FBI Whistleblower says Neocons Negotiated Iraq Invasion with Foreign Agents in Summer 2001

This pretty well documents the Bush White House planning before 9/11 to invade and partition Iraq.  Finally, something close to mainstream media (MSM) is paying attention to Sibel Edmonds and her testimony. I've been writing about this story since 2005 when I first heard about it. So far, few MSM agencies have chosen to give this story much attention.

This has far reaching implications and chronicles a hidden power game within the Bush Administration including illegal espionage activities by key neo-cons. It also gives a glimpse of Bush's conspiracy to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people based on false information.

Suggested here also is evidence, as I have pointed out before, that Turkish, Iranian and Israeli spies had inappropriate access to the Bush Administration and very likely manipulated Bush towards an invasion of Iraq.

Image via Wikipedia

In an interview with former CIA officer Phillip Giraldi, FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds named Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle as having been wiretapped and recorded discussing plans with the Turkish ambassador in the Summer of 2001 to invade Iraq and occupy the Kurdish region bordering Turkey.

A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations "credible," "serious," and "warranting a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files.

via Daily Kos: FBI Whistleblower says Neocons Negotiated Iraq Invasion with Foreign Agents in Summer 2001.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sibel Edmonds Cover Story at 'The American Conservative' (bradblog.com)


• Conservative Mag: 'Sibel Edmonds Speaks, But No One is Listening' (bradblog.com)


• Democratic Peace Theory (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)


• FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Tells of Bribery, Espionage and Cover-up at the Highest Levels of US Government (citizengkar.wordpress.com)


• Bombshell: Bin Laden Worked for US Until 9/11 (citizengkar.wordpress.com)

Bush Admin. worse than our Nightmares

Impeach Bush and Cheney, impeach them now!

Image via Wikipedia

Back in the bad old days of Bush's corrupt gang, we on the left were pilloried for suggesting that the administration was manipulating terrorism-related news in order to win the 2004 elections. But when Tom Ridge says it . . .In fact, I argued in summer, 2004, that when Ridge did raise the terrorism alert, it had the unfortunate effect of outing an al-Qaeda double agent who had been turned by the Pakistani government and was helping set a trap for al-Qaeda in the UK. In turn, that caused the British government to have to move against the people it had under surveillance prematurely, harming the case.

[..]The horrible thing is that Wolf Blitzer on CNN assembled David Frum and Frances Townsend, former members of the Bush administration, to sit around on his afternoon news and analysis program on Thursday afternoon and more or less either call Ridge a liar or pooh-pooh the significance of what he is saying. There wasn't a single centrist or left of center voice to show any outrage. I mean, I know that Time Warner is not made up of people who necessarily care about the little person or social justice or anything. But a little bit of shame?

It isn't enough that the corporate media lied to us for Bush for 8 years, they are continuing to do it. Give money to Amy Goodman.

via Informed Comment: Bush Admin. worse than our Nightmares.

Arab world condemns Israeli attack on Gaza

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Tri-City Herald

The Arab world reacted with outrage at Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip on Saturday, launching scattered protests and calls for retaliation against Israel.
The Arab League announced a gathering of foreign ministers Wednesday would focus on the attack, said the organization's chairman Amr Moussa.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit extended his condolences to the Palestinians killed in the attacks and said Egypt, which brokered a six-month long truce between Hamas and Israel that expired a little over a week ago, has been trying to avoid such an escalation.
"Today everybody has to stand by the side of the Palestinian people and stop this blind military action," the foreign minister said.
Egypt also came under attack by many in the Arab world for its role, along with Israel, in closing the Gaza Strip after the militant group Hamas came to power in June 2007. The closure is often seen as abetting Israel's siege of the crowded strip of land home to 1.5 million people.
A few hundred protesters gathered in Cairo Saturday calling for an end to the strikes.
In Lebanon, about 4,000 protesters marched through a refugee camp in the southern part of the country, condemning the attacks in general, and Egypt in particular.
"Hosni Mubarak, you agent of the Americans, you traitor!" they shouted. They also called on the militant group Hezbollah to attack Israel.
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Saniora described the Israeli attacks as a "criminal operation" and "new massacres to be added to its full record of massacres."
The militant group Hezbollah in a statement Saturday called the attacks "a war crime and a genocide," and criticized what it described as the "shameful" Arab silence.
The Libyan foreign ministry issued a statement calling on Arabs to take solid action in "responding to the Israeli brutality against Gaza," and urged the international community to stop Israel's attacks.
Saudi Arabia, which has put forward a plan calling for a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world, in a statement Saturday condemned the Israeli attacks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who met with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah on Saturday in Riyadh, said the Saudi leader promised to call U.S. President George W. Bush and other leaders to ask them to push Israel to halt its operations.
Hundreds of protesters in the Jordanian capital of Amman demonstrated, waving Hamas banners and condemning Israel's strikes. There were similar demonstrations in other Jordanian towns and Palestinian refugee camps.
The Jordanian ruler, King Abdullah II, called for an immediate halt to "all military actions" in a statement. He also met Saturday with Abbas after the Palestinian returned from Saudi Arabia. In a statement, the two leaders called on the international community to pressure Israel to end its military operations.
In Syria's al-Yarmouk camp, outside Damascus, hundreds of Palestinians also protested, vowing to continue fighting Israel.
"It's a Zionist holocaust, but it won't dissuade us from going on with our struggle to achieve our goals," said Ali Barakah, 42, one of the protesters.
The Sudanese foreign ministry issued a statement calling for an end to the Israeli attacks that it described as "brutal raids" and saying Arab states should take a unified stand to protect the Palestinians.
Even Turkey, with ties to Israel, expressed dismay as about 2,000 people protested in Istanbul, burning an Israeli flag.

Related articles by Zemanta

• EU calls for ceasefire after Israel airstrike on Gaza
• Israel kills 225 in air strikes on Gaza Strip

Arab world condemns Israeli attack on Gaza

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Tri-City Herald

The Arab world reacted with outrage at Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip on Saturday, launching scattered protests and calls for retaliation against Israel.
The Arab League announced a gathering of foreign ministers Wednesday would focus on the attack, said the organization's chairman Amr Moussa.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit extended his condolences to the Palestinians killed in the attacks and said Egypt, which brokered a six-month long truce between Hamas and Israel that expired a little over a week ago, has been trying to avoid such an escalation.
"Today everybody has to stand by the side of the Palestinian people and stop this blind military action," the foreign minister said.
Egypt also came under attack by many in the Arab world for its role, along with Israel, in closing the Gaza Strip after the militant group Hamas came to power in June 2007. The closure is often seen as abetting Israel's siege of the crowded strip of land home to 1.5 million people.
A few hundred protesters gathered in Cairo Saturday calling for an end to the strikes.
In Lebanon, about 4,000 protesters marched through a refugee camp in the southern part of the country, condemning the attacks in general, and Egypt in particular.
"Hosni Mubarak, you agent of the Americans, you traitor!" they shouted. They also called on the militant group Hezbollah to attack Israel.
Lebanon's Prime Minister Fuad Saniora described the Israeli attacks as a "criminal operation" and "new massacres to be added to its full record of massacres."
The militant group Hezbollah in a statement Saturday called the attacks "a war crime and a genocide," and criticized what it described as the "shameful" Arab silence.
The Libyan foreign ministry issued a statement calling on Arabs to take solid action in "responding to the Israeli brutality against Gaza," and urged the international community to stop Israel's attacks.
Saudi Arabia, which has put forward a plan calling for a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world, in a statement Saturday condemned the Israeli attacks. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who met with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah on Saturday in Riyadh, said the Saudi leader promised to call U.S. President George W. Bush and other leaders to ask them to push Israel to halt its operations.
Hundreds of protesters in the Jordanian capital of Amman demonstrated, waving Hamas banners and condemning Israel's strikes. There were similar demonstrations in other Jordanian towns and Palestinian refugee camps.
The Jordanian ruler, King Abdullah II, called for an immediate halt to "all military actions" in a statement. He also met Saturday with Abbas after the Palestinian returned from Saudi Arabia. In a statement, the two leaders called on the international community to pressure Israel to end its military operations.
In Syria's al-Yarmouk camp, outside Damascus, hundreds of Palestinians also protested, vowing to continue fighting Israel.
"It's a Zionist holocaust, but it won't dissuade us from going on with our struggle to achieve our goals," said Ali Barakah, 42, one of the protesters.
The Sudanese foreign ministry issued a statement calling for an end to the Israeli attacks that it described as "brutal raids" and saying Arab states should take a unified stand to protect the Palestinians.
Even Turkey, with ties to Israel, expressed dismay as about 2,000 people protested in Istanbul, burning an Israeli flag.

Related articles by Zemanta

• EU calls for ceasefire after Israel airstrike on Gaza
• Israel kills 225 in air strikes on Gaza Strip

Ex-ambassador blames Georgia for war with Russia

Mr Ambassador, isn't diplomacy the art making sure you are not misunderstood? Shouldn't Bush share responsibility for mistakenly turning loose the Georgia attack? I think so.
George Bush will go down in history for having destroyed the power, prestige and the economy of the US.

