Olbermann to Axelrod: You're a Useless Sell-Out and Shill
Axelrod to Olbermann: You're a Lunatic
Everyone Else: Hey, No Fighting! You're Both Right!
Olbermann: I will go to jail before I participate in a mandated-insurance scheme that enriches the corporate fat-cats in the insurance companies.
Axelrod: Anyone on the left wanting to kill this bill is insane.
Incidentally, after Gibbs called Howard Dean pretty much crazy yesterday, a White House hack (forget who-- Rahm?) walked that back and offered a more respectful objection; but I see the respectful objection thing was abandoned again by Captain Wonderful, and we're back to the "lunatic" argument.
(Argument being used in the loosest possible sense.)
Hmm... those who started saying, early, "the left just might kill this bill," well, you may be about to collect on your pool wager, depending on what day you selected.
I gotta tell ya, I did not see this coming. I thought the left was so hopelessly in love with Captain Wonderful they just wanted him to get a "Win," and didn't care what it looked like.
I see now that that was pretty much just Chris Matthews. And David Brooks, I'd imagine.
Posted by: Ace at 04:07 PM
911 truth
Arrest Karl Rove
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Another one of "war president" Obama's wars !!!!
Published on Monday, December 21, 2009 by Salon.com
Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen
by Glenn Greenwald
Given what a prominent role "Terrorism" plays in our political discourse, it's striking how little attention is paid to American actions which have the most significant impact on that problem. In addition to our occupation of Iraq, war escalation in Afghanistan, and secret bombings in Pakistan, President Obama late last week ordered cruise missile attacks on two locations in Yemen, which "U.S. officials" say were "suspected Al Qaeda hideouts." The main target of the attacks, Al Qaeda member Qasim al Rim, was not among those killed, but: "a local Yemeni official said on Sunday that 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed in air strikes against Al-Qaeda, which he said were carried out 'indiscriminately'." Media reports across the Muslim world -- though, not of course, within the U.S. -- are highlighting the dead civilians from the U.S. strike (one account from an official Iranian outlet began: "U.S. Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says").
Protesters shout slogans as they march on a street in the southern Yemeni town of Radfan December 19, 2009 to denounce Thursday's government military operation which the authorities said killed about 30 al Qaeda militants. Yemen's opposition accused the raids killed dozens of civilians, including whole families. (REUTERS/Stringer)For many people, the mere assertion by anonymous U.S. Government officials that these attacks targeted "suspected al-Qaeda sites" will be sufficient to deem them justified. All credible reports confirm that there is indeed a not insignificant Al Qaeda presence in Southern Yemen, so that claim, at least, seems at least grounded in reality. Yet arguments about justification to the side for the moment, here we have yet another violent attack by the U.S. which -- even under the best-case scenario -- has killed more Muslim civilians than it did "Al Qaeda fighters," and failed to kill the main target of the attack. When it comes to undermining Al Qaeda -- both in Yemen and generally -- isn't it painfully obvious that the images of dead Muslim women and children which we constantly create -- and which we again just created in Yemen -- will fuel that movement better than anything else we can do?
Consider what else is happening around the Muslim world that is quite consistent with all of that yet receiving virtually no attention in the West (though receiving plenty of attention there). Pakistani lawyers -- many of the same ones who protested the tyrannical practices of General Musharraf -- held a large protest in Islamabad this weekend objecting to the presence of "notorious" Blackwater agents in their country. Palestinians are consumed with a recent incident in which West Bank settlers torched one of their mosques, burning holy books and leaving threatening messages; that was preceded by the Israeli Justice Minister proclaiming that "step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel." And perhaps most significantly of all, while reports have focused on alleged tension between the Obama administration and Israel over the latter's uncooperative conduct, this is what is actually happening:
Behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing. Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel's qualitative military edge -- an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Among the new initiatives taken by the administration, the Forward has learned, are adjustments in a massive arms deal the Bush administration made with Arab Gulf states in response to Israeli concerns. There have also been upgrades in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation on missile defense. And a deal is expected next year that will see one of the United States' most advanced fighter jets go to Israel with some of America's most sensitive new technology.
Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration's response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as "warm and immediate."
"We came to the Obama administration and said, ‘Listen, we have a problem here,'" Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "The administration's reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge]."
All of this is being done pursuant to this:
America's commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge was codified directly into U.S. law via 2008 legislation backed by AIPAC. This legislation requires the president to report to Congress periodically on actions taken by the administration to ensure Israel's advantage.
I have to confess that I didn't realize that a law was enacted last year making it a legal requirement for America to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge," and -- even more amazingly -- that the President of the U.S. is required to report regularly to the U.S. Congress on the steps he's taking to ensure Israel's superiority. That's a rather extraordinary law, and the administration seems to be fulfilling its requirements faithfully.
