Even Robert Scheer has some negatives for Senator Clinton (column writer at Creators Syndicate) when it comes to her proposed foreign policies and can she “out tough” any of the guys in the joint on who’s population she would obliterate first. Precisely, Iran and that gvt’s nuclear ambitions. And whether Iran, in a hypothetical situation, would actually launch a nuclear attack on this nation. That is, the hypothetical situation of whether Iran would launch a nuclear attack. As it is, in the heat of the Democratic presidential nomination race; we again have “intel” that Iran has indeed helped kill our our U.S. Soldiers, Marines, etc. but of course, without a bit of proof. But on the basis of intel claims, would the current President, GW launch something against Iran? Or, how about Syria, where we now have “intel” that shows us Syria’s proposed nuclear facilities in the aftermath of the Israel gvt sending in their military forces to bomb it. You would have thought that there wouldn’t be much left to determine that the facility was indeed being used for nuclear purposes, so where did the intel about the proposed site come from, anyway? Under the circumstances, are we trying to build up a rationale for attacking Syria or Iran?
That much I could agree with Scheer as far as foreign policy under the current administration. Even though I can disagree with him about our bombing of Japan. We were winning a war, and we had to let the Japanese gvt know that we meant what we said when it came to using the strongest weapons available to us. So yes, we did bomb the daylights out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What we haven’t been doing as far as the Middle East goes, Iraq in particular, or for that matter, Afghanistan; is being willing to teach the same lessons to those we deem to be our sworn enemies. Why is that? Rather than play around at war, as GW had done for years and years and years, go in with the intent to win and having done so, negotiate for peace from the strong position of the victor. That is what had made the U.S. generally successful at their wartime agendas, until Vietnam, until now.
Now as to Senator Clinton’s domestic politics; she and Senator Obama went at it yesterday in Indiana over the high price of fuel. Obama discussed the culture in Washington and in particular Clinton and McCain who’s “experience” didn’t change the suffering of the consumer at the pump. Where Obama is concerned, that might be quite a stretch. Worries about our imported fuel supply because of Middle Eastern stability caused in large part by our playing with war as a consequence of GW foreign policy. And the lack of intelligence in dealing with potentially other hostile nations in the Middle East with whom we are currently not at war with. That is, the lack of diplomatic intelligence. Include in this an increase in world-wide demand for oil and speculators down at Wall Street; and yes, the “free market” is taking the American consumer for a very rough ride. Dick Cheney’s energy policies that basically subsidize Big Oil at the expense of the American taxpayer, is the only aspect of domestic energy policies that our leadership in Washington, D.C. might have shown some willingness to control. She says that he voted for such taxpayer subsidies to the energy industries. And that she voted against it. So? Was her “no vote” instrumental in stopping such subsidies going to the energy companies? No. Then why bring it up? Of far more importance, was Congress allowing to lapse (owing to partisan bickering) alternative energy subsidies.
She won in Pennsylvania by appealing to the dark side of the voters’ souls. The worst devils of their nature. CNN had of course ignored that part when covering the primary in Pennsylvania last Tuesday. And simply whacked away at Obama for failing to close the deal and failing to deliver the white, blue collar, male voter. In part, it was because she painted Obama as this “elitist” who grew up harder than she ever did. Add to that all other attacks she engaged in, inclusive of passing around photos of Obama dressed in Kenyan tribal clothing… everything designed to scare the voters silly at the idea of voting for that “alien other” Barack Hussein Obama. Apparently, they could buy into it. As Scheer was to write, all the things that was done to her husband, yet Senator Clinton was prepared to do the same thing to her Democratic opponent. My argument is, we already saw 8 years of this from GW, enough. The Dems should at least offer something better. If she wants to be president she should offer something better. Which to date, she really hasn’t done at all.
In Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, they are making considerable use of alternative energy sources. Indeed, they are becoming the new technology hub of creating and even exporting what is called “Green technology.” Everything from nuclear power to solar panels. Pittsburg is becoming a domestic source for high-skilled good paying jobs. Indeed, Pittsburg is a city to look to as a hub of high tech jobs that could begin to wean us away from the use of fossil fuels. While Clinton was campaigning in Pennsylvania, did she discuss at length what Pittsburg was in fact doing as a model for the rest of the nation? Or was she too busy quaffing Crown Royal and chasing it with mugs of beer just to prove what to those blue collar voters? When going on the rant against Obama in Indiana, was she aware that the federal gvt, of which she is a part, seemed more prepared to assist the fossil fuel industry than people who truly have 21st century energy technology in the blueprints and even further are taking it to new technological heights? We already know where Obama as would be president stands on green technology. And all that Clinton could snipe about was how she voted at the time. Big deal! Fossil fuels have a shelf life, green technology conceivably does not. Shouldn’t we be subsidizing this nation’s future and as Obama properly put it, to quit funding “both sides of the war on terror.”