Bush did not place U.S. domestic issues
as being our main priority, and nor does Obama. Bush was preoccupied with Iraq,
and Afghanistan and Mr. Obama, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and now
the Ukraine. Currently the latter is more like some dystopian Fourier reality,
that for him is dynamic and fascinating, but for the majority of Americans,
wasteful and unnecessary. It is as if the Ukraine and parcels of land 99
percent of Americans will never see or set foot upon, deserves more attention
than the millions of Americans with major financial needs like the hungry, the homeless, or the millions who can’t pay their rent or mortgages or whom need jobs at living wages.
There is no valid reason to be
occupied with the Ukraine when what we face at home is a true national security
threat economically. Just this past week, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen
informed the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that under current policies
the federal government’s deficits “will rise to unsustainable levels.”
Unemployment, depressed wages and unadmitted inflation is killing us. We are
over our head and drowning in deficit spending so all we left with is printing “mo
money, mo money and mo money,” to use a phrase from “In Living Color.”
Why is the U.S. economy more of a national
security issue than the Ukraine? First, at last count, about 5 trillion or
approximately 47% of U.S. debt is owned by foreign investors, the largest being
China and Japan at (plus $1.1 trillion each). Unlike us, the Russian government
expects to have a budget surplus according to the IMF. Add to this, Russia also
has a trade surplus which increased to $18.86 billion while the U.S. trade deficit continues to fall. If anything, maybe the U.S. wants a war so it can rev up its
dire economic prospectus. For it is clear that what we observed when George W.
Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, the same can be noted, applied and said for the
Obama Administration – the economic and financial need of conflict with
another energy rich nation.
Why else make a big fuss about
nothing? Obama in his neoliberal caricature resembles Balzac’s master criminal
Vautrin more than the leader of the free world as the U.S. has been coined. Big
oil and Wall Street made a killing under Bush. The U.S. invasion of Iraq crushed
that country, destroyed Iraq’s state-owned oil industry, and grew the price of crude
from $20 a barrel to $147 a barrel in 2008 (needless to state Exxon Mobil’s most profitable year ever). The point being whenever sanctions are placed on an
energy rich nation, U.S. plutocrats get paid. Obama is just extending the Bush
playbook and we saw such in 2011 when sanctions were placed on Iran and Sudan.
And when they don’t work, we have good ole NATO, who implemented an undeclared
war on Libya, not to forget the CIA efforts in Syria. Thus, it doesn’t take a
high school graduate to foresee the impact or likely impact the disruption of
the flow of Russian energy to Europe would mean for big U.S. oil companies.
Obama and Bush are in policy, one
and the same person, the only differences are gang, I mean political
affiliation and ethnicity. The U.S. I suspect see the Ukraine as a means to
grow and escalate military spending across Europe, making the U.S. military
industrial complex more loot on behalf of U.S. oil interest. See, what
corporate U.S.A and Wall Street know is that war drives capital into the United States, which keep U.S. banks the main feature of the global economy by cutting
the deficit and artificially propping up the dollar. This is the only
conclusion that is both reasonable and logical for as German MP Alexander Neu noted,
“Not a single NATO country is in any way threatened,” by the actions in the
Ukraine. Plus, what would we expect, there are more than 6000 German companiesactive in Russia with more than $27 billion invested in the nation. Meaning
just like Iraq was no threat, or Libya, or Syria, Obama economic and foreign
policy is no different than his predecessor with the exception it is on
steroids.