Whatever else is true, and even if one believes it's justified to lob cruise missiles into more countries where we claim "suspected Al Qaeda sites" are located, one thing seems clear: all of the causes widely recognized as having led to 9/11 -- excessive American interference in the Muslim world, our alliance with their most oppressive leaders, our responsibility for Israel's military conflicts with its Muslim neighbors, and our own military attacks on Muslims -- seem stronger than ever. As we take more actions of this sort, we will create more Terrorists, which will in turn cause us to take more actions of this sort in a never-ending, self-perpetuating cycle. The U.S. military, and the intelligence community, and its partners in the private contractor world will certainly remain busy, empowered, and well-funded in the extreme.
Cruise Missile Attacks in Yemen
by Glenn Greenwald
Given what a prominent role "Terrorism" plays in our political discourse, it's striking how little attention is paid to American actions which have the most significant impact on that problem. In addition to our occupation of Iraq, war escalation in Afghanistan, and secret bombings in Pakistan, President Obama late last week ordered cruise missile attacks on two locations in Yemen, which "U.S. officials" say were "suspected Al Qaeda hideouts." The main target of the attacks, Al Qaeda member Qasim al Rim, was not among those killed, but: "a local Yemeni official said on Sunday that 49 civilians, among them 23 children and 17 women, were killed in air strikes against Al-Qaeda, which he said were carried out 'indiscriminately'." Media reports across the Muslim world -- though, not of course, within the U.S. -- are highlighting the dead civilians from the U.S. strike (one account from an official Iranian outlet began: "U.S. Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says").
Protesters shout slogans as they march on a street in the southern Yemeni town of Radfan December 19, 2009 to denounce Thursday's government military operation which the authorities said killed about 30 al Qaeda militants. Yemen's opposition accused the raids killed dozens of civilians, including whole families. (REUTERS/Stringer)For many people, the mere assertion by anonymous U.S. Government officials that these attacks targeted "suspected al-Qaeda sites" will be sufficient to deem them justified. All credible reports confirm that there is indeed a not insignificant Al Qaeda presence in Southern Yemen, so that claim, at least, seems at least grounded in reality. Yet arguments about justification to the side for the moment, here we have yet another violent attack by the U.S. which -- even under the best-case scenario -- has killed more Muslim civilians than it did "Al Qaeda fighters," and failed to kill the main target of the attack. When it comes to undermining Al Qaeda -- both in Yemen and generally -- isn't it painfully obvious that the images of dead Muslim women and children which we constantly create -- and which we again just created in Yemen -- will fuel that movement better than anything else we can do?
Consider what else is happening around the Muslim world that is quite consistent with all of that yet receiving virtually no attention in the West (though receiving plenty of attention there). Pakistani lawyers -- many of the same ones who protested the tyrannical practices of General Musharraf -- held a large protest in Islamabad this weekend objecting to the presence of "notorious" Blackwater agents in their country. Palestinians are consumed with a recent incident in which West Bank settlers torched one of their mosques, burning holy books and leaving threatening messages; that was preceded by the Israeli Justice Minister proclaiming that "step by step, Torah law will become the binding law in the State of Israel." And perhaps most significantly of all, while reports have focused on alleged tension between the Obama administration and Israel over the latter's uncooperative conduct, this is what is actually happening:
Behind the scenes, strategic security relations between the two countries are flourishing. Israeli officials have been singing the praises of President Obama for his willingness to address their defense concerns and for actions taken by his administration to bolster Israel's qualitative military edge -- an edge eroded, according to Israel, during the final year of the George W. Bush presidency.
Among the new initiatives taken by the administration, the Forward has learned, are adjustments in a massive arms deal the Bush administration made with Arab Gulf states in response to Israeli concerns. There have also been upgrades in U.S.-Israeli military cooperation on missile defense. And a deal is expected next year that will see one of the United States' most advanced fighter jets go to Israel with some of America's most sensitive new technology.
Amid the cacophony of U.S.-Israel clashes on the diplomatic front, public attention given to this intensified strategic cooperation has been scant. But in a rare public comment in October, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren praised the Obama administration's response to complaints about lost ground during the close of the Bush years as "warm and immediate."
"We came to the Obama administration and said, ‘Listen, we have a problem here,'" Oren, told a gathering of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "The administration's reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your QME [qualitative military edge]."
All of this is being done pursuant to this:
America's commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge was codified directly into U.S. law via 2008 legislation backed by AIPAC. This legislation requires the president to report to Congress periodically on actions taken by the administration to ensure Israel's advantage.
I have to confess that I didn't realize that a law was enacted last year making it a legal requirement for America to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge," and -- even more amazingly -- that the President of the U.S. is required to report regularly to the U.S. Congress on the steps he's taking to ensure Israel's superiority. That's a rather extraordinary law, and the administration seems to be fulfilling its requirements faithfully.
