Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (1 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

Obama v. Romney on Issues Mattering Most

By       Message Stephen Lendman     Permalink
      (Page 2 of 8 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 2   Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
- Advertisement -

Both candidates assure them. Differences between them reflect tone and nuance, not substance. Romney talks tough. In late August, his campaign co-chair Governor Tim Pawlenty (R. MN) said diplomacy is running out on Iran. It's time to "start the clock ticking."

Options so far haven't worked, he said. He wants Congress to pass an authorization to use military force. Doing so assures it. Millions of potential deaths don't matter. Nor do rule of law principles about attacking a nonbelligerent country posing no threat.

- Advertisement -

Romney's policy is bombs away. So is Obama's. His softer tone conceals it better. It hides what he has in mind. Occasionally he makes overt threats. They reveal his real intentions.

Last March he said he won't "hesitate to use force" to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. He knows none exist or a program to develop them but won't say.

- Advertisement -

Instead he states "all options are on the table".That includes all elements of American power," isolating Iran, "a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure (close monitoring), an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions, and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

"Rest assured," he added, "the Iranian government will know of our resolve." Days ago, he laid down "red lines." They're triggers for war. They likely advanced the timeline. Long ago it was planned. 

Expect it post-election or perhaps sooner against Iran and Syria. Whether one precedes the other remains to be seen. Each nation is targeted for regime change. Both parties endorse it. Obama or Romney makes no difference. It's baked in the cake.

- Advertisement -

Not according to Nation magazine. Its editorial policy scorns truth. Since the 19th century, it turned reality on its head. Early on, it was unapologetic about slavery. It fell short of supporting labor, minorities, and women's rights.

It championed 19th century laissez faire. It attacked the Grangers, Populists, trade unions and socialists. It 1999, it called NATO's Serbia/Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8

 

- Advertisement -

Valuable 2   Must Read 1   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert