Sri Lankan war roils Indian politics

Image by indi.ca via Flickr

csmonitor.com

As Sri Lanka's military presses toward the Tamil Tiger rebels' last stronghold, the conflict has begun to send political shock waves through neighboring India.
Ethnic Tamil parties in India disrupted Parliament Tuesday with calls for New Delhi to intervene to stop what some called "genocide against Tamils" in the northern Sri Lankan war zone. The Tamil parties have threatened to withdraw from India's ruling coalition unless Delhi helps put a stop to the fighting or intervenes directly.
Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan military claimed on Tuesday that it had at last broken through a key Tiger trench line in heavy fighting under monsoon rains, reports Reuters. But the military admitted suffering scores of casualties in the process, and a suicide attack on merchant vessels off the northeastern coast Wednesday showed the Tamil Tigers aren't yet a spent force.
Tuesday saw "unruly" scenes in India's Parliament, according to the New Delhi-based Khabrein.info news website, with Tamil MPs interrupting proceedings with shouting, banner-carrying, and walkouts.

The Rajya Sabha [the upper house of Parliament] had to be adjourned till noon after it witnessed angry scenes. Chairman Hamid Ansari's repeated requests to allow proceedings did not make any impact on members. While DMK [a prominent Tamil party] members were shouting slogans and carrying banners reading "Save the Tamils" and "Stop Genocide in Sri Lanka," Left parties members were hitting at Centre for "mortgaging" country's autonomy in the form of nuclear deal with the US.

The Tamil parties have given Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's administration until early next month to take action - after which they will quit his coalition, according to Reuters.
Some observers see cynical politics at work. Writing in Rediff News, columnist TVR Shenoy notes that Parliament is set to be dissolved soon anyway, with national elections due in the next six months, and that Tamil politicians and other coalition allies are raising a fuss to shore up their base and wrest concessions from the ruling Congress party.

Why then are these esteemed gentlemen piling on the pressure on Dr. Manmohan Singh and his party? Very simply, it is a bargaining tactic to wrest more seats out of the Congress in the general election.
The [ruling Congress party's coalition allies] would like the Congress to give something in return if they "sacrifice" their demands. The Congress - and the Indian electorate at large - is expected to politely ignore the fact that the demands are a load of unrealistic bunk that never had a prayer of being realized.
Call it whatever you want, a 'bargaining tactic' or, less politely, 'blackmail'. Let us just hope that the Congress does not take the demands from its "allies" too seriously.

The Tamil Tigers have been waging an insurgency for 25 years to create an independent ethnic Tamil state in northern and eastern provinces in Sri Lanka.
India, the US, and the European Union put the Tigers on their respective terrorist lists. But many among India's Tamil population - particularly in Tamil Nadu state - support or sympathize with the rebels. Others condemn the Tigers, but worry about civilian Tamils in northern Sri Lanka who have been displaced or caught in the crossfire.
Singh has responded to the pressure from his Tamil coalition partners, but only moderately. Last week he urged a political solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka and expressed concern for the estimated 230,000 displaced civilians. But analysts don't expect him to do much more, reports the Associated Press.

India has generally been reluctant to become directly involved in Sri Lanka's internal affairs after a disastrous military intervention in the 1980s that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber.

Strategic concerns are also restraining India, according to a commentary in the Daily Mirror, an independent English-language daily in Sri Lanka. While India quietly provides Sri Lanka with equipment and low-key support, rivals China and Pakistan are providing arms for the fight against the Tigers.

For India, too, several geopolitical concerns have prevented it from exerting undue pressure on Sri Lanka. India knows too well that the more it distances from the Sri Lankan government, Sri Lanka would veer towards China, Pakistan, and Iran. Growing Chinese influence in many spheres including infrastructure development, power generation and many development activities in Sri Lanka would no doubt have raised alarm in India.

In a commentary in Frontline, an Indian magazine produced by publishers of The Hindu daily newspaper, B. Muralidhar Reddy writes that the clash between New Delhi's strategic concerns and pressure from Tamil politicians put it in a tight spot.

It is indeed a delicate moment for India. With general elections a few months away and a growing clamor in Tamil Nadu for a more active role by New Delhi to alleviate the sufferings of innocent Tamil citizens, India has to do a balancing act. Colombo understands the Indian predicament and does not want to add to its discomfiture by any rash talk....

The Sri Lankan government, responding to Singh's comments last week, said its fight was solely with the Tamil Tigers, not Tamil civilians. It said its concern for the welfare of Tamil civilians in the north was slowing its military campaign, according to the Agence France-Presse.

Related articles by Zemanta

• S Lanka rebel defence 'breached'

Acorn Update: The Deluge of Hate

The Board Blog - NYTimes.com

Acorn, a non-profit group that advocates for poor and moderate-income people, has unfairly become a high-profile target in the presidential campaign.
Acorn has conducted a large-scale voter registration drive, in the course of which some of its employees filled out some bogus registration forms. Acorn flagged the suspect forms for election officials -- urging that they be investigated -- but still, it is being attacked for perpetrating voter fraud.
In the last presidential debate, John McCain made the stunning assertion that Acorn is "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history." He also insisted that it "may be destroying the fabric of democracy."
Well, that sort of incendiary language has consequences -- as Acorn has been learning. The group's Boston and Seattle-area offices were broken into. (They could be simple break-ins, though the timing is noteworthy.) At least one Acorn employee received a death threat.
Acorn has also been receiving some ugly emails and voice mail messages. The liberal group People for the American Way has collected some of them on its website. Warning before you click through: they are not for the faint of heart.

Related articles by Zemanta

• McPain-Palin/RNC Have Hired Yet Another Voter Registration Huckster This Year
• Why do Republicans hate democracy?
• McCain told ACORN in 2006 that they are "what makes America special" - and there's video
• CNN fact-check: 'This is looking like a fraud committed against ACORN.'

McCains would have received $55,000 a year from his capital gains tax cut proposal.

Image by Barrybar via Flickr

Look who says it isn't class warfare.
Think Progress

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed temporarily cutting the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. On Friday, the McCain campaign released Cindy McCain's 2007 tax returns, which show that the McCains made $746,395 in capitals gains last year. A new analysis by Michael Ettlinger, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reveals that McCain's capital gains cut would have reduced the McCains' taxes by $55,980 in 2007. This is on top of the more than $350,000 that the McCains would have saved due to the Senator's other tax proposals. The Wonk Room has more.

Related articles by Zemanta

• John and Cindy McCain would reap $373,429 if McCain's tax proposal were enacted.
• Reaganomics Redux Redux?
• New Yorker cover spotlights McCain's houses, foreclosure crisis.

Colin Powell Pulls No Punches

The LA Progressive

Colin Powell pulled no punches. In his interview on Meet the Press, the former Secretary of State said he found that McCain was unsure of how to deal with the economic problems we are having in this country. Powell also felt that the selection of Governor Palin as McCain's VP was a mistake. See the full interview below.

Related articles by Zemanta

• BREAKING: Colin Powell endorses Obama
• Colin Powell backs Barack Obama
• Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama

Why Does McCain Keep Calling on Joe the Plumber?

The Great Reagan Pyramid Scheme Comes Crashing Down

Informed Comment

The Republican Party that Nixon invented melded the moneyed classes of the Northeast with the white evangelicals of the South. This odd couple went on to simultaneously steal from and oppress the rest of us. The moneyed classes were happy to let the New Puritans impose their stringent morality, since they could always just buy any licentiousness they wanted, regardless of the law. And the New Puritans were so consumed with cultural issues such as homosexuality, abortion, school prayer and (yes) fighting school desegregation that they were happy to let the northeastern Money Men waltz off with a lion's share of the country's resources, consigning most Americans to stagnant wages and increasing debt. The Reagan revolution consolidated this alliance and brought some conservative Catholic workers into it.
These domestic policies at home were complemented by wars and belligerence abroad, which further took the eye of the public off the epochal bank robbery being conducted by the American neo-Medicis, and which were a useful way of throwing billions in government tax revenue to the military-industrial complex, which in turn funded the think tanks and reelection campaigns of the right wing politicians. The Reagan fascination with private armies and funding anti-communist death squads contributed mightily to the creation of al-Qaeda, blowback from which fuelled even bigger Pentagon budgets, spiralling upward and feeding on itself. Terrorism is much better than Communism as a bogey man, since you can just intimate that there are a handful of dangerous people out there somewhere, and force the public to pay over $1 trillion to combat them.

More here. It's worthy of your time.

Afghanistan Taliban becomes stronger in numbers

Image by talkradionews via Flickr

BigNewsNetwork.com

The Taliban's strength in Afghanistan has increased by up to 20-30 percent over the past year, according to Major General Jeffrey Schlosser, a top general in-charge of US ground troops in Afghanistan.
In a CBS TV interview to be telecast this Sunday, he said evidence of the increase in numbers was apparent on a base in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border, which has been hit with rockets and mortars at least 30 times since March, when a major battle took place.
He said the enemy had come much closer to his men in the battle, engaging troops in a firefight near their base.
General Schlosser said his soldiers had never been this close to their enemy in Afghanistan before.
After at least 12 enemy fighters were killed in the skirmish, soldiers found a camera left behind by the enemy that contained images of at least 50 heavily armed enemy fighters, showing details of their training and actual attacks.
It also showed enemy surveillance of US soldiers on patrol.

New intelligence report says Pakistan is 'on the edge'

McClatchy Washington Bureau

A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.
A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."
The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."
Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment -- seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan -- is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Afghanistan Facing "Downward Spiral"
• Losing Afghanistan

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

t r u t h o u t by: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Huffington Post

But if McCarthy-era guilt-by-association is once again a valid political consideration, Palin, it would seem, has more to lose than Obama. Palin, it could be argued, following her own logic, thinks so little of America's perfection that she continues to "pal around" with a man - her husband, actually - who only recently terminated his seven-year membership in the Alaskan Independence Party. Putting plunder above patriotism, the members of this treasonous cabal aim to break our country into pieces and walk away with Alaska's rich federal oil fields and one-fifth of America's land base - an area three-fourths the size of the Civil War Confederacy.
AIP's charter commits the party "to the ultimate independence of Alaska," from the United States which it refers to as "the colonial bureaucracy in Washington." It proclaims Alaska's 1959 induction as a state "as illegal and in violation of the United Nations charter and international law."
AIP's creation was inspired by the rabidly violent anti-Americanism of its founding father Joe Vogler, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American," reads a favorite Vogler quote on AIP's current website, "I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." According to Vogler AIP's central purpose was to drive Alaska's secession from the United States. Alaska, says current Chairwoman Lynette Clark, "should be an independent nation."
Vogler was murdered in 1993 during an illegal sale of plastic explosives that went bad. The prior year, he had renounced his allegiance to the United States explaining that, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government." He cursed the stars and stripes, promising, "I won't be buried under their damned flag...when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." Palin has never denounced Vogler or his detestable anti-Americanism.
Palin's husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a "fellow traveler." While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP's 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP's 2000 Convention. She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP's 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year's 2008 convention. In other words, this is not something that happened when she was eight!
So when Palin accuses Barack of "not seeing the same America as you and me," maybe she is referring to an America without Alaska. In any case, isn't it time the media start giving equal time to Palin's buddy list of anti-American bombers and other radical associates?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does Palin Have A Connection To The AIP?
• Alaskan Independence Party sponsored By Iran
• Latest Palin Revelation: She Was a Member of the Secessionist Alaskan Independent Party

