Been There, Done That--but not with the President
584562
The film is reminiscent of many an airplane, ship, railroad and, probably, even ferry boat, terror-hostage-'noted individual at risk' film; however, making it the President, gives it an extra bit of  pizzazz. Of course, Harrison Ford does his usual professional job, the nasty guys are suitably nasty, the good ones are suitably heroic, and one forgives them their excesses in the name of thriller necessity. Thriller it is, and, a good one. Lovers of the genre, accustomed to forsaking reality for the sake of enjoying a film, will like this one. I liked it. The only thing which marred it for me, occasionally was the lurking thought which would rise to the  surface before I firmly repressed it; what if we really had a President in a crisis who also ignored his oath of office so readily, had no sense of his duty to the country, what if we really had a Vice-President so unwilling to do the hard but necessary things. Never fear, President Harrison Ford will triumph as will V.P. Close. Never fear, the United States does not collapse into anarchy.
2984258
The President is a rank amateur who cannot lead when he tries, and who mainly does not try to lead. The writing seems amateurish, too, unfortunately,
255170
Taken from my blog (Day by Day in Our World) review of this product:

Regardless of your personal political affiliations, there is something to be gained by reading biographies of the Presidents.  Better yet, it can be both enlightening and entertaining to read an autobiography of one.

Decision Points by George W. Bush fits that bill with a look at his life through his eyes.

If you are looking for a book to dwell upon his life before the Presidency, then keep looking.  Bush spends less than 100 pages of the nearly 500 pages on the time leading up to his election as the President of the United States.

From that point on, you'll get to see the major events of his Presidency through his eyes.  9/11 and the aftermath that followed, going to war in Afganistan and Iraq, and Katrina are there as I would have expected.  But, I didn't anticipate an entire chapter dedicated to work helping combat AIDS in Africa including passage of PEPFAR.

Overall, this has been an enjoyable read and helped to show just how many challenges President Bush faced in the past and ways he was able to rise up to those challenges.  I appreciated his candor at times rather than white washing his life or trying to cover it all up.  I also enjoyed the glossy photo sections which highlighted his life before and during the 8 years he served as President of the United States.

Disclaimer ~ I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.  No monetary compensation occurred and the opinions expressed are my own.
3668309
A reader from Kiawah Island, SC wrote:
"It's also hard to fault Bush for paying attention to Iraq when he first got into office...they were shooting at our airplanes, they gassed and invaded assorted neighbors, and they tried to assassinate a sitting president, didn't they?"
While all of these are true or may be true (there are still doubts about the failed assasination attempt), this isn't a very accurate depiction of reality:
1.  They were shooting at airplanes flying over Iraqi airspace, and this didn't happen all that often.  Those no-fly zones?  Contrary to what many people might believe, these were established by the UK, France and the US, not the UN.  Last time I checked, those three countries didn't run the planet.  It's perfectly acceptable for a country to engage foreign warplanes flying over its airspace.
2.  Here we go with the gassings and invading neighbors.  Yes, Iraq did it all....and most of them time, we supported them.  Heck, we even gave 'em intelligence to help them in their war against Iran (during which time the gassing of the Kurds occurred).  Why didn't we disown Saddam and Iraq then?  Because they weren't "evil Islamists" like Iran.  The US has to quit getting in bed with whatever evil dictator suits their needs at any given time.
3.  GHWB was NOT a sitting President when he visited Kuwait in April of 1993.  And after evidence of the assassination attempt surface, Bill Clinton - the sitting President - ordered 23 Tomahawk missiles fired at the HQ of the Iraqi Intelligence Services.  An apt response, I believe, to an (failed) assassination plot that was not and still has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
How easily we forget the past or twist the truth.
Anyway, just started reading Dick's book...pretty good so far.  I'll give it 3 stars for now and reserve further judgement.
2116449
If you want to know just an "inth" of what HR Clinton experienced and felt, publicize you are reading What Happened and watch/read/listen to the pilloried comments flung at you. And, then poll those commentors on when they read they book and see that zero read it...it's just the "opinion".
Right.

I found this book a compelling read. Yes, she vented her feelings, but venting and drinking Chardonnay proved to be unpalliative.

While she admitted to not leaving her home much after her defeat, she also added she didn't like the idea of mourning the rest of her life "like Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens' Great Expectations, rattling around my house obsessing over what might have been".

What really will surprise many readers is the fact she starts the "blame game" by apologetically
blaming herself. However, she does manage to share the blame with others. E.g., the news media who, she writes, would spend half an hour on her emails and maybe 2 minutes on her policies.

It's been reported and undisputed that HR Clinton was the most experienced candidate in the 2016 election for president of the USA, so I don't need to repeat that here. Oh, wait; I just did. Trump once Tweeted he was the most "qualified" candidate but the qualifications for being president are easy to attain; a candidate must be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the United States. So, everyone running could say they were "qualified".

Other items HR Clinton wrote about include:
1. What it's like being a woman in politics ("In politics, the personal narrative is vital.") and explaining it is excruciating and humiliating: "...it begins: the analysis of the face, her body, her voice, her demeanor, the diminishment of her statue, her ideas, her accomplishments, her integrity."
2. A chapter on being a daughter, a wife, a mother, and part of the sisterhood and another on turning mourning into a movement.
3. She shared her thoughts on idealism and realism, frustration with "those damn emails", "trolls, bots, fake news, and real Russians", election night and the big "Why".
4. She admits and accepts responsibility for her blunders; e.g., believing her largest blunder was saying "We're going to put a lot of coal minders and coal companies out of business" and the damaging description of half of Trump's support base being "the deplorables".

If you're really interested in reading this book but want to know more about it, there are scores of reviews and comments about those reviews you can use to judge and make your decision. This is not a review of Hillary Clinton. This is my opinion of her book and whether or not it successfully accomplished what she set out to provide. I think she did accomplish it with plumb; in her political life, she accomplished something noteworthy and extremely unusual -- she served her country and was the first woman to be a candidate for President of the United States of America. She lost. She lived that misery but she does a pretty good job of not drawing the reader into her personal misery.

I sincerely consider this a book I would recommend.
3021871
D'Souza's "Reagan" is one of those rare books which presents its subject in one light at its beginning, and then educates the reader to an entirely different view by its end.
The theme of "Reagan" is revealed in the subtitle "How an Ordinary Man Became An Extraordinary Leader."  While utilizing biographical information, this is not a biography.  It is the story of how Reagan's leadership confounded his critics and enabled Reagan, without brilliance or yeoman work effort, to become one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history.
Unlike some of his former aides who belittle Reagan, D'Souza provides a balanced assessment of Reagan's strengths and weaknesses.  In the early part of the book , D'Souza illustrates Reagan's limitations thereby establishing his credentials as an ordinary man.
D'Souza explains Reagan's style of leadership, which basically involves establishing a general policy and then entrusting its execution to subordinates.  D'Souza illustrates, by example, Reagan's leadership style through his handling of a series of crises with which he was confronted during his career.  One by one, D'Souza takes us through the backgrounds of the tax cut, deployment of missiles in Europe, Bittberg, and many others.  In this presentation of the Iran-Contra scandal Reagan is presented as thoroughly involved in the plan to trade arms for hostages, but unaware of the diversion of the proceeds to the Contras.
D'Souza does not explore exclusively Reagan's public leadership.  He also focuses on Reagan's personal relationships as well.  He portrays Reagan as one who, while publicly promoting family values, was unable to live them in his own family.  Reagan, who was every American's friend, had few real friends of his own.  Many of his aides were disappointed to find themselves unable to establish a personal relationships with Reagan who then discarded them when their usefulness to him was exhausted.
By the conclusion of the book, we are left with a perception of Reagan much different than that prevailing among the public.  The kindly, simpleminded grandfather is replaced by a much different person.  Rather than kindly, Reagan is seen as a very private person, unable to establish, except with Nancy, a personal relationship with anyone.  The undistinguished scholar is shown to confound and outwit the wise men time after time.  Much of Reagan's strength is found in his unchanging firm adherence to his faith in God, freedom and the American people.  D'Souza's Reagan has a much weaker claim on our affections, but is much more deserving of our respect than the Reagan of many other evaluators.
This is one of those excellent books which causes us to change our impression of its subject.  I admire its craft and appreciate its teaching.
3688893
I think that it is a difficult task to write a biography of an American president so soon after his term in office is done, as per George W. Bush. It takes a certain period of time to make sense of contributions and things that went wrong. Some presidents see their ratings rise, as history looks more kindly of the person later on (one thinks of Harry Truman). Others tend to be rated less positively with time (perhaps John F. Kennedy fits here--as his biography in this series is rather restrained in its examination of his career).

George W. Bush is portrayed here as someone who grew up as he aged--putting behind him his days as a hellion. We see a tracing of his career--from business to baseball to politics. It is his presidency, of course, that is the centerpiece for this book.

Here, we get recognition of some of his efforts (AIDS and Africa), his willingness to work with the conservatives' bete noir, Ted Kennedy, on No Child Left Behind, and his failed effort at immigration reform. On the other hand, he is taken to task for the Iraqi invasion and the economic problems that developed late in his time as President. And, at that, we may owe Bush a big thank you for becoming proactive as an economic catastrophe may have been nearing, even though his values and beliefs had to be put aside to some extent, at least as depicted by Mann..

Overall, I see Mann as being a bit negative--but not so much that I dismiss his work. But I do think that we will have to wait another decade or so to make any final judgments about George W. Bush.
341756
What saves this book is it has a unique point of view, discussing how presidents used past presidents to help them, and how past presidents attempted to influence the sitting president. That brings it up to 4 stars.

The quality of the writing is 3 stars. Not bad but not compelling.

It skipped a lot. If some of the presidents made no use of their predecessors, say so rather than just skipping that period.

Put this in the category of ok to read, but no loss if you don't read it.
3535178
Any American general or president who leads an army against jihadist Islam deserves our almost unqualified respect in a West that often comes across as comfort-driven, welfare-pandering, entertainment-drugged, and seemingly too cowardly to defend itself.  Both good men, Tommy Franks and George Bush will stand tall in the annals of future history, as always defined by military prowess, long after the topical dust of our shallow, politically correct culture settles and fades into television-commercial oblivion. Can the military successfully defend us once American democracy becomes synonymous with popular culture?

However, it's important to place this book by Tommy Franks in the context of public consumption.  Are generals really free to talk to the public about the brutal realities of fighting "our worst enemy since the civil war"?  Will any army or military campaign succeed if not allowed an independent hand beyond politics, popular sentiment, and media approval?

Accordingly, "American Soldier" is an at-times unfortunate chronicle of media-palatible commentary about military and personal events that might be drawn quite otherwise if free-speech were truly to prevail in Tommy Franks' life as an honest spokesman of military savvy.  After all, he freely acknowledges his 4-starness to having been selected by Bill Clinton; he's a "Clinton general" in his own words.  Must we ask what kind of commanding general would have been chosen by former presidential candidate Al Sharpton?  Generals-in-waiting surely come in all chevrons, from Marxist liberals to Axis militarists.  The commander-in-chief "of the moment" chooses.  Today we want our military leaders to feign ideological innocence while being supported by a statistics-savvy management mechanism.  Good luck, but it's ruthlessness and a whatever-it-takes aggressiveness that win wars, not media accountability or other facile diplomacy.

Those who've attended the general's public lectures will recognize right away that he's not the Erwin Rommel, George Patton, or Tadimichi Kuribayashi they might have hoped for.  Even so, let us acknowledge his predictable standing applause from largely World War II veterans everywhere: a salute to a universal code of military fighting spirit that has existed in all times and that will stand independent of the political surface.

Unfair to himself, it's too bad that Gen. Franks sometimes chooses to portray a "Gomer Pyle" persona to audiences that expect to hear even more saber-rattling than is now fashionable. Even so, let us agree with Franks that we should much rather fight on foreign shores than at home.  Yes, we should also prefer to fight NOW rather than selfishly defer our battles to future generations?  Military strength and strategic preemptive strikes almost always yield more peace and fewer lives lost in the long run.  The example of our Spartan forebears is only vaguely allowed to influence us today, though a strong Christian military defense in the West can surely benefit from a plunge into our Greco-Roman-Viking-Old Testament past!
2952535
An easy read, the book containing many enlightening stories about Presidents & Vice Presidents. During the Reagan years we had the theory of "trickle down economics", I have asked the question, what trickles up? We see it portrayed here. Arrogance, greed, entitlement. Although certain individuals are portrayed as being "nice" Laura Bush for example, and her husband was thoughtful, this doesn't naturally correlate to competence in the position. (I think of the Clintons and Dick  Cheney)  I was appalled at the portrayal of Joe Biden and his disregard for frugality knowing some of his mandates were to do just that.

All in all I'm glad I read this book, also glad he's not running for President. Kessler did a fine job and outlined quite clearly the classic ailment within the body politic whereby the Secret Service Management are but a symptom of a greater malaise. The malaise being one of lack of accountability and proper management. The political system has been subjugated by the monied vested interest groups and hence politicians have lost integrity and their moral compass. I'd love to know what the Secret Service think of Bernie Sanders?
246188
Imagine the scene in CIA headquarters, not long after the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs operation, when President John F. Kennedy fired CIA boss man Allen Dulles.

"Who does he think he is? Has anyone talked to Joe Kennedy? I never liked his kid. He's gone over the hill to the other side. First FDR -- now Jack Kennedy. You can't trust these guys once they get in office. We'd be better off bringing in a stooge like Nixon for the job."

Mary of the "Mosaic" was a member of the East Coast Elite -- the power structure of America. So was her ex-husband and CIA operative Cord Meyer (Yale 1942). So were John Kennedy (Harvard 1940) and his wife Jackie.  So were the Dulles brothers (Princeton 1908 and 1916) and the Bush boys (Yale 1948 and 1968 - Skull and Bones). So was the bizarre CIA spymaster James Jesus Angleton (Yale 1941). So was the author of MARY'S MOSAIC, Peter Janney. And so was his father Wistar (a CIA operative).  It was and is a cozy group that included those who control the dissemination of news information -- think Henry Luce of LIFE and TIME (Yale 1920) and Ben Bradlee of the WASHINGTON POST (Harvard 1942). Powerful people united by birth and wealth having virtually total control.

Mary Pinchot Meyer, the murdered woman, was attractive, intelligent, open-minded, and disdainful of the CIA. She had been married to Cord Meyer, a smart, but disgruntled man with a philosophical and visceral hatred of Mary's boyfriend -- JFK. Ultimately JFK is assassinated, and about a year later Mary is terminated. The book describes the backstory of the victims and theorizes about their killers convincingly.

Who are these people, the Elite that populate the positions of power in this country? -- certainly not "lone nuts" like Oswald or Sirhan -- and not Mafioso like Marcello and Giancana  -- and not crazed "redneck" bigots like James Earl Ray -- nor labor leaders like Jimmy Hoffa.  "The Elite", are the real kingpins. They own everything, including the political offices, the media, the corporations, and of course, the New United States Army -- the CIA, with its enormous white and black budgets, and expansive white and black operations.

MARY'S MOSAIC is a very interesting book in that it reveals (almost unintentionally) the nature of the rich and powerful in America. It exposes, quite simply, their arrogance. To them, people like John and Mary are expendable. And somebody like Raymond Crump (the designated patsy in the Mary murder) is totally insignificant.

Imagine the scene in Allen Dulles' office when he is "invited" by Lyndon to become one of the seven commissioners of the Warren Commission to "investigate" the murder of John F. Kennedy -- the man who fired him. Revenge is sweet.

MARY'S MOSAIC is another brick in the wall exposing the deceit, deception, and danger of "the Elite" - a wall of evidence that has grown so high and wide over the past fifty years that it is impossible for any reasonable person to ignore it.
2002693
Though I found Blow's prose to be engaging, and, at times lyrical, I was continuously distracted by the feeling that this was a book penned not so much by an employee of Mr. Kennedy's, but a groupie who was intoxicated by the power of merely being in JFK Jr's presence. Masquerading as an author and collbaborater - whose "relationship" with Kennedy simply must be told, seemingly as a public service to "the rest of us" who simply must know the "real" John- Blow portrays himself instead to be not so much a friend of John-John's, but a needy young man whose own sense of self was magnified tenfold each time he was permitted to be within Kennedy's circle (which, when one looks at the book's contents closely enough, really wasn't that often). More often than not, Blow's place in Kennedy's world seems to be that of a carefully placed professional outsider - allowed "in" at varying and essential intervals of Kennedy's evolving magazine - but always one step behind the velvet rope, among the "rest of us" onlookers to the bizarre spectacle that was JFK Jr's life. I was especially put-off by the references Blow uses to describe himself as John's rescuer (blocking cameras in a paparrazi session; keeping party-goers from getting too close to his employer-turned-idol), and intruigued by some misplaced references to Kennedy as though he were a force in Blow's life whose power he could barely resist (saying, in one part of the book, that he refused to be "seduced" by John). The book is peppered with references to the power-by-osmosis Blow experienced as he was with Kennedy, and one gets the feeling that Blow is merely continuing to ride that intoxicating wave with the publication of this book. Indeed, Mr. Blow, JFK, Jr still sells, and I am proof of that.
4236747
I rarely read books about politics or political figures, even though my main interest in the non-fiction realm -- military history -- is, in essence, an account of political decisions gone wrong.  When I do read books about Presidents, it's usually about the Cold War (The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khruschev -- 1960-1963) or specific events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or that awful day in Dallas.