Whatever else is true, and even if one believes it's justified to lob cruise missiles into more countries where we claim "suspected Al Qaeda sites" are located, one thing seems clear: all of the causes widely recognized as having led to 9/11 -- excessive American interference in the Muslim world, our alliance with their most oppressive leaders, our responsibility for Israel's military conflicts with its Muslim neighbors, and our own military attacks on Muslims -- seem stronger than ever. As we take more actions of this sort, we will create more Terrorists, which will in turn cause us to take more actions of this sort in a never-ending, self-perpetuating cycle. The U.S. military, and the intelligence community, and its partners in the private contractor world will certainly remain busy, empowered, and well-funded in the extreme.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A Patient's View of the Senate Christmas Healthcare Gift
December 24th, 2009 9:10 AM
A Patient’s View of the Senate Christmas Healthcare Gift
By Donna Smith
So, all the great fanfare and all the king’s horses. The great and almighty U.S. Senate has spoken. I will have to buy private health insurance – forever, amen. The defective product that has left me wanting for real healthcare for all of my adult life is now a step closer to being the law of the land.
A lump of Christmas coal all polished up with sparkling rhetoric.
Here’s what the Chicago Tribune said this week, and I agree:
On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune published an exhaustive front-page analysis by Northwestern University's Medill News Service and the Center for Responsive Politics of how it was done. The main culprit: "a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation."
The study found that 13 former congressmen and 166 congressional staffers were actively engaged in lobbying their former colleagues on the bill. The companies they were working for -- some 338 of them -- spent $635 million on lobbying. It was money extremely well spent -- delivering a bill that, by forcing people to buy a shoddy product in a market with no real competition, enshrines into law the public subsidy of private profit.
As we approach the end of Obama's first year in office, this public subsidizing of private profit is becoming something of a habit. It is, after all, exactly what the White House did with the banks. Just as he did with insurance companies, Obama talked tough to the bankers in public, but, when push came to shove, he ended up shoving public money onto their privately held balance sheets.
This is not just bad policy, it's bad politics.
Now, back to my own thoughts as a patient:
I went broke while carrying health insurance, a disability insurance policy and a small healthcare savings account. And if I get sick under this mess of a plan, it will happen to me again. Little has changed except that millions more of my fellow citizens will join my ranks.
How does it happen to insured people under this plan? Easy. Step-by-torturous-step. Slowly. Like water-torture.
1. Buy health insurance at work or on the new exchange;
2. Avoid using insurance due to co-pays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum exposures – not to mention lost work time and the worry about losing one’s job in a tough economy;
3. If symptoms are noticed, treat by internet medical site suggestions and over-the-counter drugs until no other option but going to a doctor are available;
4. Attempt to make appointment with doctor but first find one who accepts both new patients and your insurance;
5. Go to doctor and pay co-pay up front before ever speaking to anyone about medical problem;
6. Sit in outer waiting room for as long as required, missing work and worrying;
7. Sit in exam room waiting for doctor for as long as required;
8. See doctor for five or six minutes, if lucky, during which time you will either be prescribed some expensive drug to fix a problem the doctor isn’t sure you have, referred to another doctor who may have a month or two wait for appointments, be directed to get some tests done you aren’t sure your insurance will allow or pay for, and do it all sitting in your underwear or less;
9. Leave medical office owing more than what you thought your insurance and co-pay advertised (and never get an explanation for how that is possible) and never sure if this experience was much different than being to a used car lot where the sales folks have assessed your financing mechanism before showing you anything at all and then only show you what fits the financing not what you need or want;
10. In the alternative, if you collapse or wait until symptoms get so severe that going for an office appointment is impossible, go to an emergency room – repeat steps five through eight – and either be admitted to the hospital if your insurance is adequate and you have any available sick-time from work (if not, beg for drugs and to be released) or go to number nine.
11. Need a dentist? Too bad. Have dental insurance? Still too bad. You might get a cleaning and some x-rays, but getting the care you may or may not need will be again totally related to your ability to pay whatever portion of the dental work is not covered (and amazingly, every penny of what dental insurance will cover will be eaten up by whatever problem you may or may not have) – in the alternative, avoid dentists or just pull teeth as they go bad;
12. When the bills roll in, try to pay some after trying to find out how you can possible owe hundreds if not thousands more than the insurance policy you have indicates is possible;
13. When the collectors call to collect all of the balances due, try to negotiate payments but endure threats of lawsuit, garnishment and worse as the collectors report back to the doctors you saw for a few moments in number eight;
14. Try to get your meds – if too costly, go without;
15. Try to get well – if you cannot, go back to work;
16. Try to act like this is all wonderful and you are grateful to have any insurance at all;
17. Get sued by a collection agency for a doctor bill or hospital bill you cannot cover;
18. Sell your house and use whatever proceeds you have to try to pay some of the debts;
19. Collectors for the doctors and hospitals are not happy if you don’t pay it all in full and up-front most of the time;
20. Feel stress, fear, anguish – but don’t gripe and don’t show it at work – buck it up, chump;
21. Sell keepsakes and anything valuable to try to stay afloat;
22. Stress, more stress. Fear to answer the phone. Friends and family fall away as they don’t want you to ask to borrow money;
23. Keep working – sick or not, keep working or you’ll lose that damn insurance if you cannot pay the premium – or you’ll be back out on the exchange trying to buy another policy that is cheaper and even worse;
24. Watch your elected officials claim victory and history as they work to make sure your kids and grandkids must suffer the same fate if they need healthcare in America;
25. Have a Merry Christmas, so says your U.S. Senate.
Don’t think this can happen to you because it hasn’t yet? Count your blessings this Christmas.