Image by anwer2007 via Flickr

The Associated Press

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) -- Before this summer's Georgia-Russia war, President Mikhail Saakashvili was itching to do battle and authorities mistook messages from the United States as encouragement to use force, Georgia's former ambassador to Russia said Wednesday.
But Russia also takes a share of the blame because it was trying to inflame Saakashvili's itch, Erosi Kitsmarishvili says.
His statements at a news conference added new intensity to a growing debate about what and who bear the onus for staring the five-day war that saw Russia drive deep into Georgian territory, caused devastating damage to Georgia's military, and aggravated already troubled Russia-US relations.
Georgia launched a massive artillery barrage Aug. 7 on the capital of the separatist region of South Ossetia, which was backed by Moscow and patrolled by Russian peacekeeping forces. Russian forces poured into the region, drove Georgian forces out and went on to take control of substantial swaths of northern and western Georgia.
The war ended with Russian forces firmly in control of South Ossetia and another separatist region, Abkhazia. Moscow has recognized both regions as independent.
Georgian leaders have said they launched the Aug. 7 attack after separatists shelled Georgian villages and Russian forces invaded from the north. Russia denies that, saying it sent troops to protect civilians and Russian peacekeepers from the Georgian onslaught.
Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili, in Wednesday testimony to a parliamentary commission investigating the war, presented what he said were telephone recordings supporting the Georgian authorities -- one in which men said to be South Ossetian border guards say Russian forces had crossed the border the night before the barrage and another purporting to show the South Ossetian interior minister receiving an order to raze a village under Georgian control.
But according to Kistmarishvili, "Saakashvili wanted that war, he has been bracing for that during the last four years. And Russia was eager to exploit it, pushing him to that using all means."
In the early postwar period, Georgian public opinion was strongly behind Saakashvili and a large majority believed Georgia had reacted to Russian aggression in launching the attack on South Ossetia.
In recent weeks, opposition politicians have been increasingly critical of the president and the war, but Kitsmarishvili appears to be the most highly placed official of the prewar period to publicly challenge Saakashvili on the conflict.
The former diplomat said Georgian officials had hoped to regain South Ossetia within hours, and did not expect Moscow to intervene.
He said Georgian officials believed the United States backed the idea of sending Georgian troops to reclaim Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have been de-facto independent and patrolled by Russian peacekeepers since the early 1990s.
Kitsmarishvili said Georgian officials told him President George W. Bush gave his blessing for such a use of force when he met the Georgian president in Washington in March.
"Saakashvili's entourage has tried to form an opinion that the U.S. administration would support the use of force," Kitsmarishvili said. "In reality, it was not like that."
Georgian officials also perceived a July 9-10 visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as encouragement for the plan, Kitsmarishvili said. He said people in Saakashvili's circle told him that Rice "gave the green light."
Rice has denied that Washington encouraged Georgia to use force on the provinces. The U.S. Embassy reiterated that line on Wednesday.
Kitsmarishvili made similar allegations to a Georgian parliamentary panel Tuesday, angering pro-government lawmakers who accused him of siding with Moscow and called for a criminal investigation against him. Some pro-government lawmakers accused him of lying in order to deflect attention from his alleged ineffectualness as ambassador.
Georgia recalled Kitsmarishvili from the Georgian Embassy on July 10, about a month before the war broke out. In the intervening weeks, he met in Georgia with an array of Western and Russian politicians and diplomats.
The countries have since severed diplomatic ties.
Associated Press Writer Misha Dzhindzhikhashvili contributed to this report.
Hosted by Google
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Bush/Paulson Criminal Bailout

Image by chantal foster via Flickr

Meanwhile, even some on Wall Street see "Great Depression 2" coming in 2011.

The Nation

The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington's handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal.
Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure.
Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. "There is only one president at a time," we hear from Barack Obama. That's true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama's ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama's renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.
Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully.
I suspect that the real reason the Democrats are so far failing to act has less to do with presidential protocol than with fear: fear that the stock market, which has the temperament of an overindulged 2-year-old, will throw one of its world-shaking tantrums. Disclosing the truth about who is receiving federal loans, we are told, could cause the cranky market to bet against those banks. Question the legality of equity deals and the same thing will happen. Challenge the $140 billion tax giveaway and mergers could fall through. "None of us wants to be blamed for ruining these mergers and creating a new Great Depression," explained one unnamed Congressional aide.
More than that, the Democrats, including Obama, appear to believe that the need to soothe the market should govern all key economic decisions in the transition period. Which is why, just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity."
Take Obama's pick for chief of staff. Despite the Republican braying about his partisanship, Rahm Emanuel, the House Democrat who received the most donations from the financial sector, sends an unmistakably reassuring message to Wall Street. When asked on This Week With George Stephanopoulos whether Obama would be moving quickly to increase taxes on the wealthy, as promised, Emanuel pointedly did not answer the question.
This same market-coddling logic should, we are told, guide Obama's selection of treasury secretary. Fox News's Stuart Varney explained that Larry Summers, who held the post under Clinton, and former Fed chair Paul Volcker would both "give great confidence to the market." We learned from MSNBC's Joe Scarborough that Summers is the man "the Street would like the most."
Let's be clear about why. "The Street" would cheer a Summers appointment for exactly the same reason the rest of us should fear it: because traders will assume that Summers, champion of financial deregulation under Clinton, will offer a transition from Henry Paulson so smooth we will barely know it happened. Someone like FDIC chair Sheila Bair, on the other hand, would spark fear on the Street--for all the right reasons.
One thing we know for certain is that the market will react violently to any signal that there is a new sheriff in town who will impose serious regulation, invest in people and cut off the free money for corporations. In short, the markets can be relied on to vote in precisely the opposite way that Americans have just voted. (A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans strongly favor "stricter regulations on financial institutions," while just 21 percent support aid to financial companies.)
There is no way to reconcile the public's vote for change with the market's foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. Over the past three months, we've been shocked so frequently that market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more memories fade.
When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start would be a very good sign.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bonus Bouncing: Goldman Execs Give 'Em Up: "Caught in the global fiscal crisis...
• Is It Time to Put Cadwalader on the Dissolution Watch List?
• More major job cuts being announced

