Saturday, August 4, 2007

You have got to be kidding me.

Okay, I know this is supposed to be a blog about Venezuela and a gringo therein but I still read newspapers and such. But Saturday morning monkey-wrenched that.

Got my coffee, Got my toast, reading what the Guardian UK has to say about things, and I stumbled on this lil piece of evidence -- as if we needed more -- proving that Barak Obama AND Hillary Clinton are worthless human beings.

Here's Obama, who was trying to say that we SHOULD have invaded Pakistan, and SHOULD keep that option on the table. A reporter, who did their research and discovered that our buddies in Pakistan are nuke-o-riffic asked Obama if he'd be willing to use the bomb in the hard-to-invade border regions. Obama's stutteriffic response: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance...involving civilians...Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

WHAT?!?!?!? 'Involving civillians?!?!?!' Do I even need to insert some sarcastic comment here?

Hillary's response is even better in its opportunism and horrible-ness: "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons...Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Okay, so we've got one prick trying to prove he's willing to invade anyone to out-Republican the Republicans and faltering non-sensically in the process, and the other prick telling us that we need to respect the sanctity of cold war institutions in the maintenence and furthering of US interests.

Recall a few days ago, when Raúl Castro gave the annual anniversary address to the crowds in La Habanna -- the first time in the history of the revolution that Fidel hasn't been able to give one of his trademark marathon speeches -- he made some serious waves amongst fellow travellers in Cuba and throughout Latin America. First, he openly criticized aspects of the Revolution, most notably in the area of inefficient state bureaucracies, the low salaries earned by most cubans, and the need for more foreign investment on the island. He also reiterated an offer he has made a few times now, to open talks with the US when a less insane regime holds the reins in Washington.

So much for that one, eh Raúl?

Here's the full text of the guardian story--

(P.S. While the Saturday morning NYT apparently thought they had given enough attention to the foreign policy gaffs of democratic hopefuls yesterday, there was at least this little gem by Simon Romero on US actor Sean Penn's current visit to the Bolivarian Republic. The story, fairly par for Romero's course (i.e. logically inconsistent and deeply anti-Chávez) reached a highpoint rather early in the article with:

"What followed, for a handful of journalists given the rare opportunity of accompanying Mr. Chávez on such a trip, was a glimpse into his government’s use of imagery and pomp to court public opinion both at home and abroad."

--note that Romero is able in this little nugget to make Chávez out to be BOTH Kim Jong-Il as well as Citizen Kane; the leader who doesn't meet with journalists -- and is hence secretive and untrustworthy and etc -- but yet is media saavy enough to manipulate dim-wittted holywoodies and their fans alike.)

okay, the guardian story, as promised.

Pakistan criticised the Democratic election contender Barack Obama yesterday over his warning that as president he might order military strikes against al-Qaida targets in the country's border areas.

As protesters burned the US flag in Karachi, Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

Mr Obama, in a speech on Wednesday, said President George Bush had chosen the wrong battlefield in Iraq and should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.

That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.

He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".

Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.

"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive, while Chris Dodd, who has only an outside chance of securing the nomination, said he was inconsistent.

Ms Clinton and John Edwards are almost neck and neck with Mr Obama in Iowa, where a caucus in January will provide the first election test.

Success in Iowa could be crucial, providing the impetus for the primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. A poll in the Washington Post yesterday of voters likely to attend the caucus put Mr Obama at 27%, Ms Clinton at 26% and Mr Edwards at 26%.

Mr Obama and Ms Clinton, after largely avoiding criticising one another in campaigning over the last six months, have been exchanging personal jibes almost daily for the last two weeks over foreign policy.

Both will be attending a debate in Chicago today at a convention that brings together bloggers mainly from the left. Mr Obama will almost certainly receive a warmer welcome than Ms Clinton because of her 2002 vote for the Iraq war and their foreign policy positions.

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited

1 comment:

Charles said...

While Obama and Shillary are showing up to the Church of Military Strength, for Obama I am pretty sure it is a post 9/11 Machiavellian move.

Obama is getting his support from a wider base, due to the internet, and is therefore the more democratic of the 'democratic' candidates. Other than starting from scratch, I see that as a positive thing.

Its good to get some idea of what happened with the RCTV dealio, I hadn't read anything contrary to the official line.