Very rarely, though, do I read books about the personal lives of America's Chief Executives.  I used to, as a schoolboy, read very generic accounts of those few Presidents I found interesting (Washington, Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, Ike, and JFK), but as I grew older I became less a generalist history buff and became more of a World War II/Cold War/Persian Gulf War specialist.  Still, sometimes it's beneficial to step away from the familiar and explore uncharted territory from time to time.

Kati Marton's 2001 book Hidden Power: Presidential Marriages That Shaped Our History is one such sally from my familiar Stephen Ambrose/Cornelius Ryan fortress of historical reading.  It's a selection of 12 short biographical sketches of 20th Century Presidents and their First Ladies, with a strong emphasis on the post-Eisenhower White House "power couples" from the Kennedys on to George W. and Laura Bush.  (Ike and Mamie, incidentally, are not interesting enough for Marton to have a chapter of their own, and neither are most of the Presidential couples between the Wilson and Roosevelt Administrations.  Whether it's because those pairings are too bland or because most of those were Republican, I can't discern for sure.)

To be honest, I found Marton's book to be well-written but not terribly engaging.  Maybe it's because the post-1960 couples are all-too-familiar to me -- I've heard far too much about how Jackie Kennedy thought her marriage was finally getting better by the time of that fateful trip to Dallas, or about Betty Ford's struggles with alcohol dependency, or the backlash to Hillary Clinton's "unlimited partnership" with Bill -- but I only really enjoyed the first two chapters about Edith and Woodrow Wilson and Eleanor and Franklin D. Roosevelt.  I found the image of the seemingly cold and stern Wilson acting like a lovesick teenager when he was courting the much younger woman who would become his second wife, a woman who, if truth be told, was actually more of a co-President of the United States than "mere" First Lady as a result of her husband's debilitating stroke after World War I and Wilson's efforts to create the League of Nations.

Because FDR's story dovetails nicely with my interest in World War II (and also because he was the country's first disabled Chief Executive, though much effort was expended to keep that from the public as much as possible back then), I really liked The Partnership That Changed the World, the chapter on Eleanor and Franklin.  Of all the First Ladies of the 20th Century, Eleanor seems to me the most interesting, considering that led such an extraordinary life at a crucial point in American history.  Homely -- a Jackie Kennedy or even Hillary look-alike she wasn't -- and living with the knowledge that Franklin had had an affair with one of her best friends, nevertheless she stayed by her husband's side -- if not in an intimate manner -- and became one of his socially aware "eyes and ears" advisers, particularly on issues of race and poverty.  Her newspaper column and many public appearances -- even in far-flung areas in the South Pacific and elsewhere during World War II -- made her one of the iconic figures of the era and possibly one of the most admired First Ladies in American history.
1171173
As the sub-title of this book indicates, this is not a Star Trek pastiche novel!  It is a look at the careers of part of the Bush White House-Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condolezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz.  The goal of the book is to examine how their careers in government have shaped their views on foreign policy and the role of the US military.

 Mann's assertion is that the Vulcans have made a break from the previous post-WWII foreign policy which stressed pragmatism and detente, to a foreign policy which stresses: 1) the centrality and domination of the American military; 2) the reluctance to enter into treaties and alliances; 3) the idea that democracy and free markets should be spread around the world; and 4) an extraordinary sense of optimism.

