The Lopsided Foreign Policy Of The Corporate Idiocracy

Consistency has never been a key factor in US foreign policy. It doesn't matter if there's a Democratic president, or a Republican one, the double standard employed by both always been the same.
Take today, as an instance. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced sanctions against eight Iranian officials for human rights violation following a crackdown on protesters after last year's elections. On the surface it sounds good, not just more posturing designed to soften the television watchers up for an attack on Iran.
In the meantime, the UNHRC says Israel used incredible violence against a Gaza Aid flotillaviolated international law by storming the flotilla and killing nine human beings, including an American in execution-style killings, and what does our country do? It criticizes the report as 'unbalanced'. The truth is, the only thing unbalanced is our foreign policy, which seeks to condemn one act of brutality, while defending another.
Now one case is set to go to the International Criminal Court, which the US opposes, mainly because between Iraq, Afghanistan, and the crackdown on the Gaza strip, American-Israeli exceptionalism rules the day. We can torture, kill, and maim whom ever we so please, as we are better than the people living over all those preciou natural resources the Corporate Idiocracy needs to keep it's followers happy and buying more useless things, giving up their time and money to make the incredibly wealthy, more incredibly wealthier.
I don't suspect this will end anytime too soon.

Freedom Of Speech Doesn't Apply To Those Who Are Saying What They Don't Want You To Hear

Remember when you were a kid, and if somebody told you something you didn't want to hear, such as it's time to go to bed, you would stick a finger in each ear and say "LaLalalalalalalalal" very loudly? It didn't work, because that very act alone told your parents that indeed it was time for you to go to sleep. Well, this is kind of like that. Jewish groups are asking member countries to stand up and walk out when Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference on May 3.

“Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability poses a threat to the region and the entire Western world. To have President Ahmadinejad address this review conference makes a mockery of the efforts of many countries to prevent nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism from becoming the gravest global threats of this century."

Mockery? Really? How about Israel deploring IAEA and UN calls for Israel to sign the NPT and join the IAEA while trying to simultaneously deciding whom that august body should and shouldn't be listening to?
The president and executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the group that is calling for the boycott, then goes on to state that:"It is dismaying that, once again, the U.N. is allowing the head of a regime, foremost in the sponsorship of terrorism and the abuse of human rights, who defies U.N. resolutions regarding its nuclear ambitions, to appear before the international body."
Really? You want to go there? Israel, an apartheid state where it's Palestinian peoples are treated as second class citizens, where the Goldstone report has listed numerous war crimes and abuses of Human Rights, a country that has defied more UN resolutions than Iraq, and rejects UN resolutions regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and now you want to criticize Iran, which, once again has not diverted one isotope towards anything but it's nuclear energy program, nor has it been found to be developing a weapons program?
Which is likely what Ahmadinejad will be discussing at the conference, which is what pro-Israel groups do not want the world to hear. That and the fact the US has not lived up to it's obligations under Article 4 of the NNPT. (It's unlikely that the Iranian president will be discussing the continued violation of it's own Symington amendment by the US either) So, once again, we have the US standing behind international criminal state Israel while making false claims against one of Israel's enemies in the region. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Go, Johnny Go

Well, the Iowa headache is over, and with 49 or more of these to go, it's too soon to call it, but I am delighted to see that Clinton pulled in to a third place position, or as TIME, the most corporate of corporate media put it, Edwards barely beat Clinton. (In a state where she outspent and campaigned twice as much (with help from her husband) as Edwards. And frankly, I'm glad.
Edwards, while no Kucinich, is a candidate for change. Clinton is part of the elite that has been running the country for the last twenty years, and look where we ended up. If she does (God forbid) win, that means in nearly a quarter of a century, only two families have controlled the White House. How's that for democracy?
Can we really trust these people? Bill Clinton got elected by promising to help the working people, then worked to pass NAFTA, which worked the working people right out of work. Bush ran on a platform of smaller government, has since increased the federal government making it more sluggish and inefficient than it ever has been. What promises has Hillary made? No, not to us, but to all the campaign donors with deep pockets and control of the corporate media which has painted her as a front runner. You know, the people who aren't really hurting under $100 a barrel oil.
As Bill was fond of saying back in '92, it's the economy, stupid. And as the Republicans were fond of saying back then, Anyone But Clinton.

A Kinder, Gentler Machine Gun Hand

Hilary Clinton is trying to "warm up" her image, in which she is seen as cold and calculating.
Excuse me, but isn't that in and of itself a cold and calculating move?
Sen. Clinton has slipped somewhat in the polls, and with the primary season busting wide open next month, she must do something to counter that slippage.
Only the loyalist of Kool-Aid drinkers are unable to see her for what she really is, the next step in turning our country over to the corpocracy that began with her husband screwing over the working class in this country by giving away the keys to the farm with NAFTA. Sure, she may have suckered some into believing she may do something about the abysmal health care system in this country, but I surely hope you don't believe she'll actually do anything about it.
As someone from the John Edwards camp stated "In fairness, I think the only image make-over that would work would be Senator Clinton saying no to lobbyist money and finally embracing an agenda of real change".
Like that's gonna happen.
Remember the days, long before television, when a politician ran on their accomplishments, not on some focus-group-created image designed to sucker voters into voting against their own self-interest? Real accomplishments, not some exploit-a-national-tragedy-for political-gain situation (I'm looking at you, Ghouliani).
Unfortunately, some people want to keep you from hearing those people who want to effect real change, which in case you haven't noticed, is what we really need.

Same Shit Different Asshole

The 2008 presidential election is one of the most important elections ever (Okay, they're all really important, but bear with me), a chance for the US to change the disastrous course on which it has been recklessly traveling these past seven years. So we need a chief executive who's going to do things differently than the way the satanist in the White House has been operaring.
At last night's Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton criticized Barack Obama for saying that he would talk with nations that are supposed enemies. This is a complete about face from her criticism of Bush for not talking to those same countries. We all know how well not talking to these countries has been successful for the current regime, isn't Sen. Clinton running against their failed policies? And what are the countries that Hillary won't talk to? Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. You know, the countries that refuse to bend to the will of the corpocracy.
Iran has yet to be found doing anything wrong, amid growing accusations being flung at it by the Bush administration, eager to start another war that will make Halliburton even richer before Dick Cheney steps back in the reins when (or if) he steps down from the vice-presidency. But who is behind the push to demonize Iran that so many US lawmakers have signed on with it? And why is the frontrunner in the Democratic Party talking war with Iran, just like Dick Cheney? (Please, no apologists) I suppose once she has started war on Iran she could fli-flop, just like she did with her position on using diplomacy, or her support for the war in Iraq, and millions of addle-pated Democrats, more signed on to a cult of personality than anything the demgogue-in-the-making stands for, will merely accpet it because they think she be better than Bush. But to be better, you have to be different. And Hillary isn't.

FLASHBACK!! "No Plans To Occupy Iraq"

In case you missed it yesterday, President Bush compared soldiers in Iraq to the US soldiers during the Revolutionary War. Actually, we're more like the British, and the insurgents, which are being tagged "alqaeda" by the administration, even though there is no connection, they are the ones fighting off an occupation army intent on exploiting the vast resources of the country for King George.
Of course going into Iraq the US disputed a report that the US wanted long term access to bases in Iraq. Now, of course it's a different story. Even Hillary Clinton wants full time bases in Iraq (which is her way of sucking up to the corpocracy, and why she sucks). Which reminds me of an old joke. How do you know when George Bush is lying? When Dick Cheney's lips aren't moving.