I'd really like the gift of healthcare. Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare would remove so much of this awful process. That would be a gift.
Tags:
Health Care Reform,Medicare,Single Payer,Universal Health Care
A Patient’s View of the Senate Christmas Healthcare Gift
By Donna Smith
So, all the great fanfare and all the king’s horses. The great and almighty U.S. Senate has spoken. I will have to buy private health insurance – forever, amen. The defective product that has left me wanting for real healthcare for all of my adult life is now a step closer to being the law of the land.
A lump of Christmas coal all polished up with sparkling rhetoric.
Here’s what the Chicago Tribune said this week, and I agree:
On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune published an exhaustive front-page analysis by Northwestern University's Medill News Service and the Center for Responsive Politics of how it was done. The main culprit: "a revolving door between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbying jobs for companies with a stake in health care legislation."
The study found that 13 former congressmen and 166 congressional staffers were actively engaged in lobbying their former colleagues on the bill. The companies they were working for -- some 338 of them -- spent $635 million on lobbying. It was money extremely well spent -- delivering a bill that, by forcing people to buy a shoddy product in a market with no real competition, enshrines into law the public subsidy of private profit.
As we approach the end of Obama's first year in office, this public subsidizing of private profit is becoming something of a habit. It is, after all, exactly what the White House did with the banks. Just as he did with insurance companies, Obama talked tough to the bankers in public, but, when push came to shove, he ended up shoving public money onto their privately held balance sheets.
This is not just bad policy, it's bad politics.
Now, back to my own thoughts as a patient:
I went broke while carrying health insurance, a disability insurance policy and a small healthcare savings account. And if I get sick under this mess of a plan, it will happen to me again. Little has changed except that millions more of my fellow citizens will join my ranks.
How does it happen to insured people under this plan? Easy. Step-by-torturous-step. Slowly. Like water-torture.
1. Buy health insurance at work or on the new exchange;
2. Avoid using insurance due to co-pays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum exposures – not to mention lost work time and the worry about losing one’s job in a tough economy;
3. If symptoms are noticed, treat by internet medical site suggestions and over-the-counter drugs until no other option but going to a doctor are available;
4. Attempt to make appointment with doctor but first find one who accepts both new patients and your insurance;
5. Go to doctor and pay co-pay up front before ever speaking to anyone about medical problem;
6. Sit in outer waiting room for as long as required, missing work and worrying;
7. Sit in exam room waiting for doctor for as long as required;
8. See doctor for five or six minutes, if lucky, during which time you will either be prescribed some expensive drug to fix a problem the doctor isn’t sure you have, referred to another doctor who may have a month or two wait for appointments, be directed to get some tests done you aren’t sure your insurance will allow or pay for, and do it all sitting in your underwear or less;
9. Leave medical office owing more than what you thought your insurance and co-pay advertised (and never get an explanation for how that is possible) and never sure if this experience was much different than being to a used car lot where the sales folks have assessed your financing mechanism before showing you anything at all and then only show you what fits the financing not what you need or want;
10. In the alternative, if you collapse or wait until symptoms get so severe that going for an office appointment is impossible, go to an emergency room – repeat steps five through eight – and either be admitted to the hospital if your insurance is adequate and you have any available sick-time from work (if not, beg for drugs and to be released) or go to number nine.
11. Need a dentist? Too bad. Have dental insurance? Still too bad. You might get a cleaning and some x-rays, but getting the care you may or may not need will be again totally related to your ability to pay whatever portion of the dental work is not covered (and amazingly, every penny of what dental insurance will cover will be eaten up by whatever problem you may or may not have) – in the alternative, avoid dentists or just pull teeth as they go bad;
12. When the bills roll in, try to pay some after trying to find out how you can possible owe hundreds if not thousands more than the insurance policy you have indicates is possible;
13. When the collectors call to collect all of the balances due, try to negotiate payments but endure threats of lawsuit, garnishment and worse as the collectors report back to the doctors you saw for a few moments in number eight;
14. Try to get your meds – if too costly, go without;
15. Try to get well – if you cannot, go back to work;
16. Try to act like this is all wonderful and you are grateful to have any insurance at all;
17. Get sued by a collection agency for a doctor bill or hospital bill you cannot cover;
18. Sell your house and use whatever proceeds you have to try to pay some of the debts;
19. Collectors for the doctors and hospitals are not happy if you don’t pay it all in full and up-front most of the time;
20. Feel stress, fear, anguish – but don’t gripe and don’t show it at work – buck it up, chump;
21. Sell keepsakes and anything valuable to try to stay afloat;
22. Stress, more stress. Fear to answer the phone. Friends and family fall away as they don’t want you to ask to borrow money;
23. Keep working – sick or not, keep working or you’ll lose that damn insurance if you cannot pay the premium – or you’ll be back out on the exchange trying to buy another policy that is cheaper and even worse;
24. Watch your elected officials claim victory and history as they work to make sure your kids and grandkids must suffer the same fate if they need healthcare in America;
25. Have a Merry Christmas, so says your U.S. Senate.
Don’t think this can happen to you because it hasn’t yet? Count your blessings this Christmas.
I'd really like the gift of healthcare. Medicare for all, single-payer healthcare would remove so much of this awful process. That would be a gift.
Tags:
Health Care Reform,Medicare,Single Payer,Universal Health Care
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
healthcare bill is giveaway to insurance industry
Michael Moore says Democrats’ healthcare bill is giveaway to insurance industry
By Raw Story
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 -- 9:17 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
In a speech broadcast on Canadian television Tuesday, Michael Moore savaged the Democrats' healthcare bill, calling it a gift to the health insurance industry, which he argues will make $70 billion more as a result of mandated health insurance.
"The health insurance companies are going to make an extra $70 billion dollars as a result of Americans being forced to buy their health insurance," Moore quipped. "What company wouldn't love this bill?"
Moore argues that the health insurance industry isn't really upset about healthcare reform. His assertions -- which mirror those of some on the left -- highlight the challenge that Democrats in Congress face on healthcare reform. On the left, critics say that the bill doesn't go far enough in ensuring universal care; on the right, critics say the proposal will lead to a government takeover of healthcare.
"So all of the wailing that they're doing about this bill -- believe me, the health insurance companies are not that upset about it," Moore said. "In fact, they helped write this bill."
"It's not universal health care," he continued. "Thirteen million people will still not have health insurance in the United States.
Story continues below...
"And the drug companies signed a deal with Obama to keep them out of it, because they agreed to reduce their prices by $8 billion in the first year of the healthcare bill," he asserted.
But he noted that because these companies allegedly raised prices in the last year by $10 billion, they still come out $2 billion ahead.
"When you create a society that essentially is in that state, it's very easy to run an ad on the nightly news about what a third world country Canada is, and about how people are dying on the sidewalk here because they can't get in to see the doctor," he added. "You actually believe that stuff. Because of the education you've been given, because education is such a low priority. Our schools are in such disarray. And our media doesn't do anything to help educate people in the way they need to be educated."
"It's not that you need to become more like America," Moore said. "America needs to become more like you. We need to become more Canadian-like."
"A hospital will hire a foreclosure company to go after someone's home and have them thrown out on the curb because they haven't paid the hospital bill," he added. "Something is seriously wrong with this."
This video is from The Canadian Press, broadcast Nov. 17, 2009.
By Raw Story
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 -- 9:17 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
In a speech broadcast on Canadian television Tuesday, Michael Moore savaged the Democrats' healthcare bill, calling it a gift to the health insurance industry, which he argues will make $70 billion more as a result of mandated health insurance.
"The health insurance companies are going to make an extra $70 billion dollars as a result of Americans being forced to buy their health insurance," Moore quipped. "What company wouldn't love this bill?"
Moore argues that the health insurance industry isn't really upset about healthcare reform. His assertions -- which mirror those of some on the left -- highlight the challenge that Democrats in Congress face on healthcare reform. On the left, critics say that the bill doesn't go far enough in ensuring universal care; on the right, critics say the proposal will lead to a government takeover of healthcare.
"So all of the wailing that they're doing about this bill -- believe me, the health insurance companies are not that upset about it," Moore said. "In fact, they helped write this bill."
"It's not universal health care," he continued. "Thirteen million people will still not have health insurance in the United States.
Story continues below...
"And the drug companies signed a deal with Obama to keep them out of it, because they agreed to reduce their prices by $8 billion in the first year of the healthcare bill," he asserted.
But he noted that because these companies allegedly raised prices in the last year by $10 billion, they still come out $2 billion ahead.
"When you create a society that essentially is in that state, it's very easy to run an ad on the nightly news about what a third world country Canada is, and about how people are dying on the sidewalk here because they can't get in to see the doctor," he added. "You actually believe that stuff. Because of the education you've been given, because education is such a low priority. Our schools are in such disarray. And our media doesn't do anything to help educate people in the way they need to be educated."
"It's not that you need to become more like America," Moore said. "America needs to become more like you. We need to become more Canadian-like."
"A hospital will hire a foreclosure company to go after someone's home and have them thrown out on the curb because they haven't paid the hospital bill," he added. "Something is seriously wrong with this."
This video is from The Canadian Press, broadcast Nov. 17, 2009.
Merry Christmas! Ed Hanway, Cigna CEO, is getting a $73,200,000 golden parachute
December 23rd, 2009 2:30 PM
Merry Christmas! Ed Hanway, Cigna CEO, is getting a $73,200,000 golden parachute
By Jason Rosenbaum / Firedoglake
Ed Hanway, CEO of Cigna, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, will step down at the end of this year, in just over a week. When he does, he’ll get $73,200,000 as compensation for a job well done.
