Except for a few expose books, there’s no real refutation from others, especially Republican’s, regarding Bill Clinton’s wife’s comments and statements she’s using to separate herself from the incumbent’s failed foreign policy decisions.
And, as far as preparing for the next presidential election’s concerned, the Republican strategy seems to be the right one to employ. Because, aside from the fact that Bill’s wife has no valid credentials regarding qualification for the job, she hasn’t any successes to support her extremely weak job performance in every position held to date.
Therefore, by patiently waiting on the sidelines while Bill’s wife and the incumbent bicker, pointing out each other’s weaknesses and faults, Republican presidential candidates can hold their real ammunition, Bill’s wife’s past mistakes and lack of credentials, until the contest heats up far closer to the 2016 election.
On that subject, David Halper opined, “It's totally all about politics. This is Hillary Clinton. She is completely political; this is completely transactional. The truth of the matter is, as I outlined in my book, Hillary Clinton was put in a bubble in the State Department. Foreign policy was essentially run from the White House by President Obama and his minions. Hillary Clinton didn't have much say in foreign policy. So she traveled the world. She visited different places, she made new friends, but she didn't really have much say in foreign policy.
Rush, however, believes the situation's exactly the opposite, as do I. And he expressed the thought this way: “I want you to be able to understand it when you watch the news elsewhere, what it means and why it is being done. Benghazi was her and Obama! This effort to say that she had nothing to do with Obama foreign policy is BS. Once more they're trying to make up a bunch of stuff in order to inoculate her from the poison that is the Obama foreign policy. Make no mistake about it. She was right in there. That is the cliché, the dirty little secret.”
Further demonstrating Bill’s wife’s involvement in decision-making when secretary of state, the Daily Caller reports that, “Hillary Clinton now says she was a strong advocate of arming the Syrian rebels when she was secretary of state, but in a February 2012 interview, she passionately pushed back against the viability of such an opposition – even raising the specter that such a policy might be akin to supporting al-Qaida. ‘What are we going to arm them with and against what?’ she said, when pressed in a CBS interview about why the Obama administration wasn’t giving the Syrian rebels weapons to help them in their fight against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad… ‘We know that al-Qaida [leader Ayman al Zawahiri] is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaida in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?’’
However, the purposeful forgetfulness is merely another indication of the Clinton’s disrespect for the intellect of the American voting public, coupled with the avoidance of truth if it conflicts with the image they wish to project when selling themselves to whomever will listen to them.
And, apparently their apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree, as also mentioned by Rush who asked, “Isn't NBC the network that shoveled all that money at Chelsea Clinton, having never worked in television before? They gave her a $600,000 deal. It was calculated something like $25,000 a minute, based on how often she was on TV. They just threw $600,000 at her.
The thinking at the time was, "Well, Hillary and Bill have decided that Chelsea needs to learn television, because television is so crucial to campaigning. Television's so crucial to winning campaigns." The truth may be quite the opposite. The truth may be that NBC just decided to throw money there to curry favor and to show their support for the Clintons.”
I mention this one because, I wrote the same thing a week ago when the ridiculous deal was first mentioned in the press.
Which brings us to today’s final subject, the price of oil.
According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph on-line, “Oil prices have fallen to a nine-month low as surging supply from Opec and the US floods the market and fresh demand wilts, leading to an “oil glut” in the Atlantic region despite the twin crises in Iraq and Russia.
“Falling prices will ratchet up the pressure on Russia, which needs a price near $110 to balance its budget. While it has a reserve fund to cover any shortfall, this would be depleted fast if oil falls anywhere near $80 and Russia goes into a deep recession. Most of Russia’s energy revenues come from oil, not gas.”
Therefore, the question arises as to Opec’s real intentions. Because it seems quite possible that the plan, especially for nations like Saudi Arabia, of purposefully glutting the market may be their way of hedging against Russia’s using oil supply as a weapon or bargaining tool. All of which is a boon to consumer's who'll benefit from the price drop regardless of what the reason is.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment