Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
U.S. President George W Bush left office in January 2009 with some of the lowest poll numbers ever recorded. Nowhere were his policies more reviled than in foreign policy. U.S. global leadership had suffered severely during his administration, and voters, well aware of the damage to America's reputation and the enormous addition to the national debt, handed the White House to the Democrats.
So why are so many of the candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination rushing to revive the exact same Bush-era approach to international affairs?
The best case in point is the recently concluded Iran nuclear deal. The agreement blocks any path to an Iranian bomb, establishes unprecedented verification procedures, largely eliminates Iran's enriched uranium and sharply curtails Tehran's other nuclear research.
In the Bush administration, there was a definite preference for unilateral action - international cooperation was downplayed. The White House undertook the major foreign-policy gamble of the new century - invading Iraq - almost alone.
By contrast, President Barack Obama chose diplomacy with Iran to make clear to the world that such unilateralism had ended. His administration slowly and painstakingly built a sanctions regime that brought to bear the combined power of the world's major economies and dozens of other countries. It was a slower, more methodical approach.
Though most now agree that "crippling sanctions" brought Iran to the negotiating table, many tend to gloss over the fact that it was diplomatic engagement - not unilateral action - that made the sanctions possible and produced the agreement. We should also not forget that many of the current opponents of the agreement strongly opposed the diplomatic effort to build that international consensus.
Yet leading Republican candidates are now struggling to outdo one another over who would abandon U.S. allies first. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has implied that military action might be required on "Day One" of his presidency. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has implied that it might take a little longer. There's little sign that either of them realize the critical importance of Washington leading an international effort.
And if U.S. allies are of little importance to these candidates, international institutions like the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency appear to be held in even lower esteem. In denouncing the pact with Iran, despite its unprecedented verification and enforcement provisions, several candidates declared their outrage over the fact that the atomic energy agency was responsible for the details of inspections. Given that the agreement was successfully negotiated by all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it was expected that critical enforcement of the agreement would be managed by the atomic energy agency.
All this brings to mind George W. Bush's similar dismissal of existing international institutions. For example, when the head of the U.N. inspectors in Iraq, Hans Blix, reported in early 2003 that he had doubts about the presence of weapons of mass destruction there, and that, in any event, a few more months of inspections would settle the issue, Bush disregarded his counsel and invaded Iraq. We all know now that there were no WMD in Iraq.
In stark contrast to that foreign-policy disaster, the Iran agreement has the unanimous support of the Security Council, as well as backing from major economic powers, including Germany, India and Japan. This week, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, joined Egypt in fully endorsing the deal.
The value of this global support is immeasurable. It is a force multiplier of enormous consequence. By contrast, if the deal is abandoned, and the United States finds itself moving toward war with Iran, Washington should expect to fight that war alone. Even if America does not bomb or invade Iran, it would still be a pariah because the other countries will resume relations without Washington - again relegating the United States to lower status in the world.
For decades, the Republican Party - my party - was widely viewed as a party of wise and thoughtful national-security leadership. That brand was severely damaged by the Bush administration. It now appears that the field of Republican presidential candidates is looking to make that damage permanent.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.
48 Comments
Login to comment
bass4funk
Ok, so we now have AN opinion of one of the former COS to Powell, a man that is constantly going into the liberal circle, liberal shows particularly Ed Schulz, Maddow etc. I followed this guy for many years. The man calls himself a conservative? Now we have another pseudo conservative commenting as if he speaks for the entire military, not even close. But I already smell blood in the water today as I know libs will be over-exaggerating that Wilkerson speaks for the entire GOP or conservative movement. I would appreciate this guy more if he just said, he is a lib and feels more comfortable as one. Don't have a problem with that. That's why I like Gen. Wesley Clark, he's a lib, but he's not a bomb throwing lib, calm, well-mannered, likable guy, don't agree with his politics, but he's a sensible guy and admits to his position, but Wilkerson is not that kind of individual. Just because he may or may not have voted for Obama doesn't confirm his footing as a true conservative.
plasticmonkey
And you call yourself a nonpartisan?