How they formed these views over the years is the focus of the bulk of the book; only a small portion of the book deals with the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

 Mann's study seems well argued (and referenced), but I come away a bit dissatisfied with his lumping of Powell and Armitage with the other four.  While they both have both been major figures in the first term of Bush's presidency, they come off in Mann's account as being much more pragmatic, down-to-earth types, instead of the other four who focus much more on ideas and don't seem to worry about the details.

 While many will think this is a "liberal" attack on part of Bush's cabinet; Mann manages to stay objective and keeps his opinions to himself throughout most of the book.  There are a few cases in the last quarter of the book where he has a few strong opinions against the actions of the Bush administration, but he also proffers some for the Clinton administration and Chirac.

 And if you are curious as to why they are dubbed "Vulcans," it all has to do with a statue in Birmingham, Alabama (the hometown of Rice).
1488071
Unlike others who have reviewed this book, I will not comment on the professionalism of the shooters portrayed in the book, I am not qualified to do so. Surely, many of them are very brave, skillful marksmen who performed heroic acts. Each chapter focuses on a different marine scout/sniper and his team and some of their experiences in Iraq in 2003-2005. For many, a brief biographical background is also given. It is not clear if the author collected the information from interviewing first-hand witnesses, second hand accounts, after action reports or a combination thereof. But, he was active as a scout/sniper in Iraq during 2004-2005 and may have been personally acquainted with many if not all of them. Unfortunately, the writing style is not interesting or engaging. The dialogue seems to me a bit clich, many of the sentences are just fragments. Mark Bowden in "Black Hawk Down" writes in a style that engages the reader with the intense action the participants experienced; that is not the case with this book. Evan Wright clearly captured the clip, pace and patois of military vernacular and the youth currently serving in the armed forces with his book "Generation Kill"; that is also not the case in this book.
84180
Clinton was a good President and leader because of his incredible charisma.  It doesn't come thru in this book at all.  He's also not much of a writer or at least the ghostwriter he used (if he used one), isn't.  (Maybe Clinton went cheap on who he used because he was saving his money for possible legal issues.)  I like Clinton alot, just not this book.  I agree that he should talk more about his mistakes.  In fact, that's part of what makes him charismatic when he speaks; he talks about making mistakes, he seems real, not someone trying to present himself as all-knowing, like Bush.  Maybe Bush wrote this book.  It seems like he could have.
1134095
That the bumper stickers were configured improperly in election/2004 is the subject of this book. Indeed, "Cheney/Bush 2004", instead of "Bush/Cheney 2004", seems appropriate if one is to believe the words of its author. With many references and very well written, it is nevertheless a very painful book to read, for it is a story of how a "quiet American" manipulated his way to the top of the current administration, and now acts as its leader. It is a story of how a man (if one is to call him that) can avoid the draft and still become head of the most powerful military organization in the history of the world. It is a story of cowardice and betrayal, of immorality and power lust. It is a demonstration that a constitutional title is completely irrelevant in the real management of the American government.

 But it could be said that the book is also a story of the millions of people who supported the Cheney/Bush ticket. They have much in common with Cheney, very much indeed. These sycophants for the current administration will absolutely hate this book. It does not reinforce their prejudices and will without doubt cause pronounced cognitive dissonance in their belief structures. By elementary logic, it follows that those who support the administration also support the war. But most of these individuals have never participated in one, and so their support is done from a position of comfort. Their living rooms and sofas are to be contrasted with the horror of conflict, which they have never experienced and will never experience.

The vast majority of those that supported this administration in the recent election are indeed true followers of the Cheney/Bush ticket. It should not be believed that they are hypocrites. They are not deviating from their positions and are holding true to them:

1. Like Bush and his boss Cheney (in the Vietnam debacle), they are refusing to put on a military uniform and participate in the current conflict in Iraq.

2. Like Bush and his boss Cheney, they cheer on the troops, and engage in the same drum beating and jingoism, creating a facade of patriotism, but they have no intention of signing up for duty in Iraq.

3. Like Bush and Cheney, their sons and daughters are not signing up for duty in Iraq, and they will not be feeling the pain of having lost loved ones in the current horror.

Like Cheney, they have "other priorities."