What makes Hanway worth $73.2 million? Well, for one example, he’s presided as Cigna denied a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, causing her death and widespread outrage. Wendell Potter, Cigna’s former spokesperson turned whistle-blower, was at the company during the Sarkisyan scandal, and he explains its effect on him personally, as well as how the company thinks about denying care:
In our system today, there is literally no repercussions for insurance companies when they deny care, jack up rates, or do all the other things they do to screw over their customers. Ed Hanway did all those things as much as he could, and for that, he’s being rewarded.
Out there in America, people are losing their jobs. They’re losing their homes. They’re skimping on holiday gifts to put food on the table. And they’re still going bankrupt due to skyrocketing medical costs.
Meanwhile, insurance company stocks are "on fire" in reaction to the Senate bill, which, though it has some regulations, leaves people at the mercy of private insurance because it lacks a public health insurance option.
People out there are suffering, insurance companies are winning, and Ed Hanway is walking away with $73.2 million.
We’ve managed to track down Hanway’s personal email address. This isn’t a spam box or an unattended address, this is
Hanway’s actual corporate email. It’s H.Edward.Hanway@CIGNA.com.
Send him an email. Tell him what you think of his golden parachute. While you’re at it, why don’t you tell Hanway what you’d like for Christmas, and what you’d buy with his money. You can leave a message on Cigna’s Facebook page as well, if you want.
Merry Christmas! Ed Hanway, Cigna CEO, is getting a $73,200,000 golden parachute
By Jason Rosenbaum / Firedoglake
Ed Hanway, CEO of Cigna, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, will step down at the end of this year, in just over a week. When he does, he’ll get $73,200,000 as compensation for a job well done.
What makes Hanway worth $73.2 million? Well, for one example, he’s presided as Cigna denied a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, causing her death and widespread outrage. Wendell Potter, Cigna’s former spokesperson turned whistle-blower, was at the company during the Sarkisyan scandal, and he explains its effect on him personally, as well as how the company thinks about denying care:
In our system today, there is literally no repercussions for insurance companies when they deny care, jack up rates, or do all the other things they do to screw over their customers. Ed Hanway did all those things as much as he could, and for that, he’s being rewarded.
Out there in America, people are losing their jobs. They’re losing their homes. They’re skimping on holiday gifts to put food on the table. And they’re still going bankrupt due to skyrocketing medical costs.
Meanwhile, insurance company stocks are "on fire" in reaction to the Senate bill, which, though it has some regulations, leaves people at the mercy of private insurance because it lacks a public health insurance option.
People out there are suffering, insurance companies are winning, and Ed Hanway is walking away with $73.2 million.
We’ve managed to track down Hanway’s personal email address. This isn’t a spam box or an unattended address, this is
Hanway’s actual corporate email. It’s H.Edward.Hanway@CIGNA.com.
Send him an email. Tell him what you think of his golden parachute. While you’re at it, why don’t you tell Hanway what you’d like for Christmas, and what you’d buy with his money. You can leave a message on Cigna’s Facebook page as well, if you want.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Obama:Another Fucking War President
December 21st, 2009 2:46 AM
Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
Cruise Missiles Launched Thursday Hit Two Suspected al Qaeda Sites; Major Escalation of US Efforts Against Terrorists
Protesters shout slogans as they march on a street in the southern Yemeni town of Radfan December 19, 2009 to denounce Thursday's military operation.
By Brian Ross, Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, Luis Martinez and Kirit Radia / ABC News
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."
The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda.
In his speech about added troops for Afghanistan earlier this month, President Obama made a brief reference to Yemen, saying, "Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."
Until tonight, American officials had hedged about any U.S. role in the strikes against Yemen and news reports from Yemen attributed the attacks to the Yemen Air Force.
President Obama placed a call after the strikes to "congratulate" the President of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salih, on his efforts against al Qaeda, according to White House officials.
A Yemeni official at the country's embassy in Washington insisted to ABC News Friday that the Thursday attacks were "planned and executed" by the Yemen government and police.
Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians.
American officials said the missile strikes were intended to disrupt a growing threat from the al Qaeda branch in Yemen, which claims to coordinate terror attacks against neighboring Saudi Arabia.
The al Qaeda presence in Yemen has been steadily growing in the last two years. "Al Qaeda generally has been pushed into these ungoverned areas, whether it is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area [or Yemen]," said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the U.N.'s Taliban al-Qaeda Sancitions Monitoring Committee. "I think many of the key people have moved to Yemen."
The U.S. embassy was attacked by suspected al Qaeda gunmen last year.
And the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Qaaim al-Raymi, has frequently appeared on internet videos, offering an alternative to the training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"If they can go to Yemen just as easily or easier and get training there and come out again," said Barrett, "all your efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan are a waste of time."
Qaaim al-Raymi was considered a prime target of the attack Thursday but was reported to have escaped the attack. However, U.S. officials believe one of his top deputies may have been killed.
