Obama has bowed to quite a few people, including the King of Saudi Arabia. Now he has bowed down to Romney-not physically (yet), but intellectually and with body language.
Unfortunately, the doddering relic, “Silent Jim Lehrer” failed to control the debate, letting Romney hammer the same points over and over again. This was easy for Romney to do; as Obama had toned down his part in the debate to the point of being little more than Romney’s whipping boy.
(Instead of senile old Jim Lehrer, a better choice for moderator would have been Judge Judy.)
If Romney has given up on 47% of the population, Obama has given up on the entire 100%.
In football terms, rather than put up a fight, Obama took a knee. And by doing so, Obama copped out on the entire Democratic Party.
The choice between Obama and Romney is little more than the choice between two near-identical evils. It is the choice of what will be the name of the Commander in Chief of the next Middle East war. As President Harry Truman once put it, “only the names change.”
Obama does his best to behave as a man of peace, but he followed the bad advice of General Petraeus who advocated the “surge” in Afghanistan. The only outcome of the “surge” was to increase the death toll of American soldiers (and others), not only in numbers but by the frequency of American deaths.
Obama is not a man of peace, and neither is Romney. The chances of a war with Iran are about the same with either Obama or Romney. The reason for a war with Iran has little to do with its possible development of a nuclear weapon and everything to do with propping up the dollar.
Iran recently proposed a plan to end the confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, but American officials have rejected the plan, as it would allow Iran to “restart the program in a nanosecond” after the lifting of sanctions. The American officials have taken this stance to provide the U.S. with an excuse to attack Iran.
The real reason for a war with Iran is to prop up the fading U.S. dollar. In 1971, OPEC members, led by the Saudis, agreed that all purchase of crude oil be made in U.S. dollars, hence the term “petrodollars.” The reason for this is that Nixon had broken the Bretton Woods Accord for the gold backed U.S. dollar. Without its gold backing the U.S. dollar would have tanked, so something else was needed – petrodollars. All the countries that needed crude oil then had to purchase U.S. dollars to purchase crude oil.
Two countries broke that agreement and began to accept Euros and other currencies in exchange for their petroleum. Those two countries were Iraq and Iran. We know what happened to Iraq, and we pretty much know what is going to happen to Iran with either Obama or Romney at the helm.
Russian President Nikita Khrushchev on the balcony of the Russian Delegation headquarters in New York in September 1960 was asked why there is only a one-party election in Russia. Khrushchev replied that it was the same in America as he could not see any difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates.
Only the names change.