Just recently President Bush threatened America that we would end up in World War III if we didn't act on Iran and Hillary Clinton has been sounding more like him then her Democratic base.She has been one of the most hawkish candidates on Iran in the Democratic presidential field. Once again she is on the wrong side of a foreign policy issue and we are supposed to believe she has all this experience to lead us in foreign policy affairs? I don't think so, not so fast. Never mind an NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) from 2005 (let alone the current NIE) that stated Iran was a decade away from developing a nuclear bomb.
Either she didn't bother to read the estimate in 2005 (which makes her a terrible senator) OR she blatantly ignored it to stir up support just as Bush as done throughout his entire presidency, which would make her untrustworthy of our vote at best. Either way she looks less like a leader and more like a snake oil salesperson.
Now she is slamming Obama for missing an Iran vote when she herself voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Following the Iraq war lie we should have been more cynical toward another Bush drumbeat for war but Hillary was right in the mix stirring it up. We figured rightly that our credibility with rest of the world was in shambles after Iraq and now we've set it back even further. It will take decades, if not longer, to repair the trust that we have shattered in regards to the rest of the world.
After a John Edwards attack on that vote, Clinton is spinning the rhetoric like a drunk on New Years Eve claiming the vote was to encourage diplomacy. Yeah, sure, declaring a major part of a countries military as a terrorist organization isn't going to entice them to come to the bargaining table. Instead, it creates more unease, distrust and tension. Whether the IRG is a terrorist organization or not is not what we should be focusing on. We need to be building relationships of trust with the Iranians so that they feel heard and willing to work toward a peaceful settlement. Labeling them evil and this and that doesn't help, it only throws more gasoline on the fire.
Of course the current NIE could be wrong but it appears to be in line with the 2005 report and without other evidence to the contrary this news hopefully gives up breathing room within which to further diplomacy.
Now she is telegraphing an attack at Obama for saying that he wanted to be president as a kid. Are you serious?!! Just about every child in America wants to be president--this kind of cheap shot makes her look desperate and immature. I mean, for crying out loud I wanted to be a rhinoceros when I was in kindergarten!! Now, Mark Penn Hillary's chief political strategist is calling the attack, "a joke."
I just hope that the good people of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and across the country are waking up to the charlatan that is Hillary Clinton.
13 comments:
true what u said, so who would you vote?
Dennis Kucinich. After that, John Edwards.
what do you think about Barack Obama? Just for curiosity. im not from the US but still im interested...
I like Barack Obama too. I'd be happy with him. He'd be my third choice.
She's feeling the pressure. I hope she ends up in the same place as the unfortunate Howard Dean.
I'd take Edwards or Obama.
The more I hear of what Clinton has to say, the more I believe she is way too centrist for my tastes. Her husband was a centrist too, and the more I look back on some of what he did (besides what had to do with his eternally-open fly) I'm not sure I think he was all that great. NAFTA and his welfare reforms, for instance. Anyway... I don't trust her very much to be a whole lot different than Bush in some ways. I think Edwards is very much to the left of Clinton, and that Obama is also.
T&A:
You're right, she is feeling the pressure and it's about time. For so long the media was just lauding her and nearly crowned her Queen of the Democratic party. I hate the mainstream for the most part.
Snave:
I was so pissed off at Bill for NAFTA and still am. In fact, with each passing year I loathe it even more. It opened the door to the current open season of the multi-national corporations doing and taking whatever they want in America and across the world.
Hillary is starting to show slippage in polls all across the country. In New Hampshire, she is now in single digits for a lead over Obama. National polls have the overall support down for her about 10 points since August.
The thing is that support usually goes to Obama or Edwards. Richardson does get some of that former Hillary support, but nobody else does. It looks like after Iowa, you are going to have 5 Dems still running, and only 3 having a chance for the nomination, unless something changes radically within the next 3 weeks.
Brent:
I hope she keep slipping in the polls. She'd be such a disaster. It's time to bring this country together and get things done. She would just constantly be fighting the GOP because of her polarizing nature and previous baggage.
No, it's time to turn over a new leaf in American politics.
humm interesting guys...
I must say i dont really like Clinton but mostly for the fact that if she is the future president of US, two families would be holding the power at the withe house for the last two decades, no matter how you put it, sounds like mafia stuff.
