More Susan Rice Political Rantings

Susan Rice in her typical political posturing, acting more like the proverbial attack dog rather than a foreign policy advisor, again attacked the Bush administration for not negotiating with Iran and not applying tougher sanctions during an interview with Sheppard Smith on Fox News.

Ms. Rice stated that the United States should use more diplomatic means to encourage our European allies to assist with tougher sanctions. She also stated the President Bush finally followed Barack Obama’s recommendations to begin diplomacy with Iran by sending a diplomat to sit in on European talks with Iran in Switzerland a short time ago.

What Ms. Rice failed to explain was how the United States was going to influence Russia and China not to provide support to Iran. She also failed to mention how we were going to influence North Korea in the same way. She also failed to mention the recent increase in sanctions on Iran which had already been planned. I suppose that was also at Senator Obama’s suggestion.

While pointing out that the Iranians have been advancing their nuclear program for the past eight years during the Bush administration, she failed to point out that North Korea did the same thing to the Clinton administration under which she also served as a foreign policy advisor.

While criticizing the McCain campaign for attacking Obama in reference to Obama referring to Iran as a small and insignificant nation stating that Obama has always considered Iran a serious threat, she failed to mention that Obama only “clarified” his position on Iran after his statements about Iran were criticized.

She further made the often repeated complaint that the Democratic candidate’s remarks were “taken out of context” which seems to be the standard response to each of his frequent faux pas which repeatedly point to his lack of experience or inability to completely grasp the significance of world conditions until someone with more experience points out his deficiencies.

Apparently, Susan Rice hasn’t learned from her previous experience while serving the Clinton administration since her approach to rogue nations has been unchanged in more than 15 years.

It makes me wonder how much Senator Obama, if he becomes President Obama, will rely on advice from people like Susan Rice who can’t even learn from their previous mistakes.

Has anyone else noticed how Senator Obama’s “clarifications” of his positions or statements actually sound more like changes in policies and positions?

And, is anyone besides me getting tired of the Democrats using the nearly worn out phrase, “out of context” as a lame excuse for ignorance and inexperience?

Also, has anyone else noticed how Barack Obama or one of his cronies claim credit for his influencing any positive or potentially positive event that occurs?

I suppose if “Gustav” misses New Orleans or any other major Gulf coast city, we will have to give Barack Obama credit for providing divine intervention … and Susan Rice for recommending the action.


What to Do with the WindFall Profits From American Oil Companies

This week, as the first quarter financial reports have come in from America’s top oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron, presidential candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton, and other politicians, primarily Democratic, have shouted “Outrage” and clamored for as yet unspecified windfall profit taxes to be placed upon American oil companies.

In response to these cries of political posturing, the oil companies have meekly, and weakly, responded by pointing out that their profit margin is no greater than that of other U.S. industry segments. It’s frankly ironic when American industries have to apologize for making normal profits.

Windfall profit taxes on American oil companies would temporarily put billions of dollars into the coffers of the U.S. treasury but it would do nothing to recoup the billions of dollars that we are sending to Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela or other oil producing countries. Hillary Clinton proposes spanking the hands of these countries and admonishing them for their greed.

Senator Clinton proposes using these windfall profit taxes to pay for “green industries” to reduce our dependence on oil. I think that’s great, but what is she going to do with Senator Ted Kennedy who won’t allow currently available renewable energy sources like the wind farm proposed to be constructed in Nantucket Sound to be built?

While Americans are being worked into a frenzy of outrage over the profits of oil companies, the true culprits contributing to the nearly $4 a gallon cost of gasoline like Senator Kennedy and other special interest groups are quietly sipping their mint juleps on their verandas enjoying their unspoiled scenic views.

I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Clinton for the need to increase our research and development of alternative sources of energy as well as the use of currently available technologies.

In typical lawyer fashion, Senator Clinton wants the United States to develope laws to allow the United States and it’s citizens to file suits against the offending entities such as other countries in the World Court as if, in some way, this might force OPEC to change it’s ways. How about allowing U.S. citizens to file suit against Senator Kennedy to force him to get his dead butt out of the way of the construction of the wind farm?

