There is certainly a sense of drama and maybe conclusion as we near the “crucial” Texas and Ohio presidential nominating contests Tuesday.

But, since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , on the Democratic side, are locked into a battle over whom is more experienced, they should be telling voters how they plan to deal with two and maybe three key issues unfolding on both the domestic and international stage.

“Horrifying and Unnecessary”

That is how the Sunday New York Times describes what President Bush is expected to do later in the week: veto a law that would force the C.I.A to adhere to restrictions on interrogating prisoners already outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Among the things banned by the Army manual that Bush seems intent on allowing the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies to practice, according to the Times, are:

“Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.”

“Waterboarding”

“Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner and using duct tape over the eyes.”

The list goes on.

Why aren’t Obama and Clinton talking more about this?

This morning, the world awakened to the news that the idiot strongman of Venezuela, “President” Hugo Chavez, has sent tanks to the border with Colombia, a U.S. ally in the region.

The idiot strongman of Venezuela, “President” Hugo Chavez, claims he is doing this because Colombia downed a leading rebel in a swift raid inside Ecuador, which happens to be an ally of Venezuela in the region.

Proxy war? Maybe. But, two questions emerge from this insane development:

1) Why hasn’t the C.I.A. or some other bad-ass U.S. agency taken out the idiot strongman of Venezuela, “President” Hugo Chavez by now? He represents a far greater threat to U.S. interests than Iraq did five years ago. He’s one world leader the world can do without. Like, right away!! Since Bush wants to give the C.I.A. freedom to torture and God knows what, why can’t he sign one of his famous secret executive orders and make the idiot strongman of Venezuela, “President” Hugo Chavez, sleep with the fishes, as the great Mafia dons of old were fond of saying?

2)But, the second question that comes to mind is:

Why aren’t Obama and Clinton talking more about this?

While we are at it, shouldn’t we have a much better understanding about how either Obama or Clinton intend to handle the latest developments in Russia and the loss of its already limited Democracy?

Forget Freaking Iraq Already!

Yes, time to move on. More pressing things for the candidates to talk about than whether we should or shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. We did. Done deal. And, no matter who gets elected President, you have got to realize that the U.S., in one form or another, is in Iraq for good! We are still in Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other places.

So, Barack and Hillary and John, what do you guys intend to do about all this s–t?