Serrano
Donald Trump sounds like George W. Bush? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
bass4funk
You always zone in when I criticize liberals, but when I criticize conservatives you have no problem overlooking that. I hear silence only from you guys.
plasticmonkey
Like when?
smithinjapan
The reason is because anyone who is still standing behind the GOP is just that dumb that they have to lower themselves to the level of bush's intelligence to appeal to them.
bass4funk
Everyday
I tried at first to give Obama a chance, but I quickly saw my IQ was slipping, so I guess I'm SOL with both parties now. All the smarts and nothing to show for it. It's time for a new revolution.
@plastic-see, I just did. I made a reference to both parties, now put the partisan talk to bed.
kaynide
The Republicans are despiratly fighting amongst themselves to get a boost in approval. Obviously they're going to say whatever gets their followers on board.
Meanwhile, the rest of America is full steam ahead on the "Us vs. Them" train that pervades everything from Religion to Politics to..somehow.. gaming systems and on and on.
Forget the issues, you choose team Blue? Just gotta rationalize why team Red is full of idiots then.
bass4funk
So then what the heck are Obama and Hillary doing???
From the looks of it, I lot of people think the look better in red.
kaynide
Bass: I see you're on the red team. Good luck sir with the anger management apparently.
No idea. Haven't really followed, other than some foaming at the mouth about Hilary's lost emails and/or Bengazi. Team Blue's been pretty boring to be honest. BTW: there's less need to squabble and fight when you're not competing with God knows however many Team Reds there are.
You realize I personally don't give a flying **** about either side right? My vote goes to whoever I think will do the best job in the current situation.
JohnBecker
It seems to me that the Republican candidates are competing in a race to the bottom. They're courting the ignorant, and the oligarchs who profit from the ignorant. They deny science when it's inconvenient, they revise history, they restrict voter access, they prattle on about patriotism and Jesus and call President Obama the devil incarnate.
What they're doing, essentially, is standing up in front of people and doing the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Great for ratings.
Kabukilover
The fact is that the "golden decade" after 9/11 saw a surge in profits for the arms industries, what Jeb Bush called a "good deal" https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/13/jeb-bush-hosted-defense-contractor-backed-group-calls-iraq-war-pretty-good-deal/ USA Today reported ("Golden decade is ending for defense industry, and stocks," 8/18/11)): "In the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, the annual defense budget has more than doubled to $700 billion and annual defense industry profits have nearly quadrupled, approaching $25 billion last year." <> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-08-20-defense-stocks_n.htm
This why these Republican are all sounding like George W. Bush. They want the party to go on. But as US Today reported, the party is over. The federal government is in debt. And even the best (worst) of wars cannot go on forever.
The Republican want more wars. And they are sounding like idiots. The Democrats are more constrained. But I fear they will give us the wars the Republicans want.
sangetsu03
The GOP candidates all sound like George Bush, the democtrats all sound like Hillary Clinton. The reason this is so because most politicians are just figureheads of the extensive machines for their parties. Candidates have the same goals; tell any lie, make any promise to get elected, then once you are in office, you divide your time extorting money from the taxpayers to fund projects which will benefit your supporters, and working on your reelection campaign.
Both parties choose candidates who will do what the party wants them to do, and that is to make money for everyone in the party. Politics is about money, just like anything else, and the government consumes more each and every year.
Pukey2
bassfunk:
Like when conservatives aren't conservative enough:
Forget about Hilary Clinton for the moment. ANY democrat is a shoo-in for the race to the White House given the circus freak show that's happening right now on the Republican side.
kcjapan
Why do all the GOP candidates sound like George W Bush? by Lawrence Wilkerson (Republican)
Why? Really?
The GOP-Tea went to war on lies. (Betrayed CIA operative Wilson-Plame, 'Yellow Cake' forged documents) Spent Three Trillion, given to AWOL's friends and Black Water. Announced Victory in 2003. Left the Veterans to rot demanding cutting the VA budget. Came home, went to war on the elderly (Slashing Social Security) and the young (Governor Walker's War on Teachers).
As AWOL Bush skulked out of his failure to paint is toes in water colors, the GOP-Tea wheeled right and went to war on race, healthcare and the economy. Birther's, "I want my country back" and Bush's Bailout of Wall Street formed the trifecta of GOP-Tea assault on Americans at home.
