the eight-year-long nightmare of a George Bush presidency will end. To them,
it’s a no-lose scenario.DEMOCRATIC LUNACY
Jeff Archer
Thursday-Saturday, February 21-23, 2008
Many pundits
are salivating over the prospect of a Democrat being elected to the White House
in 2008. Finally,
the eight-year-long nightmare of a George Bush presidency will end. To them,
it’s a no-lose scenario.
In reality, it’s a no-win situation. Obama and Clinton are beholden to the same big-money interests as the Republicans. Not one has challenged the disastrous economic system of the U.S. Both have stated that U.S. values must undermine the U.S. foreign policy. In other words, the endless war the U.S. is imposing on much of the world will continue.
Let’s take a quick glance at the views of Clinton and Obama and we will see that each represents "business as usual."
Clinton has mumbled a few words about the U.S. leaving Iraq, but they are insincere. She was a strong supporter of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Here’s what she had to say about the situation five months before the destruction of the country:
"In the four
years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and
sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear
weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct. 10, 2002
There was some shame involved when people asked her about her pro-war stance and her change, but she now has an excuse: Saddam did it. Recent re-writing of history has brought forth the myth that Saddam hoodwinked everyone by making it appear Iraq possessed WMD when it had destroyed its stockpile. Hillary was hoodwinked by Saddam.
This excuse is as bogus as any put forth by the people who lied to us about Iraq. Saddam certainly did not say he had rebuilt "his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." U.S. intelligence agencies made those allegations. How can people be hoodwinked when it was they who affixed depth to the invisible Iraqi WMD program? The hoodwinkers now want to be called the "hoodwinkees."
The U.S. left is heralding Obama’s candidacy as the panacea against current U.S. imperialistic programs. Horse dung. Obama has stated that he opposed the invasion of Iraq, yet he has rarely approached the subject in depth.
Obama, like all the other politicians, now says the invasion was not handled properly. He does not say "the invasion was wrong." He wants to keep the illusion that he is anti-war, while, at the same time, try to placate the pro-war crowd. In other words, he is the quintessential politician.
Here are a couple of Obama gems. In November 2005, while speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, he said that the U.S. must "contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq." He has called for the destruction of the only group that is trying to rid Iraq of U.S. soldiers, the Iraqi Resistance. This message resonates well with the U.S. "progressive" element, but it is a real look at Obama’s intentions. They are certainly no different from the mainstream of U.S. politics.
Fidel Castro announced his resignation as president of Cuba on February 19, 2008. Here’s what Obama had to say:
Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.
The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past.
It's time for these heroes to be released.
I have read many statements made about Castro’s resignation, however, I have not read any from the Cuban exiles in Miami, or the extreme right-wing U.S. politicians that has outdone Obama’s in the denigration of Castro and Cuba. With enemies like Obama, the right-wingers don’t need friends.
One last item on which neither Obama nor Clinton have uttered a word: faith-based organizations receiving free money from the U.S. taxpayer. George Bush came up with this scam a few years ago. Faith-based (religious) organizations could accept handouts for supplying social services to the public. There would be no rules on how the money was spent and the organizations could openly discriminate in hiring practices. The U.S. Congress let it be known that it would not authorize such a program. Bush then put it into operation by a presidential decree.
Since the program began, it has cost about $10 billion. There has been so much corruption of the program and also the inability for those who received the money to actually implement a service that the mind boggles. In other words, it has been an abysmal failure. To add to the discrepancies, I have not seen one Muslim group who gained finances from the program. Nor one Buddhist nor one pagan group. It was a smokescreen for handing out $10 billion to Christian organizations, despite the fact that not all U.S. citizens are Christian.
Where are the statements from Obama and Clinton in decrying a program that cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars, while being able to openly discriminate in hiring of non-Christians? Of course they would not mention this because they would no longer be able to stand on a stage surrounded by pastors and priests extolling their virtues. They were bought out cheaply.
Obama and Clinton are identical in their overall look at U.S. society. The "left" in the U.S. is proclaiming a different country after the 2008 presidential elections. The only difference that will emerge will be the difference between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.