Recession? Depression? How Deep, How Far and What Can Be Done?

Image by Renegade98 via Flickr
The rich, Voltaire said, require
an abundant supply of poor.

AlterNet

It was during an earlier economic crisis that Richard Nixon famously said, "we're all Keynesians now." According to those I contacted, that's more true today than at any time in recent history; there's broad agreement in Washington that more government action will be required.
When I asked Galbraith about the prospect of running up large deficits, he responded that today "no serious person" in the economic establishment is a deficit hawk, adding that "it's striking how quickly consensus is moving" in Washington toward the idea that a major bailout of the "nuts and bolts" economy is needed. (Deficit spending to kick-start the economy during a downturn, as opposed to financing tax cuts for the wealthiest or paying for wars of choice, is a tried-and-true policy tool.)
Despite the general consensus among the experts I surveyed that we are almost certainly headed into very rough waters, there was cause for optimism as well, in that most agreed that aggressive and coordinated actions by government could contain the damage. More importantly, the bright spot in this crisis may be (stress on the word may) the blow it deals to the center-right, anti-regulatory paradigm that has guided economic policymakers both at home and in many of the world's capitals over the past three decades.
Of that paradigm, Bello said, "goodbye to all that," adding, "We should not underestimate the sea change that is occurring. Neoliberalism and free-market fundamentalism have been severely discredited, as has globalization." He predicted that "capitalism itself will come under severe questioning, and many will think that regulating or re-regulating it is not enough. I think you will find the same fundamental questioning happening throughout the world." He added, "Radical economics and Keynesian economics will regain respectability, and neoclassical or neoliberal (trickle-down) economics will be delegitimized."
Pollin wrote that he has hope that "the commitment to financial deregulation by mainstream economists and politicians -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- is now dead." He added: "It is time to recognize that unregulated financial markets always have, and always will, cause financial crises. There are no historical exceptions to this observation at all. This point has to be grasped."
According to Baker, the degree to which that point sinks in is an open question. "In principle," he said, "the Wall Street mentality that has dominated the political thinking of both parties should be on the defensive. These guys had it all their own way, and it led to a colossal disaster." But, he added, "in this country, failure doesn't count against you. It will be necessary for progressives to demand an end to Wall Street-driven policy. If there is successful organizing on this front, then it is possible that the next administration will take a very different course. But the Wall Street boys have to be pushed away -- they will not surrender power voluntarily."
Hahnel offered a word of caution, noting that "80 years ago people thought (unregulated) free market finance was dead. If the funeral had a name, it was Glass Steagall (the New Deal-era legislation that made banks choose between issuing mortgages and securities). In 1999 Phil Graham, Robert Rubin and Bill Clinton killed Glass Steagall, signaling the return and triumph of free market finance. Hopefully this crisis will kill free market finance once and for all. 'Never again' is the appropriate response."
He added what was perhaps the most salient point: "I hope this lesson will be the beginning of a larger lesson: The economics of competition and greed does not serve us well."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Robert Skidelsky: Big government is back
• Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D.: Who's Your Economic Daddy?
• Dani Rodrik: The Spence report offers a fresh look at growth and development
• Once again, it's the financiers who threaten us all
• Ideological and economic theories of change
• Rupert Russell: How Bill Buckley's Hatred of the New Deal Brought the Wall Street Crash of 2008

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

At right, Alan Greenspan. If you want to blame someone for this financial crisis, here is the man.

Image via Wikipedia

McClatchy Washington Bureau

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height vrom 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.


• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.


• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mark Weisbrot: Wall Street Bailout Won't Do Much to Help Ailing Economy
• David M. Abromowitz: When In Doubt, Yell "Fannie Mae"
• A Brief History of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Obama Will Be One of The Greatest (and Most Loved) American Presidents

Image via Wikipedia

by Frank Schaeffer, whose father was a famous evangelist, and one of the creators of both the Religious Right and the Pro-Life movement.