Why do all the GOP candidates sound like George W Bush? You must be joking.
The GOP-Tea has become the Shia reality of the GOP. Zealots, fascists and racists are all welcome. As AWOL Bush said: "you're either with us or against us".
Apparently, now, the GOP-Tea is against every decent red-blooded American in their eight years of war at home. One of their ranks even went to war on his own employees when his pizza shop (with enormous Iraq contracts) would have to add 13 cents per pizza pie to pay for the Affordable Care Act.
Why do all the GOP candidates sound like George W Bush?
Because they are going to destroy the village in order to save it for their religious and greedy sponsors. Where's the big surprise?
Thirty years of war on Americans in America? What have they left but a guy with a bad hair piece and a crowd of petty dictators waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe in the form of a mushroom cloud?
Peter Payne
I have been quite satisfied with Obama, who took risks, did things that needed doing, doubled the stock market, and "got" four of our national enemies (or, had the good luck to be on watch when they died of natural cases in some cases). They were bin Laden (which "Obama" got, giving full credit to him since any Republican who had been president at the same time would have taken full credit for himself), Kim, Ghadaffi, and now Omar. Obama has enhanced the stature of America and the American presidency by running a clean administration, not having any scandals to speak of (except for stupid noise manufactured by his enemies), has not gotten the Presidential dick sucked in the oval office, and has been a really awful Muslim sleeper agent, supporting things like gay marriage and womens' rights. The fact that most Conservatives can say things like "Obama is the worst president ever" and actually believe them, without having the honesty to even admit some of the man's strengths, makes me feel very sad for that half of America.
zones2surf
In relation to this article and the comments, I see similar on many U.S.-centric web pages. It reminds me of just how partisan and polarised the U.S. has become. Those that hate the Dems will hate the Dems, those that hate the Repubs will hate the Repubs. The language used by both sides to describe the other side leaves no room for civilised dialogue, just two sides lobbing hand grenades at each other. And facts are no longer facts. "Facts" are used as weapons in this battle. Not with a desire to come to agreement, but to win. And to win at all costs.
I am glad that all of those commenting have such strong views and opinions. At least they are not apathetic. However, it is also reflective of how true dialogue with respect to U.S. politics has largely degenerated into a yelling match with name calling and ad hominem attacks.
So, if I am a Republican, I must be an ignorant, Bible thumping, anti-science, greedy capitalist pig and if I am a Democrat, I must be a communist, traitorous anti-American, baby killing, intellectual intolerant snob. Or something like that. Almost impossible to have a civilised and productive discussion with that sort of name calling and attacks going on.
Anyway. One other thing-
I am always fascinated by the articles that JT chooses to post into the Opinion section. With all of the world and its issues to choose from, there just seems to be a preponderance of articles related to U.S. politics. The last 4 articles posted have all been about the U.S. and/or U.S politics.
How about some opinion pieces about the current immigration confrontation involving the UK and France? Or about the recent developments with gay marriage in Australia? Or the African migrant tragedy in the Mediterranean.
Just saying.
kcjapan
"I am always fascinated by the articles that JT chooses to post into the Opinion section." - comments
A well written and thoughtful analysis. Comments aren't going to change the world. As noted: "At least they are not apathetic."
However, there is little use in casting stones but is reasoned argument attended to in this type of exchange. Only rarely do contributors quoted here examine the futile nature of excess and myopia.
Perhaps JT's editorial is guided by IP and other contributor stats. And maybe 'views' are still the driver of content. With respect, a far better observation than many, well done.
Kurobune
My favorite GWB quote, "Mission accomplished."
Paustovsky
US Politics is world politics. That's why the world shows an interest. Decisions made by a few suits and top brass in Washington affects the foreign and domestic policies of nearly every country in the world.
Kaerimashita
don't think Trump sounds at all like GWB.
bruinfan
Bernie Sanders does not sound like Hilliary.
zones2surf
@kcjapan,
Appreciate the comments. And, with respect to the drivers of content, fair point.
@Paustovsky,
Agreed. I do recognise the impact of U.S. politics on the world, whether the rest of the world likes it or not, and, therefore, the interest and the value in covering it. I was just pointing out that the percentage of U.S.-related opinion pieces seem to be relatively high. But, of course, that's just my view.