I used to live in NYC from 2001 till 2005 and ive got to know a little the country and how it works, there are a lot of things to do in the social level like for instance public health, its crazy to see u guys have none of this in contraposition the money destined for armament. Now im living in France and at the social level they are way way ahead of what it is in US (and even at technological level).
Im originally from Argentina so being from the other part of America i have a little problem when i think about US (i have many friends there and i really like the way you guys are so dont take it in the wrong way please (if you do, next time i go to NY i get you a beer and we talk this over ;o) ) now when i remember how CIA promoted in many ways dictators which killed people by the thousands only because was a good business for the withe house, i cant stop feeling there is a big debt from the US politicians towards the citizens of this countries at least a "we are sorry" would feel a little better than nothing, since nothing means it didnt happened, it didnt exist... What im trying to say with this is i would love future US president to stop this political agenda of invading countries and putting presidents picked by hand, it is not good to do this, and i think Hillary is exactly the kind of politician that would do something like this in the case she needs to.
I would love to see a future president of the US realizing its time to be humble, work in the internal issues of the country and know that America is a name that represents an entire continent and not only one country.
Santiago:
Great comment.
I agree with everything you said and I'd love to have a coffee with you. I'm sure we'd have a lot to talk about.
You mentioned the Clinton-Bush power dominance and that is one of the main reasons I oppose Hillary. It is not good for Democracy at all. Our political system in America as I'm sure you've noticed is broken.
I lament our lack of social programs and congratulate France on their responsibility to their people. I am one of those who is hurt by our lack of national health care as I'm disabled by a mental illness.
Our country has been taken over by a powerful, rich, elite who refuse to help anyone else. It's so sad.
You mentioned the U.S. foreign policy history in South and Central America and I know what you are talking about. I have a degree in history and took several classes on South American history.
I am ashamed of how we have acted in many S. American countries and we haven't learned our lesson as we see the same pattern in Iraq.
American should be leading in so many areas and instead we are falling short. We should be leading the world on reversing global warming for example.
James,
Thanks for the remark on my post, i will let you know whenever i come to NY, we have a pendent a "live" conversation...
If you are interested in history i strongly recommend you reading "Open Veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano a book written in the '70 but still up to date. Explains very clearly the economical, political and religious issues of American and European continent since Christopher Columbus till nowadays.
What i said about the U.S. foreign policy history in South and Central America is not only regional. This policies have been applied to the entire world by it, i guess there's no need for examples. You shouldnt feel ashamed by them, im sure they have been going on way before your family was even in the U.S. and still if they where, im sure they had no idea until very recently. Disinformation is very easy today, i cant even imagine how it was to get real information one or two centuries ago...
I doubt the political system is broken, im closer to believe that has been always like this, the only difference is, now we get information much faster and easier than before, with the result of being harder to bullshit us. This is thanks to technology, after all we are having a conversation living in different continents and that, is not a small thing. Just a few decades ago this fact would have been nightmare for the powerful.
I'm very interested in the way words are used. In the political speech I totally disagree with U.S. or anybody else leading something. The planet is going crazy by all this powerful countries trying to "Lead" anything. Which means to put their ideas over another ones, by doing this theres someone who is unheard, which always happens to be the weakest or the one that suffers the most the actual applications of it.
I would rather (and thats why i said a humble president in my anterior post) an exemplary (this only word means a totally different world of meanings) policy, which from my point of view means to (in this case lets talk about climate) apply them even if countries like India or China are not.
These are only words; their value depends wholly on our will to observe and honor them and give them content and meaning. But using the right ones it is a good start point.
It is time for everybody to realize we are not citizens of one country but from an entire planet. It is time to ask our leaders to represent and work for all, not only some. This is like the Christian's heavens...could you be in heaven knowing your brother is in hell?
Santiago:
Thanks for the book recommendations. I'm always looking for a good book.
You are right about U.S. Imperialism around the globe. And now we over-stretched ourselves to the point of breaking the bank at home. America needs to figure out how to get along with others. America is like the young, brazen teen-ager in the world.
And I agree with you when you said that the political system here has always been like this. We need to change it, soon. I'd prefer a coalition style government that is found throughout Europe.
Yeah technology is amazing. I never tire of being able to communicate with people from all over the world. You're right that the powers in charge do not like people being able to discuss things and educate themselves about the corruption of power.
I couldn't agree more that we are citizens of the world, interconnected and interdependent. It is because of this that I am so opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and the IMF. Globalization without regulation and inclusiveness of all countries is very dangerous.
Post a Comment