin
4. When Shah was booted out, we supported him instead of the people
5. Neither they, nor we offered hands of friendship to repair relations
6. We had equal hostility towards them as they had for us
7. How do you expect things to change
8. Obama believes in dialogue, where as some believe in wars
9. Obama is a builder of a cohesive world
---
Netanyahu on the other hand has lied to us several times, it is all available on the net. He is bad news for Israel more than he is for us. I hope the Israelis dump him on 3/17 for their own good. I have no earthly idea why we believe him rather than our president, who has done nothing but good for our country. 

Here is what happened by listening to Mr. Netanyahu as well as Cheney's ways.

01. Clinton left a surplus
02. Bush - left a $10 Trillion deficit to satisfy his falsities
03. His decision killed over 6000 American soldiers 
04. 43 Million people lost their jobs,
05. Homes and businesses were foreclosed.
06. Obama turned around every thing
07. Lowest unemployment now
08. Reducing budget deficit annually
09. No wars and destruction
10. Romney would have finished America by bombing Iran
11. He has not thrown our soldiers in harms way, instead called'me back
12. He has put the system in place to have healthier Americans 
13. He will be leaving behind better roads and bridges for years to come

We should be honest with our morality and thank the guy instead of harass him. Shame on those few creeps who are wasting our monies in harassing him instead of doing their work. America will not forgive these men. 

Obama will go down as the one of the most effective Presidents in our history, may be top 10. 
Mike Ghouse

Obama is the right man at the right time and the right place, God bless him!

Mike Ghouse | http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/

Obama is the right man at the right time and the right place, God bless him!

President Obama will go down in the history as the wisdom president who believed and practiced in inclusive and cohesive societies. He is the right man at the right time for the right job and has pulled the country out of the mess his predecessor left, he is righting every wrong done before him from job creation to reducing budget deficits, restoring respect (not the bully respect but respect for respect) among community of nations and a solid infrastructure of road and bridges for years to come.

Wisdom President - Barack Obama

He has laid the foundation for a strong secure America from both external and internal (health care) enemies. He is a catalyst in acceptance of GLBT as a new norm of the society with same sex marriages, and above all giving the full meaning to our immortal declaration that all men are equal.

Don’t get me wrong, I have severely criticized some of his policies on drones, not recognizing the State of Palestine that would have given relief to the Jewish people, and not giving ultimatum to the ISIS and prioritizing the sequence of the affordable care act.

Shame on the Democrats! They should have trumpeted his extraordinary contributions to the betterment of our nation. He gave hope and uplifted America and brought a positive change to the world. They failed to beat up the Republicans on his record during the mid term elections and lost the Senate. 

Shame on the Republicans! They should have the guts to acknowledge that he is the best thing that has happened to America. A few Neanderthalic racist Republican fringes will continue to discount his work, and we have to accept them as a bad part of the equation that every society has to live with.

Ever since I knew Obama through his speech in 2006 at the Chicago Senate, I knew he would be my mentor in Pluralism. I have written over 75 pieces about him and hope to continue to write about him – his failures and mostly successes.

By the way, since 2008, I claim and here is the record that his speeches have 40-50% of the material, thoughts, ideas and words in my writings, usually published a week or two before his speech, and many a times same sequence of words.  I am looking to pay to students to put together these identicalities and hope to present to the President.

His speech yesterday has got solid statements that reflect my writings.

"No religion is responsible for terrorism — people are responsible for violence and terrorism," Obama told delegates at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. This is actually my father’s quote that I have been writing for the last 12 years.

On Wednesday he sought to explain his wording, declaring al Qaeda and ISIS "desperate for legitimacy." "They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam," he said. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists."

"We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam," Obama said during his remarks, adding later that Muslim leaders "need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam."

Groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda "try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam," Obama said, but "we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie."

"Of course, the terrorists do not speak for a billion Muslims who reject their ideology," Obama said. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God, represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism."

In fighting extremism, Obama said the United States and allies must also address the economic and political "grievances" that often fuel violent ideology. Governments must work to help provide economic opportunity, education, democracy, and the rule of law to their citizens, he said.

 That said, Obama warned that "engagement with communities can't be a cover for surveillance," and governments should deal with vulnerable people "through the prism of law enforcement."

Obama did it for Modi, it was a good strategy

http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2015/01/obama-did-it-for-modi-it-was-good.html

I have placed my write up on 1/16 and Obama’s speeches on 1/26 and later on for comparison. A lot of similarities.