If anyone would take the time to look at the financials of American oil companies, they would see that the increase in net profits really aren’t that great when compared to the overall size and cost of operations of each of these companies.

American oil companies annually spend billions of dollars in foreign countries drilling for oil, refining oil products to be imported to the United States as well as for the transportation of crude oil and refined products to the U.S. while billions of gallons of crude oil and billions of metric yards of natural gas lie untouched off American shores and access to these resources are restricted from use … that is … use by us.

While we sit idly by China and Venezuela are renovating and expanding Cuba’s capacity to drill for oil and oil companies from Canada, Spain, Norway, Brazil, India and Malaysia are actively drilling for oil in Cuba both onshore and offshore in the Florida Straits. With horizontal drilling, oil rigs placed near the accepted boundaries between the United States and Cuba could actually allow the tapping of oil within U.S. territorial waters by foreign countries. Additionally, what is to stop foreign countries from drilling off the U.S. in nonterritorial waters?

So, what should be done with the windfall profits of American oil companies?

The nonsensical insanity should be stopped and these companies should be allowed to begin drilling off the continental United States and encouraged to build new refining capacity within the United States. Paradoxically, the price of crude oil would decrease, the price of gasoline would decrease and their profits would decrease … most likely in that order. And guess what, that might even create come good paying jobs for Americans … right here at home.

Unfortunately, simple solutions that make too much sense are just beyond the comprehension of American lawmakers who have too much to loose … specifically their demagoguery … by doing something sensible.

Frankly, I wouldn’t be suprised if that little pig of a Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, wasn’t throwing a few coins in the direction of some select U.S. lawmakers and environmental groups as he laughingly takes his loot to the bank … in Switzerland or the Caymans. Wasn’t there a Kennedy praising Chavez’ donations of fuel oil this past winter?

Boycott the Olympics?

Senator Clinton has called for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies at the Olympics this year in Beijing. I’m listening to her speak about this now.

Over the past several days, and especially yesterday, the protests against the Olympics by Tibetans have stood in the forefront of the news.

Recently, Barack Obama called for the Chinese government to give greater autonomy to Tibet.

The tradition of the Olympics is for nations to put down their differences in the spirit of athletic competition. The Olympics is a opportunity for dialogue.

In addition, can anyone deny the “egg in your face” to Adolph Hitler of Jessie Owen’s performance in the 1936 Berlin Olympics? What a loss to history a boycott of that Olympics would have been.

This is simply my opinion.

I think it would be nonproductive if not counterproductive for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. His participation could present another opportunity to engage with Chinese leaders to hopefully influence their positions on a number of issues including Tibet.

When it comes to “carrot and stick” diplomacy, it is appearing to me that China is becoming increasingly more receptive to the “carrot”. China’s internal problems with it’s economy, environmental issues, resource supplies such as the recent problems with coal and the international attention on Tibet seem to be creating a fairly large “stick ” in their own right.

I am not in favor of greater “autonomy” for Tibet as Barack Obama has indicated his is willing to settle for. Even the Dalai Lama seems willing to settle for “autonomy”. Tibetans have their own culture and ethnicity and rich history as a separate nation and deserve full independence just as Mongolia achieved. Quite frankly, historically, Tibet could claim rights to control much of China as China claims it has rights to be sovereign over Tibet.

Although I agree with the Tibetans efforts to gain recognition and independence, I don’t agree with their disruption of Olympic events.

I think the fact that the Olympics are taking place in Beijing has given greater exposure and transparency to the situation in Tibet that might not have otherwise happened. I think the Tibetans should take advantage of this exposure in a less obstructive way.

People should take the time to learn more about Tibet and what appears to be going on there. Population trends seem to indicate that China is overwhelming the native Tibetan population with importation of ethnic Chinese and possibly even displacing native Tibetans out of their homeland to dilute their presence in an environmentally rich and pristine part of the world which also may be equally rich in natural resources that China covets.

Can the world really afford for China to abuse and mismanage the population, resources and environment of Tibet as it has done to its own population, resources and environment?