01 June 2008
Clinton unfit for high office
I was partially surprised to hear about the decision to restore half of the Florida and Michigan delegates to each Clinton and Obama. The committee making this decision is misguided. They allowed the entire party and its rules to be subverted by a vocal and partisan group of people no different to the despised neo-cons.
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
- Repeatedly lied through her teeth about her being "under fire" in Bosnia. And when confronted with evidence of her lies, claims that she "mis-spoke." So are we to take everything she says as mis-speaking of mis-truths?
- Gets other people to play the racial card and then hints the same when it suits her; while denying the same when people get the hint and criticise her for it. The imagery her behaviour invokes is that of a snake or eel slipping through your fingers.
- When people criticise her for playing the racial card, she turns around and complains that she's picked upon because she's a woman. She didn't allege Obama was criticised for his friendship with the firebrand pastor because he is black! Memo to Hillary: It isn't about gender or race, it's about character.
- Clinton endorsed the rules resulting in Florida and Michigan being excluded but now wants them included because it helps her. If the shoe was on the other foot, would she have agreed to Obama doing the same? Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot so counting them would clearly disadvantage him.
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Labels: al, barack, chalmers johnson, clinton, democrats, gore, hillary, mccain, obama, republicans
19 August 2006
Chinese ambassador tells US to "Shut Up!"
When I first heard a BBC radio broadcast in which China's ambassador to the UN in Geneva said:
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
Labels: budget, bush, chalmers johnson, china, defence, defense, destabiliser, destabilizer, imperial, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, rumsfeld, sorrows of empire
