Ken's Comments

I was reading the reaction of the Democrat candidates for President to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and the events of the last few days dramatically brought out the differences between Democrats and President Trump. To set the stage for the comparison.  In recent days, an American working as a contractor was killed in attacks on American bases in Iraq.  The Americans retaliated.  Then the American Embassy in Baghdad was attacked by a group backed by Iranians.  Finally yesterday, a US drone strike attacked a convoy and killed General Soleimani and Iranian militia leaders. Let's compare the events in Iraq prior to the attack on General Soleimani versus what happened in Benghazi during the Obama/Biden/Clinton watch. In Benghazi, the American Embassy was overrun, the American Ambassador was killed.  A second American government office was attacked and only escaped being overrun because of the actions of contractors and government offici...

Would the situation in Iran - where people are protesting for free and fair elections - be happening today if not for President Bush? Some people praise President Obama for his restraint on this others are condemning him. However, I have yet to see anyone in the media speak to the role President Bush and the United States have played in making this possible. President Obama's comments on the situation in Iran can be called measured. He is trying to not to say anything that might give the Iranian regime ammunition to use in putting down the protesters. Some are criticizing the President for not saying more in support of the protesters. Others believe the President is doing the right thing. I agree with the idea that the President should not provide ammunition for the current regime. However, I recall the days of President Carter and President Reagan. President Carter spoke nicely to enemies and harshly or (at best) not at all to friends, and his Administration was a disaster for ...

Interesting to see how President Obama is following in President Bush's footsteps on a number of important policies. For example President Obama is continuing: To bail out AIG The TARP program for Banks To bail out of GM and Chrysler The withdrawal from Iraq Not releasing photos of prisoner abuse Spending significantly more federal dollars than the amount of taxes collected There are others, but time does not permit me to research them all. It shows that President Bush's policies were not so horrible as was suggested by Democratic candidates on the campaign trail. At the same time, one must admit there are some things President Obama has done differently - environmental issues and cracking down on credit card companies would be two areas of difference that are notable and laudable. There are areas, such as rgulatory reform of mortgage lending or types of stock trading, where President Bush did not have a chance to offer solutions

If you look over the last 9 years, you'll see that the liberals have come to dislike Great Britain - probably because of their support for George Bush in the War in Iraq. They prefer France, Germany, and Russia - countries that have never provided any significant support for the U.S. This disdain culminated in the past week with the shabby treatment of Great Britain's Prime Minister by the Obama administration. During the run up to the War in Iraq and throughout the War, liberals have repeatedly said the US lacked the support of "World Opinion" for what we were doing. What they meant was that we lacked the support of France, Germany, Russia, and China. The fact that we had the support of other countries, most notably Great Britain - not just support in words but with troops - was given short shrift. I don't think the liberals in the U.S. have forgiven Great Britain for helping us. You'll recall John Kerry's references to testing world opinion before acting...