Bloomberg Sues The Fed For Disclosure

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The LA Progressive

Lost in the wake of Henry Paulson's announcement Wednesday that Treasury is "changing direction" in how it doles out money in the bank rescue plan is a little-noticed lawsuit filed last Friday by Bloomberg LP, the business news wire service. It is suing the Federal Reserve Board's governors for public records that would answer two simple questions: Who is receiving $2 trillion in Fed loans and what collateral are taxpayers getting to support them?
That's trillion, with a "t."
And, yes, as hard as it is to believe, taxpayers don't know the identity of the borrowers to whom they are lending. They also don't know what kind of junk -- Stocks? Bonds? Three milk cows and a '69 Camaro? -- they are getting to collateralize the federal loans.
As Bloomberg wrote Monday, "The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral."

MORE
Related articles by Zemanta

• Transparency? You Don't Need Transparency
• Federal Reserve refuses to identify recipients of $2 trillion
• Bloomberg News Sues the Fed
• Congress To Re-Scrutinize Bailout Plans
• Rescuers pulling market under

Paulson's Swindle Revealed

Image via Wikipedia

The Nation

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson's transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride--a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public's money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.
These are dynamite facts that demand immediate action to halt the bailout deal and correct its giveaway terms. Stop payment on the Treasury checks before the bankers can cash them. Open an immediate Congressional investigation into how Paulson and his staff determined such a sweetheart deal for leading players in the financial sector and for their own former employer. Paulson's bailout staff is heavily populated with Goldman Sachs veterans and individuals from other Wall Street firms.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Marco Trbovich: Paulson Cuts Goldman Sachs a Sweetheart Deal
• Conflict Of Interest? Report Says Goldman Sachs 'Among Biggest Beneficiaries' Of Paulson's Bailout

U.S. War on Al Qaeda Widely Viewed as a Bust

Image via Wikipedia

IPS News

The U.S. is failing to rein in its primary target in the "global war on terror" -- Al Qaeda -- according to a new poll of 23 countries across the globe.
Conducted for the BBC World Service by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Globescan, the poll reveals that in every country surveyed but one, respondents think that the U.S.'s actions have failed to weaken the international terror group.
It was Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington on Sep. 11, 2001 which sparked the U.S.'s international war. Al Qaeda's then-refuge, Afghanistan, has been engulfed in a war of varying intensity since then. The U.S. opened a second front in its war on terror in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which apparently had no ties to the Al Qaeda terror network.
"Despite its overwhelming military power, America's war against Al Qaeda is widely seen as having achieved nothing better than a stalemate and many believe that it has even strengthened Al Qaeda," PIPA director Steve Kull said in a statement that accompanied the release of the report.
Averaged across all the nations surveyed, only one in five respondents think that Al Qaeda has been weakened, 29 percent think the war on terror has had no effect, and fully three in 10 think that the effort has made Al Qaeda stronger.

The $700 Billion Bailout Plan's Fine Print

Image by Getty Images via Daylife
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
received a bonus of
$53.4 million in 2006.

Mother Jones

Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan now has a name: the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. But even as Capitol Hill debates TARP, few seem to have noticed the proposal item that puts taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. It's in Section 6, and the key phrase is this: "The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time."
What does "at any one time" actually mean to economists? It means that if everything we American taxpayers buy re-evaluates down to zero, we get to buy more. That's hardly taxpayer "protection." With several hundred billion dollars of write-downs already announced this year by the part of the industry compelled to post their losses, it's a safe bet that $700 billion worth of the junkiest assets in existence will be heading to zero the second they are purchased.
But that's not all the bad news. With Sunday's announcement that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have decided to become bank holding companies, the last pretense of respect for the Glass-Steagall was dropped.

Image via Wikipedia

The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 prevented bank holding companies from engaging in non-consumer oriented banking activities, like investment banking. It also prohibited such entities headquartered in one state from acquiring banks in another state. The interstate restrictions were gutted in 1994, and the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act took care of the rest.
At first this meant that commercial banks could buy investment banks and insurance companies, hence Citigroup (which is a combination of Citibank, Travelers Insurance and Salomon Brothers investment bank), and the latest incarnation waiting to post lots of losses, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. But even with a new name, Goldman Sachs is still an investment bank, in the same way that a horse by another color is still a horse. Changing its status to bank holding company will mean access to the bailout fund, and give it the ability to buy any commercial bank out there. Which it likely will.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Peter Dreier: G.O.P.: Lose Your Home, Lose Your Vote
• Warren Buffett holds all the aces in Goldman Sachs deal

The Biggest Mortgage Fraud in History: Paulson Plan

Image via Wikipedia

GlobalResearch.ca

...according to a September 22, 2008, article by Elizabeth Williamson in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Banks Rush to Shape Rescue Plan":

Lobbyists and financial-services executives are working deep connections within the administration to ensure as many institutions as possible benefit from a $700 billion federal mechanism to buy distressed assets, then sell them off in better times. In a particularly controversial move, they also oppose proposals by Democrats in Congress to provide mortgage reductions for homeowners facing bankruptcy. Bankers say such a move would raise rates for mortgage seekers, as banks factor in the possibility that a loan would be restructured in court.