Tags:
Afghanistan,Al Qaeda,Ali Abdallah Salih,Barack Obama,Pakistan,Qaaim al-Raymi,Somalia,Taliban,White House,Yemen
Related Stories
Blackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. DronesBlackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. DronesBlackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. Drones
Comments11 0 comments pending Moderation FAQ Leave a comment
bio4Posted December 22nd, 2009 4:31 AM
I wonder how long we will have to wait before Venezuela is added to the list to give number 5. The new bases to be built in Columbia are purportedly for continuing "the war against drugs" but an Air force document stated that the US military presence was necessary to combat the "constant threat from anti-US governments in the region". These governments include those in Venezuela and Bolivia and possibly Ecuador.
And then there is Iran (no 6?). Reply
bsodPosted December 22nd, 2009 1:00 AM
the word terrorist is kinna vague and abused to push agenda's in some cases, I wish even headlines we're more specific like, "military strike on al-Qaeda " so we know that they arent talking about a teenager who saw the wrong webpage on accident Reply
powertothepeoplePosted December 22nd, 2009 12:12 AM
I just hope that danno75 takes the rest of the evening to kill off that pint of ice cream. The Warmongers and Fearmongers are still going strong. Book em danno. Reply
rokonPosted December 21st, 2009 7:03 PM
The people of America should wake up now. Obama, Bush, Dick Cheny, they are all ELECTED by you REMEMBER? and by now you might have understood that they all serve the same godfathers.
REFORM the present political system . DEMOCRACY is not about choosing between the chosen. Reply
enkoARTPosted December 22nd, 2009 1:28 AM
Agree, well said . Reply
AsilPosted December 21st, 2009 5:35 PM
As many as 120 people in Yemen were killed and many of the dead were innocent civilians… and Obama placed a call to “Congratulate” the efforts to Predent of Yemen?
What a Noble Peace Prize winner! Is this his way of earning it? Reply
danno75Posted December 21st, 2009 4:35 PM
What is it going to take to make us realize that the U.S. has become exactly what we are supposed to be fighting against in this "War on Terror". We are headed for the first all out war fought on American soil since the Civil War, and I hate to say it, but we will get our collective butts kicked if it happens. It isn't the 1700's anymore. 2/3 of Americans (myself included) are so out of shape we couldn't kill a pint of icecream much less a trained soldier. Our current president seems to be going out of his way to piss off as many countries (that already hated us to begin with) as humanly possible. I realize all of this was started by GWB but BSO needs to end it or else we are in for a rude awakening. Reply
danno75Posted December 22nd, 2009 11:23 AM
That should have been BHO not BSO. I suppose the BS is appropriate though. Reply
MakaainanaPosted December 21st, 2009 1:32 PM
Is this preemptive war by another name or in a smaller fashion?
Preemptive war is aggression by a rogue nation on another nation, no matter what you say the reasons are.
It makes those that engage in it international terrorists and war criminals........... Reply
MakaainanaPosted December 21st, 2009 1:27 PM
This is just the beginning. Terrorists are not tied to a state or nation. Somali will come up. The Philippines, South America are both prone to terrorist activities.
That is the flaw in Obama's trying to stop terror in AfPak. Anywhere the globalization of industry has bypassed there are poor with the understandable frustrations that arise in a media shrunk world.
You will never stop terror with guns and robot bombs. All you will do is create collateral damage which creates more terrorists.
Food, medicine, humanitarian aid without political strings attached are what is needed. Spend the trillions of dollars like that and we will see some positive results. Expecting to conquer a stateless group of international criminals (terrorists) by forcing a government on citizens is as silly as trying to change the hearts and minds of mothers and fathers by killing their neighbors. Reply
Ron44Posted December 21st, 2009 1:17 PM
Well folks, is this a wake up call as to what Obama thinks about your feelings on this useless war?? We are going down the same old road of escalation and BS that Bush took us down!! A military strike to prove that he is the big man on campus and the death of over a hundred innocent people!! Nobel Peace Prize my ass!!!!!! Reply
Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists
Cruise Missiles Launched Thursday Hit Two Suspected al Qaeda Sites; Major Escalation of US Efforts Against Terrorists
Protesters shout slogans as they march on a street in the southern Yemeni town of Radfan December 19, 2009 to denounce Thursday's military operation.
By Brian Ross, Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, Luis Martinez and Kirit Radia / ABC News
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned."
The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration's campaign against al Qaeda.
In his speech about added troops for Afghanistan earlier this month, President Obama made a brief reference to Yemen, saying, "Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships."
Until tonight, American officials had hedged about any U.S. role in the strikes against Yemen and news reports from Yemen attributed the attacks to the Yemen Air Force.
President Obama placed a call after the strikes to "congratulate" the President of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salih, on his efforts against al Qaeda, according to White House officials.
A Yemeni official at the country's embassy in Washington insisted to ABC News Friday that the Thursday attacks were "planned and executed" by the Yemen government and police.
Along with the two U.S. cruise missile attacks, Yemen security forces carried out raids in three separate locations. As many as 120 people were killed in the three raids, according to reports from Yemen, and opposition leaders said many of the dead were innocent civilians.