Great presidents are made great by horrible circumstances combined with character, temperament and intelligence. Like firemen, cops, doctors or soldiers, presidents need a crisis to shine.
Obama is one of the most intelligent presidential aspirants to ever step forward in American history. The likes of his intellectual capabilities have not been surpassed in public life since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper. His personal character is also solid gold. Take heart, America: we have the leader for our times.
I say this as a white, former life-long Republican. I say this as the proud father of a Marine. I say this as just another American watching his pension evaporate along with the stock market! I speak as someone who knows it's time to forget party loyalty, ideology and pride and put the country first. I say this as someone happy to be called a fool for going out on a limb and declaring that, 1) Obama will win, and 2) he is going to be amongst the greatest of American presidents.
Obama is our last best chance. He's worth laying it all on the line for.
This is a man who in the age of greed took the high road of community service. This is the good father and husband. This is the humble servant. This is the pati ent teacher. This is the scholar statesman. This is the man of deep Christian faith.
Good stories about Obama abound; from his personal relationship with his Secret Service agents (he invites them into his home to watch sports, and shoots hoops with them) to the story about how, more than twenty years ago, while standing in the check-in line at an airport, Obama paid a $100 baggage surcharge for a stranger who was broke and stuck. (Obama was virtually penniless himself in those days.) Years later after he became a senator, that stranger recognized Obama's picture and wrote to him to thank him. She received a kindly note back from the senator. (The story only surfaced because the person, who lives in Norway, told a local newspaper after Obama ran for the presidency. The paper published a photograph of this lady proudly displaying Senator Obama's letter.)
Where many leaders are two-faced; publicly kindly but privately feared and/or hated by people closest to them, Obama is consistent in the way he treats people, consistently kind and personally humble. He lives by the code that those who lead must serve. He believes that. He lives it. He lived it long before he was in the public eye.
Obama puts service ahead of ideology. He also knows that to win politically you need to be tough. He can be. He has been. This is a man who does what works, rather than scoring ideological points. In other words he is the quintessential non-ideological pragmatic American. He will (thank God!) disappoint ideologues and purists of the left and the right.
Obama has a reservoir of personal physical courage that is unmatched in presidential history. Why unmatched? Because as the first black contender for the presidency who will win, Obama, and all the rest of us, know that he is in great physical danger from the seemingly unlimited reserve of unhinged racial hatred, and just plain unhinged ignorant hatred, that swirls in the bowels of our wounded and sinful country. By stepping forward to lead, Obama has literally put his life on the line for all of us in a way no white candidate ever has had to do. (And we all know how dangerous the presidency has been even for white presidents.)
Nice stories or even unparalleled courage isn't the only point. The greater point about Obama is that the midst of our worldwide financial meltdown, an expanding (and losing) war in Afghanistan, trying to extricate our country from a wrong and stupidly mistaken ruinously expensive war in Iraq, our mounting and crushing national debt, awaiting the next (and inevitable) Al Qaeda attack on our homeland, watching our schools decline to Third World levels of incompetence, facing a general loss of confidence in the government that has been exacerbated by the Republicans doing all they can to undermine our government's capabilities and programs... President Obama will take on the leadership of our country at a make or break time of historic proportions. He faces not one but dozens of crisis, each big enough to define any presidency in better times.
As luck, fate or divine grace would have it (depending on one's personal theology) Obama is blessedly, dare I say uniquely, well-suited to our dire circumstances. Obama is a person with hands-on community service experience, deep connections to top economic advisers from the renowned University of Chicago where he taught law, and a middle-class background that gives him an abiding knowledgeable empathy with the rest of us. As the son of a single mother, who has worked his way up with merit and brains, recipient of top-notch academic scholarships, the peer-selected editor of the Harvard Law Review and, in three giant political steps to state office, national office and now the presidency, Obama clearly has the wit and drive to lead.
Obama is the sober voice of reason at a time of unreason. He is the fellow keeping his head while all around him are panicking. He is the healing presence at a time of national division and strife. He is also new enough to the political process so that he doesn't suffer from the terminally jaded cynicism, the seen-it-all-before syndrome afflicting most politicians in Washington. In that regard we Americans lucked out. It's as if having despaired of our political process we picked a name from the phone book to lead us and that person turned out to be a very man we needed.
Obama brings a healing and uplifting spiritual quality to our politics at the very time when our worst enemy is fear. For eight years we've been ruled by a stunted fear-filled mediocrity of a little liar who has expanded his power on the basis of creating fear in others. Fearless Obama is the cure. He speaks a litany of hope rather than a litany of terror.
As we have watched Obama respond in a quiet reasoned manner to crisis after crisis, in both the way he has responded after being attacked and lied about in the 2008 campaign season, to his reasoned response to our multiplying national crises, wha t we see is the spirit of a trusted family doctor with a great bedside manner. Obama is perfectly suited to hold our hand and lead us through some very tough times. The word panic is not in the Obama dictionary.
America is fighting its "Armageddon" in one fearful heart at a time. A brilliant leader with the mild manner of an old-time matter-of-fact country doctor soothing a frightened child is just what we need. The fact that our "doctor" is a black man leading a hitherto white-ruled nation out of the mess of its own making is all the sweeter and raises the Obama story to that of moral allegory.
Obama brings a moral clarity to his leadership reserved for those who have had to work for everything they've gotten and had to do twice as well as the person standing next to them because of the color of their skin. His experience of succeeding in spite of his color, social background and prejudice could have been embittering or one that fostered a spiritual rebirth of forgiveness and enlightenment. Obama radiates the calm inner peace of the spirit of forgiveness.
Speaking as a believing Christian I see the hand of a merciful God in Obama's candidacy. The biblical metaphors abound.=2 0The stone the builder rejected is become the cornerstone... the last shall be first... he that would gain his life must first lose it... the meek shall inherit the earth...
For my secular friends I'll allow that we may have just been extraordinarily lucky! Either way America wins.
Only a brilliant man, with the spirit of a preacher and the humble heart of a kindly family doctor can lead us now. We are afraid, out of ideas, and worst of all out of hope. Obama is the cure. And we Americans have it in us to rise to the occasion. We will. We're about to enter one of the most frightening periods of American history. Our country has rarely faced more uncertainty. This is the time for greatness. We have a great leader. We must be a great people backing him, fighting for him, sacrificing for a cause greater than ourselves.
A hundred years from now Obama's portrait will be placed next to that of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Long before that we'll be telling our children and grandchildren that we stepped out in faith and voted for a young black man who stood up and led our country back from the brink of an abyss. We'll tell them about the power of love, faith and hope. We'll tell them about the power of creativity combined with humility and intellectual brilliance.
We'll tell them that President Obama gave us the gift of regaining our faith in our country. We'll tell them that we all stood up and pitched in and won the day. We'll tell them that President Obama restored our standing in the world. We'll tell them that by the time he left office our schools were on the mend, our economy booming, that we'd become a nation filled with green energy alternatives and were leading the world away from dependence on carbon-based destruction. We'll tell them that because of President Obama's example and leadership the integrity of the family was restored, divorce rates went down, more fathers took responsibility for their children, and abortion rates fell dramatically as women, families and children were cared for through compassionate social programs that worked. We'll tell them about how the gap closed between the middle class and the super rich, how we won health care for all, how crime rates fell, how bad wars were brought to an honorable conclusion. We'll tell them that when we were attacked again by Al Qaeda, how reason prevailed and the response was smart, tough, measured and effective, and our civil rights were protected even in times of crisis...
We'll tell them that we were part of the inexplicably blessed miracle that happened to our country those many years ago in 2008 when a young black man was sent by God, fate or luck to save our country. We'll tell them that it's good to live in America where anything is possible. Yes we will.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.

Moscow calls for anti-US alliance

Image by DG Jones via Flickr

smh.com.au

THE President of Russia has called on Europe's leaders to create a new world order that would minimise the role of the United States.
Confident that a row with Europe prompted by Russia's invasion of Georgia in August was over, Dmitry Medvedev arrived in the French spa town of Evian on Wednesday determined to woo his fellow leaders into creating an anti-US front.
Gone was the kind of wartime rhetoric that saw Mr Medvedev lash out at the West and describe his Georgian counterpart, Mikheil Saakashvili, as a "lunatic". Instead Mr Medvedev spoke of a Russia that was "absolutely not interested in confrontation", and outlined plans for a new security pact to ban the use of force in Europe.
Yet there was little doubt that Mr Medvedev was playing the divide-and-rule tactics of Vladimir Putin, his predecessor and now Prime Minister, by seeking to pit the US against its European allies.
In a speech delivered to European leaders at a conference hosted by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to discuss the international financial crisis, Mr Medvedev sought to show that the US was at the root of all the world's problems. He blamed Washington's "economic egotism" for the world's financial woes and then accused the Bush Administration of taking Europe to the brink of a new cold war by pursuing a deliberately divisive foreign policy.
He also maintained that the US was once again trying to return to a policy of containing Russia.

The most embarrassing part is that Medvedev is right, the US is THE problem in the Middle East and with the World financial crisis! But so is Russia a problem. Putin would have the same sort of influence over the EU if he could. Sarkozy looks like a placater al la Neville Chamberlain.

Judge Orders 17 Detainees at Guantánamo Freed

NYTimes.com

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Bush administration to release 17 detainees at Guantánamo Bay by the end of the week, the first such ruling in nearly seven years of legal disputes over the administration's detention policies.
The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court, ordered that the 17 men be brought to his courtroom on Friday from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they have been held since 2002. He indicated that he would release the men, members of the restive Uighur Muslim minority in western China, into the care of supporters in the United States, initially in the Washington area.
"I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention," Judge Urbina said.
Saying the men had never fought the United States and were not a security threat, he tersely rejected Bush administration claims that he lacked the power to order the men set free in the United States and government requests that he stay his order to permit an immediate appeal.
The ruling was a sharp setback for the administration, which has waged a long legal battle to defend its policies of detention at the naval base at Guantánamo Bay, arguing a broad executive power in waging war. Federal courts up to the Supreme Court have waded through detention questions and in several major cases the courts have rejected administration contentions.
The government recently conceded that it would no longer try to prove that the Uighurs were enemy combatants, the classification it uses to detain people at Guantánamo, where 255 men are now held. But it has fought efforts by lawyers for the men to have them released into the United States, saying the Uighurs admitted to receiving weapons training in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said the administration was "deeply concerned by, and strongly disagrees with" the decision. She added that the ruling, "if allowed to stand, could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country."
Justice Department lawyers said they were filing an emergency application on Tuesday night for a stay from the federal appeals court in Washington.
Judge Urbina's decision came in a habeas corpus lawsuit authorized by a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that gave detainees the right to have federal judges review the reason for their detention. Speaking from the bench in a courtroom crowded with Uighur supporters of the detainees, Judge Urbina suggested that the government was seeking a stay as a tactic to keep the men imprisoned.
"All of this means more delay," he said with evident impatience, "and delay is the name of the game up until this point." The centuries-old doctrine of habeas corpus permits a judge to demand production of a prisoner, a power Judge Urbina sought to exercise with his order that the men be brought to him.
"I want to see the individuals," he said.
The Uighurs have long been at the center of contentious legal cases because they said they were swept into detention in Afghanistan in 2001 by mistake. They said they were in Afghanistan to seek refuge from China, where the Uighurs, Turkic Muslims, often bridle at Han Chinese rule.
The Bush administration has fought the Uighurs in court for years, contending that their encampment in Afghanistan had ties to a Uighur terror group. Last summer, a federal appeals court ridiculed as inadequate the government's secret evidence for holding one of the men. In the months since, the government has said that it would "serve no useful purpose" to continue to try to prove that any of these 17 men were enemy combatants.
Lawyers for the Uighurs said the men would be persecuted or killed if they were returned to China. The administration said that since transferring five Uighur detainees to Albania in 2006, it had been unable to persuade governments to accept the other 17. Diplomats say many governments fear reprisal by China, which considers Uighur separatist groups terrorists.
The administration insisted during arguments on Tuesday that the courts did not have the power to release the men into the United States.
Judge Urbina, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, underscored the significance of his ruling with repeated references to the constitutional separation of powers and the judiciary's role.
He rejected Justice Department arguments as assertions of executive power to detain people indefinitely without court review. He said that "is not in keeping with our system of government."
More than 40 Uighurs, a few in native dress that included sequined velvet caps, watched in anxious silence. Only when the judge rose to leave the bench did they break into applause.

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"

Image via Wikipedia

AlterNet

Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.
George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.
He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.
U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. ... Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.
I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:
"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"
"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Martial Law was Threatened if Bailout Didn't Happen
• Chris Rodda: Rapture-Ready Evangelicals Impersonate Army Officers -- Bush Administration Gives Organization Members Award

Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

FactCheck.org

MoveOn.org blames McCain advisers. He blames Obama and Democrats in Congress. Both are wrong.
A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain's friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm "stripped safeguards that would have protected us." The claim is bogus. Gramm's legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists - not to mention President Clinton - praise it for having softened the crisis.
A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis "didn't have to happen," because legislation McCain cosponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That's oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it's unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.
In fact, there's ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan.
Analysis
As Congress wrestled with a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street's financial crisis, partisans on both sides got busy - pointing fingers. MoveOn.org Political Action on Sept. 25 released a 60-second TV ad called "My Friends' Mess," blaming Sen. John McCain and Republican allies who supported banking deregulation. The McCain-Palin campaign released its own 30-second TV spot Sept. 30, saying "Obama was notably silent" while Democrats blocked reforms leaving taxpayers "on the hook for billions." Both ads were to run nationally.
And both ads are far wide of the mark.
MoveOn.org Ad:
"My Friends' Mess"
MoveOn.org Ad, "My Friends"
Narrator: We all know the economy is in crisis, but who's responsible?
McCain: My friends. My friends. My friends.
Narrator: John McCain's friend Phil Gramm wrote the bill that deregulated the banking industry, and stripped the safeguards that would have protected us.
McCain asked Gramm to help write his economic plan.
John McCain's friend Rick Davis lobbied for Fannie and Freddie for years, "defending" them against stricter regulation. And now? He runs McCain's presidential campaign.
And John McCain himself? He's stood by "deregulation" time and time again.
McCain: I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.
Narrator: And now that the markets are in meltdown? John McCain's friend George Bush wants hardworking Americans to write the biggest blank check in history, bailing out the Wall Street firms and the Washington lobbyists who got us into this mess. Main Street giving Wall Street $700 billion and getting nothing in return? It's outrageous.
Americans shouldn't have to foot the bill for mistakes that John McCain and his friends made.
Narrator: MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Blame the Republicans!
The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCain's campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us."
That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad's claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds.
The bill in question is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions. It's true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 - 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain's friend."
The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
Last year the liberal writer Robert Kuttner, in a piece in The American Prospect, argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even he didn't lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy."
What Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks are the type that accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler's Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages.
Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.
No, Blame the Democrats!
McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Rein"
McCain Ad, "Rein"
Narrator: John McCain fought to rein in Fannie and Freddie.
The Post says: McCain "pushed for stronger regulation"..."while Mr. Obama was notably silent."
But, Democrats blocked the reforms.
Loans soared. Then, the bubble burst. And, taxpayers are on the hook for billions.
Bill Clinton knows who is responsible.
Clinton: I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Narrator: You're right, Mr. President. It didn't have to happen.
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The McCain-Palin campaign fired back with an ad laying blame on Democrats and Obama. Titled "Rein," it highlights McCain's 2006 attempt to "rein in Fannie and Freddie." The ad accurately quotes the Washington Post as saying "Washington failed to rein in" the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), both of which ran into trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. The ad then blames Democrats for blocking McCain's reforms. As evidence, it even offers a snippet of an interview in which former President Clinton agrees that "the responsibility that the Democrats have" might lie in resisting his own efforts to "tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." We're then told that the crisis "didn't have to happen."
It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie - a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."
But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.
By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor's Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
-by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
Sources
Benston, George J. The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Glass-Steagall Act Revisited and Reconsidered. Oxford University Press, 1990.
Tabarrok, Alexander. "The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1:1 (1998), pp. 1 - 18.
Kuttner, Robert. "The Bubble Economy." The American Prospect, 24 September 2007.
"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999." U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Accessed 29 September 2008.
Bartiromo, Maria. "Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain and Hillary." Business Week, 24 September 2008.
Standard and Poor's. "Case-Schiller Home Price History." Accessed 30 September 2008.
"Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria and Questions." Government Accountability Office. September 2005.
Bianco, Katalina M. "The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Effects of the Mortgage Meltdown." CCH. Accessed 29 September 2008.

Related articles by Zemanta

• S.E.C. Chief Says Deregulation Fueled Crisis
• While the Regulators Fiddled ...

Bush Administration Running Shadow Government?

Image via Wikipedia

GlobalResearch.ca

Plans for Continuity of Government [COG] have been in place since the 1950s. Originally conceived during the Cold War when fears of a nuclear strike envisaged by atomic war-gamers at the RAND Corporation, believed that an immobilization of government functions and a breakdown of civilian rule would follow a nuclear attack. But from their inception, COG planning has been shrouded in secrecy.
In addition to constructing nuclear-proof underground facilities where the civilian leadership could escape a decapitation strike, other COG provisions included a series of executive orders designating which officials would assume Cabinet-level posts and other Executive Branch positions. Officials so designated would constitute a "shadow government" should office holders be killed in an attack "or otherwise incapacitated."
However, when these and other Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans surfaced in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra hearings, they were roundly criticized by members of Congress, civil liberties groups and the media before disappearing once again, down Orwell's "memory hole." The inherent dangers implicit in such plans are that unelected Executive Branch officers could assume the Presidency and other appointed offices subject neither to congressional scrutiny nor judicial oversight.
Exercising sweeping emergency powers buried within Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs), unelected officials could suspend the Constitution, declare martial law and create an Executive Branch dictatorship that rests solely on the power of the U.S. military.
Most troubling, Executive Branch officials under secret rules of a COG regime could suppress and usurp the lawful powers of Congress and the Judicial Branch (by force of arms if deemed necessary) as a means of ensuring "cooperation" under a "unitary executive."
As we have seen, the "unitary executive" theory has been a salient feature of Bushist rule since the December 2000 judicial coup d'état, when the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision handed a contested election to George W. Bush by stopping the vote count in Florida.
Since assuming office, the administration has ruthlessly wielded executive power in order to achieve their antidemocratic agenda: from the looting of the economy through "deregulation," massive deficit spending and tax cuts for their corporate "clients," to waging a preemptive war of conquest in Iraq, the "unitary executive" has systematically shredded America's constitutional system of checks and balances.
The Bush administration put COG plans into operation for the first time in U.S. history in the hours directly following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. They have never been rescinded.
Their implementation involves a rotating staff of 75-150 senior government officials and others from every Cabinet department in two "secure, undisclosed locations" on the East Coast. However, key congressional representatives have been kept out of the loop and House and Senate leaders have said they were not informed the "shadow government" had "gone live."
So secretive are Bush administration plans that Peter DeFazio (D-OR), a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, was denied access in 2007 to the classified version of the COG plans contained in top secret Presidential Decision Directive annexes. This too, is unprecedented.
While the Bush administration admitted that COG was activated in 2001, their disclosure came only after The Washington Post broke the story based on confidential administration sources troubled by the scope of the program and its secretive implementation.
Since the late 1980s, Rumsfeld was a habitué of COG exercises along with Vice President Dick Cheney. Indeed early COG drills had been organized by the right-wing Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). As investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn revealed in his definitive political biography of the former Defense Secretary:

This highly secret program was known as Project 908, and among the individuals earmarked to take power when disaster struck was Donald Rumsfeld. ... There, for several days, he would be immured in artificial caverns, staring at electronic displays streaming data of disaster and confusion, sleeping on cots and subsisting on the most austere rations. ...
Insofar as the COG games gave the illusion of reality, they taught Rumsfeld and his fellow players some dangerous lessons, particularly when the fall of the Soviet Union induced some changes in the usual scenarios. Although the exercises continued, still budgeted at over $200 million in the Clinton era, the vanished Soviets were now customarily replaced by terrorists. The terrorism envisaged however, was almost always state-sponsored. ...
There were other changes, too. In earlier times the specialists selected to run the "shadow government" had been drawn from across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in politically congenial company, the players' roster being filled almost exclusively with Republican hawks. (Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, New York: Scribner, 2007, pp. 85-86, 88)

As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed, in early 2006 the Department of Homeland Security awarded a $385 million contract to a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, to provide "temporary detention and processing facilities." Scott wrote,

The contract--announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR--calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when. ...
After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security. (Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," Pacific News Service, February 8, 2006)

The DHS contract to KBR had been preceded by the April 2002 creation of the Pentagon's Northern Command (NORTHCOM), specifically empowered by the Bush administration for domestic U.S. military operations in direct violation of Posse Comitatus prohibitions forbidding the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. At the time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called NORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."
Sweeping indeed! Last month Army Times reported that the Army's "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home." According to Army Times,

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. ...
But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. ...
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. ...
The 1st BCT's soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
"It's a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they're fielding. They've been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we're undertaking we were the first to get it."
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets. (Gina Cavallaro, "Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct. 1," Army Times, September 8, 2008)

While senior Pentagon brass have downplayed the significance of deploying a BCT that has taken part in aggressive occupation duties to suppress the Iraqi people's resistance, Col. Lou Vogler, NORTHCOM's chief of future operations said in an interview that the military "will integrate with law enforcement to understand the situation and make sure we're aware of any threats." An article published by the Army News Service disclosed,

During the exercise, commanders and staff of the force will train, rehearse and exercise--from academic classes to making decisions and executing orders--all to help prepare them for the mission they will assume on Oct. 1, said Vogler.
"It's an opportunity for network building in an unprecedented assignment of forces," said [Marine Corps Lt. Col.] Shores. "DOD always had allocated contingency sourced forces--but this is precedent-setting network building with the forces that we ultimately will go out and execute with. It's an opportunity to get to know our forces, to see them in execution, to mission-orient them and be that much better--to be that much more responsive."
One goal of the exercise is to exercise with partners from the civilian agencies they would support. To that end, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other interagency representatives are participating to ensure integration with civilian consequence managers who would lead a response, said Vogler.
"The overall federal response builds on the local and state response in accordance with the incident command system and existing plans and processes that are out there," said Vogler. "The response force would supplement local efforts." ("Consequence Management Response Force to join Army Northern Command," Army News Service, September 15, 2008)

Vogler and Shores were discussing an exercise code-named Vibrant Response, that took place September 8-19 at Fort Stewart in Georgia. Three brigades form the core of NORTHCOM's Consequence Management Response Force: the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Army Division; the 1st Medical Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. All three units participated in Vibrant Response.
As researcher and analyst Michel Chossudovsky comments:

The BCT is an army combat unit designed to confront an enemy within a war theater.
With US forces overstretched in Iraq, why would the Pentagon decide to undertake this redeployment within the USA, barely one month before the presidential elections?
The new mission of the 1st Brigade on US soil is to participate in "defense" efforts as well as provide "support to civilian authorities".
What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a "war theater" thereby justifying the deployment of combat units.
The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement.
What we are dealing with is a militarization of civilian police activities in derogation of the Posse Comitatus Act. ("Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland. US Combat Troops in Iraq repatriated to 'help with civil unrest'," Global Research, September 26, 2008)

One scenario envisaged by Chossudovsky is that "civil unrest resulting from from the financial meltdown is a distinct possibility, given the broad impacts of financial collapse on lifelong savings, pension funds, homeownership, etc."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cheney defends 'alternative' interrogation techniques
• Excerpt: 'What Happened' by Scott McClellan
• 'Daily Voting News' For October 01, 2008

Brad DeLong: Paul Krugman's Right, The Paulson Plan Will Fail

Image via Wikipedia

Brad DeLong

Three weeks ago Paul Krugman said that the Paulson plan would do little or no good--that the key was to recapitalize the banking system, and that simply buying up assets at current market values wouldn't do that: we needed nationalization. I countered that a smart version of the Paulson plan would allow for the Treasury to buy equity as well as to buy up debt, and I deployed a portfolio-balance model to argue that even debt purchases could stabilize the market and, by raising the prices of risky and long-duration assets, recapitalize the banking system.
The stock market strongly suggests that I was wrong, and that Paul was right:
SPX - S&P 500 Index Stock charts - CNNMoney

When you consider that these are short-selling-free prices--that these don't include the opinions of those who want their portfolios to have a less-than-zero stock share--and that true prices are now somewhat lower, the case that Paul Krugman was right is even stronger.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Henry Blodget: Should You Really Panic And Sell Everything Like Cramer Says?

Economic chaos creates surge in homelessness

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

CNN.com

The number of homeless families in Massachusetts has surged -- a spike that has overwhelmed the state's shelter capacity and forced it to again place homeless families in motels.
The number of homeless families living in Massachusetts motels skyrocketed in September 2008.
The number of homeless families living in Massachusetts motels skyrocketed in September 2008.
Driving the increase is the sour economy, rising energy costs, escalating unemployment and shortage of affordable housing. For the first time, the state is tracking how many families are winding up homeless due to foreclosures.
"You're seeing a perfect storm," said Robyn Frost, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless.
The upswing is also putting pressure on a landmark initiative by Gov. Deval Patrick to virtually end homelessness in Massachusetts in the next five years.
In just the past 12 months, the number of homeless families living in Massachusetts motels has skyrocketed from 17 in September 2007 to 550 in September 2008. That's on top of another 1,800 or so families in shelters.
The Department of Transitional Assistance first began placing families in motels in 1999 when its shelters reached capacity. Over the next five years, the state used 97 motels around the state to house families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Homeless Squatting in Foreclosed Homes
• Report Questions Bloomberg's Progress on Homeless
• Suburbs to Streets: New Face of Homeless
• Tent cities rise across the country
• The Homeless Vote

Iraq Facing New Civil War, Insurgency

Image via Wikipedia

The Nation: The Dreyfuss Report

What does the start of a new civil war in Iraq look like? It looks a lot like this:
The Times reports today matter-of-factly on the pattern of assassinations of Sunni members of the Sons of Iraq militia by Shiite death squads:

American military leaders disagree among themselves about whether the assassinations are increasing or whether some of the killings are merely criminal acts. But they are "watching the numbers closely," said a military official who attends briefings on attacks.

Yesterday I wrote a lengthy piece for The Nation about the likehihood of a new civil war and a new Sunni resistance movement stemming from the sectarian Shiite government's refusal to make a political deal with Iraq's Sunnis. The American military may indeed be "watching the numbers" of murdered Sunnis "closely," but there's not much that they intend to do about it. (Here's a clue for the vaunted US military intelligence people "watching" these assassinations: they're not "criminal." They're political.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Renewed Civil War In Iraq?