The article quoted a bank industry lobbyist: "How you publicly oppose loan modifications and bankruptcy law while at the same time advocating a huge taxpayer bailout is beyond me. Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered."
The committee never addressed the issue of why the bankers would oppose homeowner relief. Could it be that they actually favor foreclosures? Could it be that a situation where millions of foreclosed homes across America can be bought today for dimes on the dollar is somehow to their advantage? Or to the advantage of other investors who are now working the U.S. foreclosure markets, such as foreign sovereign equity funds? These questions did not come up at the Banking Committee's hearing, though they should have.
Nor did anyone talk about why the housing bubble arose in the first place, though the fact is that the Bush administration and Federal Reserve combined to generate it to get the nation out of the 2000-2001 recession. At the time, Bush needed money and could not afford the continued decline of federal tax revenues. He needed the money to pay for his tax cuts for the rich enacted in March 2001 and for his wars in the Middle East, which started with the invasion of Afghanistan immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
Nor did the committee address the fact that fixing the failed economic system will not repair an economy where consumer purchasing power has been devastated over the last generation by continued export of the nation's manufacturing job base to other countries. The one senator who even touched on this point was Tim Johnson, who said "We need sustainable economic growth."
But no one asked how this was possible with a recession on its way. Indeed, the "R" word was never mentioned, though Bernanke said several times that the Paulson plan would help as "the economy recovers."
Obviously a real solution would involve not only homeowner relief and taxpayer guarantees for a controlled bailout, but also rebuilding the U.S. economy. But no one wanted to talk about that today. Maybe it's because this latest piece of "mortgage fraud" is designed mainly to keep the economy afloat until the presidential election, because a collapse would drag down John McCain and the Republicans with it. And heaven forbid that anything should ever be proposed that would threaten the stranglehold the banking industry has over every man, woman, and child in America .
Richard C. Cook is a former U.S. federal government analyst, whose career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on economics, politics, and space policy have appeared in numerous websites and print magazines. His book on monetary reform, entitled We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform, will soon be published. He is the author of Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, called by one reviewer, "the most important spaceflight book of the last twenty years." His website is www.richardccook.com. Comments or requests to be added to his mailing list may be sent to EconomicSanity@gmail.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. money czars on hot seat
• FBI investigating firms at center of meltdown
• Fed plows $30 billion in foreign money markets
• In Bailout Furor, Wall St. Pay Becomes Target for Congress
• The Decline of American Power, Part 216
• Robert Scheer: A Fox to Protect the Henhouse?

Official: Why weren't managers charged in oil-sex scandal?

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Oh come on guys, don't you know? The Bush Administration PROMOTES cronies who misbehave, they don't prosecute.

The Interior Department's watchdog criticized the Justice Department on Thursday for declining to prosecute the managers of an oil- and gas-royalty program that's been tainted by allegations of illicit sex, drug use and taking favors worth thousands of dollars.
The Justice Department prosecuted two employees from the Minerals Management Service, but Inspector General Earl Devaney said he didn't know why the department's lawyers didn't act on his recommendation to prosecute two high-ranking officials who've since retired.

Dick Cheney and Vladimir Putin deserve each other

Image via Wikipedia

Comment is free by Simon Tisdall | guardian.co.uk

Dick Cheney's whirlwind Caucasus tour, which began today, will be interpreted by conspiracy theorists, Kremlin apologists, and by the Russian government, as further "proof" of their contention that the hawkish US vice-president and his neocon buddies deliberately provoked last month's Georgia crisis for American presidential election campaign purposes.
The White House says Cheney will assess Georgia's future needs and study the broader implications of Russia's partitioning of the country when he meets President Mikhail Saakashvili in Tbilisi. The Bush administration was meanwhile due to announce a $1bn bilateral economic aid package to rebuild Georgia, in addition to an emergency $750m stand-by loan arranged via the IMF.
A senior administration official said Cheney and Saakashvili would study the implications of the crisis and discuss "a comprehensive long-term strategy by the international community to help Georgia recover, including the critical task of supporting the democratic choice of the Georgian people to integrate further with Euro-Atlantic institutions, including Nato". That means, among other things, continuing and possibly increased US military aid.
This statement should give pause to the architect of Russia's invasion, prime minister Vladimir Putin. Having been rebuffed earlier this year by France and Germany in its attempts to gather Georgia into Nato's fold, the Bush-Cheney team is now redoubling its efforts to bind the former Soviet republic to the west. If Europe won't help, the US will go it alone. Its powerful naval presence in the Black Sea is a token of this renewed and deepening commitment.
Putin's bullyboy behaviour has thus backfired. And it is likely to have a similar effect in terms of closer US relations with oil-rich Azerbaijan and a rattled Ukraine, where Cheney will also visit. Thanks to the Russian leader, Christmas has come early for the ageing cold warrior who is rapidly approaching enforced retirement. Cheney now looks less like a visiting dignitary and more like a general inspecting frontline positions.
Cheney's contention that Russia represents a threat that must be confronted and contained has been given a new lease on life by Putin's putsch. Those in Moscow and in Europe who hope to increase a modernising, reforming Russia's engagement with international institutions and international crisis management have suffered a blow.
Cheney and Putin deserve each other. At bottom, both men are backward-looking holdovers from the past. Describing Putin, Paul Quinn-Judge writes in Christian Science Monitor, "he can best be characterised by the term 'sovok' ... In this case, it can be summarised as someone who embodies the dark and circumscribed world view of the Soviet man in the street, suspicious of the outside world, resentful, who holds a grudge and remembers a slight. Putin speaks passionately about the 'tragedy' of the Soviet Union's collapse, a personally scarring time when he found himself unemployed."
Cheney doubtless feels the same about the way the protracted Iraq disaster (not South Ossetia) has blown an irreparable hole in his dream of an omnipotent, all-dominating unipolar American empire championing a one-size-fits-all global values system and underpinned by unmatched military might.
All the same, the suggestion that Cheney, making one last throw of the geo-strategic dice, actually engineered the South Ossetia crisis by effectively luring innocent, unwary Russian armed forces into a Georgian bear-trap does not bear close examination. The fact that Putin, and his front man, President Dmitri Medvedev, continue to claim that the whole plot was hatched in Washington to boost John McCain's campaign does not make it true.
The sobering truth is, the bumbling, blinkered Cheney is not that clever.
It is certainly the case that the US provided military trainers and instructors to the Georgian military and has done so since the 2003 Rose revolution. It also provided military equipment and logistical assistance to help Georgia build up its defences and prepare for a Nato membership bid. Although Moscow may not have liked it, there was little that was clandestine about this US policy.
And in any case, Russia continued to keep its troops on Georgian territory under a spurious peacekeeping banner, tolerating and in all probability abetting all manner of provocations launched by South Ossetian separatist militia.
It is also the case that a McCain adviser, Randy Scheunemann, acted as a Washington lobbyist for the Georgian government, although he apparently severed those ties in May. Scheunemann undoubtedly sympathised with Georgia's position vis a vis Russia. But lending a sympathetic ear or even urging a tough line is very different from persuading or inveigling Georgia's leadership into an unwinnable, costly and ultimately deeply humiliating military confrontation.
Even if you insist on believing Georgia was egged on into war by scheming Republican neocons, who may after all conveniently be blamed for most worldly ills, pause a moment to look at the resulting campaign fallout in the US. Has the Caucasus confrontation given a boost to McCain as the putative plotters hoped? It has not. So-called "cold war II" has been almost completely overshadowed by his nomination of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
In short, cheerleader trumped war-maker. Faced by Miss Congeniality, "Commie dude Putin", as columnist Maureen Dowd calls him, had no chance. Palin is probably a better shot, too - certainly better than Cheney.
Saakashvili may be a hot-head. But he has not survived as long as he has in a tough neighbourhood by acting stupid at the behest of people like Cheney. "Some months ago I was warned by western leaders to expect an attack this summer," he told Melik Kaylan in a Wall Street Journal interview last month.
As related by James Traub in the New York Times, the months leading up to the August conflagration saw escalating provocations by South Ossetian forces and the Russian air force to which the Georgians responded, usually proportionately. During this period the US state department, anxious to avoid an escalation, repeatedly told Saakashvili to keep his cool.
But in hindsight, it seems Putin was just biding his time until the moment came when Georgia overreacted. When it eventually did, in early August, his military plan of campaign was ready, the troops, marines, planes and ships were on alert and within easy call, and he immediately flew back from the Olympics to take charge.
Saakashvili went on: "I ask everyone to consider, what does it mean when hundreds of tanks can mobilise and occupy a country within two days? Just the fuelling takes that long. They were on their way. Would we provoke a war while all our western friends are away on vacation? Be sensible."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Saakashvili a 'political corpse'
• Russia President Dismisses Georgia's Leader as a 'Political Corpse'
• U.S. to Announce $1 Billion Georgia Aid Package

Russia: To Withdraw, Or Not?

So which is it? I look at the headlines of the past couple days and see glaring inconsistencies. VOA, the propaganda instrument of the US Government says Russia is withdrawing to pre-war positions. Yet the LA-Times quotes a Russian General that they will continue to occupy 18 positions in Georgia in their peacekeeping role.
Clearing the Russians will not be withdrawing completely from Georgia. It appears the Bush Administration is trying to "spin" an occupation into "peacekeeping".
I suspect the Bush Administration is in damage control mode, recognizing it has little to say to Russia to prevent them from doing what they want, so is trying to spin an actual continuing occupation into "peacekeeping" by the Russians, a "face saving" position for Bush, proposed by the Russians that might allow a Republican president to look tough and effective on the eve of the election where a Republican replacement is less than assured.

