REALITY CHECK: WAR & ENVIRONMENT

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

REALITY CHECK: WAR

JUSTIN RAIMONDO, ANTIWAR - Compared to his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Obama is the antiwar candidate - which tells us everything we
need to know about the Democratic Party. . . The Hollywood debate made
this comparison shopping all the more necessary when it came time for
Hillary to defend her vote to authorize the Iraq war - which she did,
albeit incoherently. Obama took out after her and did quite an effective
job of summarizing what is wrong with the prospect of her going up
against John McCain:

"The legislation, the authorization, had the title An Authorization to
Use Military Force, U.S. Military Force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the
day after that vote was taken, understood, this was a vote potentially
to go to war. I think people were very clear about that, if you look at
the headlines.". . .

In spite of Bill Clinton's recent attempt to revise his own history in
this regard, he endorsed the war in an interview with Time magazine,
during the publicity blitz for his memoir, My Life, in the summer of
2004: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the Left on
Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the UN inspections
were over." Clinton bought into the "weapons of mass destruction" angle
and averred that after 9/11, the president had no choice but to make
sure that such weapons stayed out of al-Qaeda's hands. "That's why I
supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."
Unaccounted for - albeit destroyed - because, as president, Bill pulled
the inspectors out to make way for his impeachment-inspired bombing.

I am surprised and delighted to see that Obama is framing the Iraq
question in terms of the coming conflict with Iran. He is alert to the
danger, and he is also good on "mission creep," which is a good term to
introduce - or reintroduce. But I was especially impressed with his call
for a fundamental reevaluation of our foreign policy stance:

"I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that
got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership I
intend to provide as president of the United States."

Will Obama deliver? It's possible, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

You'll note how, earlier in his remarks, he framed his dissent from the
Iraq war in terms of the urgency of pressing problems elsewhere:
Pakistan, which he once said we might have to invade, was specified,
along with our "neglect" of Latin America. "China," he breathlessly
confided, "is strengthening" - probably because they're investing their
money in productive enterprises rather than a lot of costly imperial
pretensions. . .

This does not amount to a fundamental reappraisal of our basic foreign
policy stance, but it is enough of a revision to satisfy anyone who is,
like me, hungry for some sign of change in our disastrous foreign
policy. It is a policy that is not only discrediting us but also
bankrupting us, even as it rationalizes and sets the stage for the most
serious assault on our constitutional form of government since the Civil
War. If Obama can stop our forced march along this path, and even turn
us around, then that alone makes him worth supporting - but, as I said,
I wouldn't put much faith in this possibility. I see no attempt on his
part to articulate a comprehensive critique of American foreign policy,
never mind challenge the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years.

Obama's advisers are culled from the Clinton administration, and his
campaign is claiming to be more Clintonian than Hillary's when it comes
to foreign policy. Indeed, we'll probably see more "humanitarian"
interventions with Obama as commander in chief. It's the same old gang
of Washington policy wonks who make up his foreign policy advisory team.
. .

Number-one influential adviser: Samantha Power, whose book on why
America ought to go around the world preventing "genocide" is a
bestseller among the do-gooder set. According to her lights, we didn't
intervene in the Balkans quickly enough, or for the right reasons, and
we should have been at least knee-deep in Darfur by now. . .

Obama will gladly ride the antiwar wave - in an election that wasn't
supposed to be about the war, at least according to our chattering
classes - all the way to the White House. Whether he'll deliver is
another matter altogether. I tend to think not. . . What I see coming
down the pike with Obama is more of the same old interventionist tripe
that has been disproved, discredited, and disgraced so many times
before, yet keeps coming back at us.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12306

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

REALITY CHECK: ENVIRONMENT

[From the Daily Green]

JOHN MCCAIN - Global Warming: Has supported cutting carbon dioxide
emissions 30% below present levels by 2050 with a cap-and-trade
regulation. Alternative Energy: Supports a variety of energy
technologies, including nuclear energy, but has not spelled out a
specific plan for research, development and deployment of new energy
technologies. Also Notable: McCain co-authored the first Senate
legislation designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, in 2003.

BARACK OBAMA - Global Warming: Cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% below
1990 levels by 2050 with a cap-and-trade regulation. Alternative Energy:
Spend $150 billion over 10 years on renewable, alternative and clean
energy research and development. Also Notable: Obama would create an
independent, private clean technologies deployment venture capital fund
to partner with existing investment funds and national laboratories to
invest in new energy technologies.

HILLARY CLINTON Global Warming: Cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% below
1990 levels by 2050 with a cap-and-trade regulation. Alternative Energy:
Start a $50 Billion Strategic Energy Fund to pay for research,
development and deployment of renewable, alternative and clean energy
technologies Also Notable: Clinton would develop a "Connie Mae" program
to help low- and middle-income families make investments in home energy
efficiency

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/

DALLAS NEWS -  Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an
energy option. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's "agnostic" on whether
more nuclear plants should be built. . . "They've gone from 'no' to
'yes, but,' and some even describe themselves as agnostics, and that's a
big improvement," said Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative
programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which supports the nuclear
industry. . .

John Edwards opposes nuclear power. He has said there's no safe way to
dispose of the waste, and reactors take a long time - and a lot of money
- to build.

Mr. Obama is in the opposite camp. "We should explore nuclear power as
part of the energy mix," he said during last summer's CNN-YouTube
debate. Nuclear plants can cut greenhouse gas emissions, he says.

Mrs. Clinton articulates both views. She worries about climate change,
as well as nuclear waste spills. But American technology can address
those worries, she said during the debate last summer. She doesn't state
explicitly whether she supports building new plants

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/
national/stories/DN-nukes_27bus.ART.State.Edition1.2af68e5.html


||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||