BertieWooster
So why aren’t Bush, Cheney and the rest of the wrecking crew brought to justice?
How can they get away with this?
bass4funk
Which is a damn shame!
At least people are interested and excited. On the Dems side, people need to take a couple of No Dooz to stay awake with the lack of candidates and the boredom that follows them.
So why aren’t Bush, Cheney and the rest of the wrecking crew brought to justice?
What on Earth for???
Because you need to be convicted of a crime and both weren't convicted of any wrong doing.
But what about the National debt? You don't care that Obama is racking up the debt and that we have over 45 million people on food stamps for the last 49 months, that doesn't bother you??
With SEAL Team 6 that Bush recommend and counciled Obama, but no mention or thank you, not surprised.
What???ROFLMAO
Dude, all I can say is WOW! Just WOW!
I think it's very sad, that we had to endure such a horrible 7 long disastrous years with one of the worst presidents ever and we still have 449 more days to go until this guy finally leaves us all so we can gain back some sense of dignity.
Because like everything else, this is a ratings driven business. U.S. Politics brings in a lot of interest and people from around the world want to know what's going on, the debates, the blogs, all draw in record numbers of highly interested people and sadly, the other countries not as much.
zones2surf
@bass4Funk
Sure, I get that. However, given that this is an English language site titled "JapanToday", sometimes it just seems a little out of proportion. But, I get why JT may choose to populate the Opinion section with the articles that it does.
bass4funk
Don't get me wrong, you make a very excellent point and I agree with you, but again, sadly, people want to see chaos and carnage and the U.S. Has a lot of that
Jeff Huffman
Why do all the GOP candidates sound like George W Bush?
Are you kidding? By and large, the putative front runners make Shrub sound more presidential than he was ever able to muster.
Since McCain, the GOP has been in a race pell-mell to the bottom. They have become the party of no increasingly remote from the vast majority of the electorate in the U.S. on most social issues and foreign affairs. Their economic mantra is down to a single phrase - reduce taxes (but leave corporate subsidies alone). Jesus. Even Reagan and Bush Sr. needed to raise taxes. And if Shrub, Greenspan and Congress had had any sense, they would have left rates where they were in March of 2001, the last time the U.S. had budget surpluses and was paying down long term national debt.
Shrub was easily the worst president in U.S. history, but if the country is foolish enough to elect another Rethug in 2016, everyone of them currently running would have a much better than even chance to exceed his level of incompetents.
kcjapan
"They (The GOP-Tea) have become the party of no increasingly remote from the vast majority of the electorate in the U.S. on most social issues and foreign affairs." - comments
More than remote, the GOP-Tea has been at war with Americans in America for decades. As observed, do they sound like AWOL Bush?
No, they sound like they're echo chamber just got turned up to eleven and they can't scream their hatred for Americans any louder. Heck, Trump's idea of rallying the troops is calling Americans losers, and that's on his good days.
Jeff Huffman
BertieWoosterAUG. 17, 2015 - 05:22PM JST Bush disregarded his counsel and invaded Iraq. We all know now that there were no WMD in Iraq. So why aren’t Bush, Cheney and the rest of the wrecking crew brought to justice? How can they get away with this?
Bush did not disregard Powell's counsel because I doubt he even voiced his reservations. I choose to believe that than to accept that he was so stupid or evil as to swallow or endorse the crap that was being conjured for public justification of the war.
More to you point, they have gotten away with it because, outside of the extended family and friends of those people killed in the attacks of 9/11, which we knew as early as 2004 were in no way connected to the nonsense about Iraq having or seeking to attain WMD, relatively few Americans were directly involved.
The last war that mattered to a good portion of the U.S. population was Vietnam because some 1,000,00 American men were drafted during the War. Nearly 60,000 were killed and nearly 160,000 wounded in combat there. No one knows the statistics on those who did or still do suffer PTSD. The anger at the American government was probably the highest it had been since during the draft protests in some northern cities during the Civil War. The evening news brought the reality of that war into American homes nightly with often grisly scenes of death and daily body counts.
Except for the financial hardship caused down the road because of twice lowering taxes in the middle of two wars that eventually totalled some $3 trillion, Americans were blissfully unaware of the details of Iraq ("Mission Accomplished") and frankly didn't care because most Americans in the middle and upper income brackets don't have friends or family members in the military and the people on the pointed end of the stick are of a different color and different religion and culture. There was, is a lingering percentage of Americans, dead-enders, to use Rumsfeld's term to describe those Iraqis that were then in 2006 fighting a civil war, who still think Saddam and al Qaeda worked together, that we found WMD and that the Surge worked. So, between complete indifference, the GOP which must keep the lie alive, the portion of Americans that think it was worthwhile and, to quote the supposedly smarter Bush brother, "it turned out well." Americans don't care. They might be able to tell you who last won American Idol, but have never heard of Fallujah or why it mattered (America's Grozny).
I'm sure Obama would have loved to have opened an investigation into the lies, though they are well-documented at this point, behind our response to 9/11 and the wars we waged. But he was rather busy saving the economy run into the ditch by Shrub as well as shoving health care costs into a smaller, more affordable box.
Not that it matters much to Shrub, but neither he nor Cheney can leave the U.S. any longer for fear of being arrested abroad as war criminals and brought to trial at the Hague. This might apply to Rumsfeld and should include Wolfowitz, Rice and few others as well. And Colin Powell, the father of shock and awe, should have refused to tell those lies at the UN. As the only combat veteran and military mind in a war cabinet comprised otherwise of chicken hawks and know-nothings, he should have resigned before the invasion as it's apparent now that he had no influence whatsoever in the cabinet. But I digress.
We should have prosecuted Reagan for authorizing the sale of weapons to Iran, whereas Obama is excoriated for trying to prevent them from acquiring the most destructive of weapons, and then diverting the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua after Congress suspended funding. The latter half of the 20th Century through the early part of the 21st has been particularly disastrous for the U.S.
sfjp330
Jeff Huffman AUG. 18, 2015 - 08:31AM JSTAmericans were blissfully unaware of the details of Iraq ("Mission Accomplished") and frankly didn't care because most Americans in the middle and upper income brackets don't have friends or family members in the military and the people on the pointed end of the stick are of a different color and different religion and culture.
Most people in the U.S. are unaware of nearly 500,000 people that have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. Majority of the victims were civilians in Iraq. U.S. should provide a truer picture of the suffering caused by war, and hopefully to make governments think twice about the harm that would come from an invasion. It is important that people understand the consequences of launching wars. Iraq has forever changed.
nath
I think for many Americans, they don't count since they were only Muslims.
nath
Strangerland.
I am afraid you might be right, no good things come from an "us vs them" mindset for sure no peace.
badsey3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
==> Sanctions were in place against Iran since 1979.
zurcronium
It was McCain that started the process by picking Palin. That is when the Republican freak and loser show started. Picking an unqualified rube opened the door to sanatorium, the huckster and the 999 cain. Now with 17 candidates the circus car is a full-blown survivor reality show lead by the Donald. Just what the republicans deserve.
sangetsu03
Except that much of this "intelligence" was passed on from the Clinton Administration. And we can't forget that the CIA director at the time was appointed by Bill Clinton. And we also can't forget that many democrats also voted for the Iraq war, largely upon the weight of speeches made by both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
The funny thing is that none of the above people are in the GOP, and there was no "Tea Party" back then. But never let the truth get in the way of an infantile, ignorant rant.
sfjp330
@sangetsu03
What is your point? You have the intelligence communication about Clinton in 1998? Clinton has nothing to do with Iraq invasion.
sangetsu03
Are you serious? They have everything to do with the Iraq war. America's intelligence apparatus at the start of the Iraq war was appointed by Bill Clinton during his terms. Some of the democrats I listed above sat on the defense and intelligence committees, and as they did, they knew as much as the president. If not more. You can blame Bush and the GOP all you like, but Clinton deserves an equal amount of the blame, as well as Kerry, Hillary, Feinstein, and Pelosi, all of whom had the same information as Bush, and all of whom voted for the war in Iraq.