Los Angeles Times

Russia plans to establish a long-term presence in Georgia and one of its breakaway republics by adding 18 checkpoints, including at least eight within undisputed Georgian territory outside the pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia, a ranking Russian military official told reporters Wednesday.
The checkpoints will be staffed by hundreds of Russian troops, the official said, and those within Georgia proper will have supplies ferried to them from breakaway South Ossetia.

VOA News

Russia says all of its forces in Georgia will be withdrawn by late Friday into a 'buffer zone' around the separatist region of South Ossetia, where Georgian troops will no longer be allowed. Georgia, however, doubts Moscow's assurances, and says the boundaries of the buffer zone are not clearly defined. VOA Correspondent Peter Fedynsky reports from Moscow.
General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of Russia's General Staff, told a Moscow news conference that, once Russian troops are in the buffer zone along the perimeter of South Ossetia, Russia will observe a 1992 peacekeeping agreement with Georgia. However, he says Russia is amending the agreement to exclude Georgian forces from the area.
Nogovitsyn says Georgian leaders recalled their peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia at the start of the invasion and sent them in the direction of the regional capital, Tskhinvali, thus violating the agreement. The general says that, in Russia's view, Georgia, therefore, has no right to engage in peacekeeping activities in the buffer zone.

Then I tripped over this article buried in a Philadelphia Newspaper.
The Bulletin

The U.S representative to the U.N. blasted Russia on Wednesday for allegedly violating almost all elements of the six-point peace plan for Georgia that it had already signed.
This comes after Russia refused to back a French-backed Security Council draft resolution on Monday, which would have ratified the ceasefire plan in the international arena between Russia and Georgia.
While Russia asserts that the draft resolution differed from the six-point peace plan that it agreed to, Deputy Permanent Representative of the U.S. Alejandro D. Wolff read through all the points of the six-point plan, noting that since Russia had accepted it they had violated it in almost every way possible.
"We've had questions in our minds, and we've articulated them in the council from the very beginning, what Russian intentions are and what Russian motives are," Mr. Wolff said.
Mr. Wolff noted that although the plan called for a cessation of hostilities and not to resort to the use of force, Russia had not ceased fighting.
In addition, Russia had not held to its commitment of granting unimpeded access to humanitarian aid organizations.
While Georgian forces were supposed to be allowed to withdraw to their bases, Mr. Wolff noted that Russia had destroyed Georgian bases.
Russian armed forces were also supposed to withdraw to the positions held before hostilities began in South Ossetia, something they have not yet done.
According to Russian representative Vitaly Churkin, the draft resolution contradicted the six-point peace plan that it had agreed to. While the draft resolution called for Russian military positions to return to where they were prior to the conflict, Moscow insists that it had agreed on the condition that the necessity of maintaining military positions in the Georgian part of the border with South Ossetia would be fulfilled.

Do you suppose the Bush Administration tried to kill this story?

Join Dennis Kucinich & Demand Impeachment Hearings

Send a history-making message to Congress:

1,000,000 signatures for impeachment.
On September 10, 2008, we want to deliver ONE MILLION signatures to
Congress urging them to exercise their Constitutional authority and mandate to
hold this President - and all future Presidents - accountable.
Please sign NOW! And ask everyone you know to sign.
The power to change the world is in your hands!
Message from Dennis
Impeachment news

House Committee Holds Rove in Contempt!

AlterNet

Until now, Rove's been lying and avoiding questions about his involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's identity, the politicization of the Justice Department, and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Just look at his written denials to ranking HJC member Lamar Smith (R-TX), when he refrained from denying that he spoke to longtime confidant Bill Canary, who links Rove to the Siegelman prosecution. Rove has also claimed immunity and touted executive privilege, which doesn't apply in this case.
Now that the decision to hold Rove in contempt will move from the HJC to the full House, however, Rove could be forced to testify under oath or face jail time.

Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now

AlterNet

1. World peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals, "The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Moving in that direction will be impossible unless such responsibility applies to the statesmen of the world's most powerful countries, and above all the world's sole superpower. U.S. support for the war crimes charges like those just brought by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will represent little more than hypocrisy if U.S. Presidents are not held to the same standard.
2. The rule of law is central to our democracy.
Most Americans believe that even the highest officials are bound by law. If we send mentally-disabled juveniles to prison as adults, but let government officials who authorize torture and launch illegal wars go scot-free, we destroy the very basis of the rule of law.
3. We must not allow precedents to be set that promote war crimes.
Executive action unchallenged by Congress changes the way our law is interpreted. According to Robert Borosage, writing for Huffington Post, "If Bush's extreme assertions of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself."
4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our government.
The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise the unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as citizens, would "submit ourselves to rules only if under rules." Countries like Chile can attest that the restoration of democracy and the rule of law requires more than voting a new party into office -- it requires a rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government officials.
5. We must forestall an imperialist resurgence.
When they are out of office, the advocates of imperial expansion and global domination have proven brilliant at lying in wait to undermine and destroy their opponents.
They did it to destroy the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They'll do it again to an Obama Administration unless their machinations are exposed and discredited first.
6. We must have national consensus on the real reasons for the Bush Administration's failures.
Republicans are preparing to dominate future decades of American politics by blaming the failure of the Iraq war on those who "sent a signal" that the U.S. would not "stay the course" whatever the cost. Establishing the real reasons for the failure of the U.S. in Iraq -- the criminal and anti-democratic character of the war -- is the necessary condition for defeating that effort.
7. We must restore America's damaged reputation abroad.
The world has watched as the United States -- the self-proclaimed steward of democracy -- has systematically broken the letter and spirit of its Constitution, violated international treaties, and ignored basic moral tenets of humanity. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora recently pointed out to the Senate Armed Services Committee, our nation's "policy of cruelty" has violated our "overarching foreign policy interests and our national security." To establish international legitimacy, we must demonstrate that we are capable of holding our leaders to account.
8. We must lay the basis for major change in U.S. foreign policy.
Real security in the era of global warming and nuclear proliferation must be based on international cooperation. But genuine cooperation requires that the U.S. entirely repudiate the course of the past eight years. The American people must understand why international cooperation rather than pursuit of global domination is necessary to their own security. And other countries must be convinced that we really mean it.
9. We must deter future U.S. war crimes.
The specter of more war crimes haunts our future. Rumors continue to circulate about an American or American-backed Israeli attack on Iran. A recently introduced House resolution promoted by AIPAC "demands" that the President initiate what is effectively a blockade against Iran -- an act seen by some as tantamount to a declaration of war. Nothing could provide a greater deterrent to such future war crimes than establishing accountability for those of the past.
Holding war criminals accountable will require placing the long-term well-being of our country and the world ahead of short-term political advantage. As Rep. Wexler put it, "We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this Administration whether or not it helps us politically or in the next election. Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history and that is the true test."

Bush/Cheney Attempts to Change the Facts on Obama's Visit to Iraq Fails

Bush/Cheney are again engaging in illegal propaganda activities now seeking to influence the US elections. Juan Cole has the scoop.
Informed Comment

Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.
That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq!
[..]And for the piece de resistance, it turns out that Der Spiegel has an audiotape of the Arabic of the interview, which they leaked to The New York Times. Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny write:

But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office, not the magazine. . . The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that -- if he takes office -- in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq." He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

[..]But you see, it does not matter that al-Maliki actually said what he said. It does not matter that Der Spiegel can prove it. All that matters is that the Goebbelses around Bush and Cheney have managed to muddy the waters and produce doubt, taking the hard edge off the interview. Even AFP, the usually skeptical French wire service, asserted that al-Maliki had "denied" the accuracy of the Der Spiegel interview! Of course, al-Maliki has done no such thing. CENTCOM ventriloquising al-Dabbagh engaged in the denial, and a very vague one at that.
That is the way propaganda works, to obscure the truth and ensure it can be denied. Some wingnut even tried to pressure me to retract the little sentence I had written on the affair yesterday, on the grounds of "al-Dabbagh's" mendacious and ridiculous assertions. Our information system is so corrupt and easily manipulated that even a clumsy ploy can obscure the truth and bully the journalists.

US Coastguard says Russia beating America to the Arctic

Every wondered why Bush and the Oil Barons have been so against acting on global warming? It's because there is oil in the Arctic that can only be had if there is no ice!
BigNewsNetwork.com

A top US Coast Guard official has told the Congress that Russia is getting ahead of the United States in the Arctic race. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen has said the government must urgently revise its approach to polar exploration. Admiral Allen told a Congress committee that he was concerned about the decline in the nation's ice-breaking capabilities. The Coast Guard chief said Russia had finally put to sea last year the largest icebreaker in its polar fleet, guaranteeing Russia easy access to the vast natural resources in the Arctic region. Allen said Russia is the only other country, besides the US, with polar ice breaking capabilities, but the Russian fleet is in far better shape, with 'seven to eight' nuclear-powered polar icebreakers.
Russia has undertaken two Arctic expeditions - to the Mendeleyev underwater chain in 2005 and to the Lomonosov ridge last summer to back Russian claims to the region. The area is believed to contain vast oil and gas reserves and other mineral riches, likely to become accessible in future decades due to man-made global warming. Russia said it would submit documentary evidence to the UN of the external boundaries along Russia's territorial shelf in 2009.
Under international law, the five Arctic Circle countries, the US, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia, currently have a 322-km economic zone each in the Arctic Ocean.

Gates Slams Militarization of Foreign Policy

Part of the legacy of Donald Rumsfeld:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned yesterday against the risk of a "creeping militarization" of U.S. foreign policy, saying the State Department should lead U.S. engagement with other countries, with the military playing a supporting role. "We cannot kill or capture our way to victory" in the long-term campaign against terrorism, Gates said, arguing that military action should be subordinate to political and economic efforts to undermine extremism.

Informed Comment

Translation: The Bush Senior Realists think Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith not only screwed up the Pentagon and almost destroyed the US armed forces but also imposed impossible burdens on it that other agencies should have borne.