Open your eyes and realize that ideologues like yourself do not exist in Washington, where there are no democrats or republicans, just greedy politicians. You are one do the divided-and-conquered who has been brainwashed into choosing a side, so you can be played against others who have been brainwashed into taking the other side. And while you are frothing at the mouth fighting each other over phony issues fomented by the powers-that-be, they are profiting immensely.
Wake up
bass4funk
And on the Dems side you have a habitual liar, a out of the closet socialist, a man who wants to tax the rain and quite possibly the man that invented the Internet and call me daddy Biden. Now if that isn't a circus of the highest order, then I don't know what is and with Clinton getting deeper and deeper into the bog, the less likely it looks like she'll have a coronation after all, but an investigation.
nath
It's not. The 17-candidate Republican zoo is.
The more you know.
bass4funk
Oh, yes it is and with all the bells and whistles. I wonder if Hillary will use her magic wand or some of her friends at Disneyland to give her some help. ROFL
Jeff Huffman
sangetsu03AUG. 18, 2015 - 03:07PM JST The GOP-Tea went to war on lies. (Betrayed CIA operative Wilson-Plame, 'Yellow Cake' forged documents)
Except that much of this "intelligence" was passed on from the Clinton Administration. And we can't forget that the CIA director at the time was appointed by Bill Clinton. And we also can't forget that many democrats also voted for the Iraq war, largely upon the weight of speeches made by both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
Oh where do people get this nonsense? The war "intelligence" used to justify the Iraq invasion post 9/11 was generated whole cloth by a secondary group created by Cheney outside of military and CIA channels, both of whom had already discredited these sources. In fact, the idea of conquering Iraq goes clear back to the end of the Gulf War. The preliminary plan was drawn up by Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney's assistant at the Department of Defense at the time, but shelved. This plan was pretty much the raison d'etre for the creation of The Project for the New American Century. Not surprisingly, this "think tank" no longer exists.
Most of the signers of this document wound up in the first Bush administration war cabinet.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.salon.com/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Special_Plans
sangetsu03
In case you are unaware, the US has drawn up plans to invade North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Panama, and a dozen other places. The existence of an invasion plan is not a smoking gun in any way. The US and the UN stood by through the 90's as Saddam thumbed his nose at inspectors. Saddam managed to accumulate millions in the "oil for food" program by bribing members of the UN (one of them being Kofi Anna's son. The Iraq war was the result of corruption, vacillation in the US and UN, misplaced assumptions, and moronic intelligence which was generated mainly during the Clinton administration. I was in ten Army in the 90's, and our until was put on alert whenever Saddam and the UN had a pissing contest.
nath
The Iraq war was a result of little Bush wanting to finish Big Bush's fight, no matter what. He took an unrelated incident (9/11) and combined it with lies to justify the invasion, and when the world wouldn't back him (the UN was giving Iraq due process which Bushy didn't like), they went in and did it on their own. And were eventually proven to be 100% in the wrong, destroying a country, becoming responsible for the deaths of 500,000 civilians, and the creation of ISIS.
Easily the single biggest screwup in US history, and that includes Vietnam.
bass4funk
And your proof that he said that is......
Because you want to believe it so????
NOT only him.
AFTER the UN own drafted resolution of article 1441 was not enforced, authorizing the the USE of military force.
And mostly the sectarian violence that overwhelming ensued after and tore up the country.
Not quite sure about that.
MarkG
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/report-republicans-have-happier-marriages-than-democrats/
Could be why libs are not happy. Spewing hate occasionally on these posts.
Jeff Huffman
MarkGAUG. 20, 2015 - 08:48AM JST http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/report-republicans-have-happier-marriages-than-democrats/ Could be why libs are not happy. Spewing hate occasionally on these posts
Snort. What, NewsMax didn't have a chart? "Happiness" is an entirely subjective metric and can be lied about. Otherwise, as is apparent to anyone who has paid attention to public affairs in the U.S. going back decades, the self-proclaimed party of family values has none. For every Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, I see you three David Vitters and throw in a couple Denny Hasterts, Mark Foleys and Larry Craigs. How many time has the Donald been married and gone bankrupt?
http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_Republicans_vs._Democrats
http://www.christianpost.com/news/divorce-rates-high-in-southern-bible-belt-states-54539/
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/06/27/opinion/20090627blowchart.html