American officials said the missile strikes were intended to disrupt a growing threat from the al Qaeda branch in Yemen, which claims to coordinate terror attacks against neighboring Saudi Arabia.
The al Qaeda presence in Yemen has been steadily growing in the last two years. "Al Qaeda generally has been pushed into these ungoverned areas, whether it is the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area [or Yemen]," said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the U.N.'s Taliban al-Qaeda Sancitions Monitoring Committee. "I think many of the key people have moved to Yemen."
The U.S. embassy was attacked by suspected al Qaeda gunmen last year.
And the presumed leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Qaaim al-Raymi, has frequently appeared on internet videos, offering an alternative to the training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"If they can go to Yemen just as easily or easier and get training there and come out again," said Barrett, "all your efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan are a waste of time."
Qaaim al-Raymi was considered a prime target of the attack Thursday but was reported to have escaped the attack. However, U.S. officials believe one of his top deputies may have been killed.
Tags:
Afghanistan,Al Qaeda,Ali Abdallah Salih,Barack Obama,Pakistan,Qaaim al-Raymi,Somalia,Taliban,White House,Yemen
Related Stories
Blackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. DronesBlackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. DronesBlackwater, Already On The Ground In Afghanistan, Now Gunning For More ContractsBest films of the noughties No 10: Fahrenheit 9/11Drone attacks deaden diplomatic track in PakistanHealth Care bill clears key Senate testBomb attack kills US soldier in Afghanistan: NATOObama's Indecent IntervalAnti-war activists losing patience with ObamaDemocrat for Obama Senate seat opposes him on warAfghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do FightingInsurgents Hack U.S. Drones
Comments11 0 comments pending Moderation FAQ Leave a comment
bio4Posted December 22nd, 2009 4:31 AM
I wonder how long we will have to wait before Venezuela is added to the list to give number 5. The new bases to be built in Columbia are purportedly for continuing "the war against drugs" but an Air force document stated that the US military presence was necessary to combat the "constant threat from anti-US governments in the region". These governments include those in Venezuela and Bolivia and possibly Ecuador.
And then there is Iran (no 6?). Reply
bsodPosted December 22nd, 2009 1:00 AM
the word terrorist is kinna vague and abused to push agenda's in some cases, I wish even headlines we're more specific like, "military strike on al-Qaeda " so we know that they arent talking about a teenager who saw the wrong webpage on accident Reply
powertothepeoplePosted December 22nd, 2009 12:12 AM
I just hope that danno75 takes the rest of the evening to kill off that pint of ice cream. The Warmongers and Fearmongers are still going strong. Book em danno. Reply
rokonPosted December 21st, 2009 7:03 PM
The people of America should wake up now. Obama, Bush, Dick Cheny, they are all ELECTED by you REMEMBER? and by now you might have understood that they all serve the same godfathers.
REFORM the present political system . DEMOCRACY is not about choosing between the chosen. Reply
enkoARTPosted December 22nd, 2009 1:28 AM
Agree, well said . Reply
AsilPosted December 21st, 2009 5:35 PM
As many as 120 people in Yemen were killed and many of the dead were innocent civilians… and Obama placed a call to “Congratulate” the efforts to Predent of Yemen?
What a Noble Peace Prize winner! Is this his way of earning it? Reply
danno75Posted December 21st, 2009 4:35 PM
What is it going to take to make us realize that the U.S. has become exactly what we are supposed to be fighting against in this "War on Terror". We are headed for the first all out war fought on American soil since the Civil War, and I hate to say it, but we will get our collective butts kicked if it happens. It isn't the 1700's anymore. 2/3 of Americans (myself included) are so out of shape we couldn't kill a pint of icecream much less a trained soldier. Our current president seems to be going out of his way to piss off as many countries (that already hated us to begin with) as humanly possible. I realize all of this was started by GWB but BSO needs to end it or else we are in for a rude awakening. Reply
danno75Posted December 22nd, 2009 11:23 AM
That should have been BHO not BSO. I suppose the BS is appropriate though. Reply
MakaainanaPosted December 21st, 2009 1:32 PM
Is this preemptive war by another name or in a smaller fashion?
Preemptive war is aggression by a rogue nation on another nation, no matter what you say the reasons are.
It makes those that engage in it international terrorists and war criminals........... Reply
MakaainanaPosted December 21st, 2009 1:27 PM
This is just the beginning. Terrorists are not tied to a state or nation. Somali will come up. The Philippines, South America are both prone to terrorist activities.
That is the flaw in Obama's trying to stop terror in AfPak. Anywhere the globalization of industry has bypassed there are poor with the understandable frustrations that arise in a media shrunk world.
You will never stop terror with guns and robot bombs. All you will do is create collateral damage which creates more terrorists.
Food, medicine, humanitarian aid without political strings attached are what is needed. Spend the trillions of dollars like that and we will see some positive results. Expecting to conquer a stateless group of international criminals (terrorists) by forcing a government on citizens is as silly as trying to change the hearts and minds of mothers and fathers by killing their neighbors. Reply
Ron44Posted December 21st, 2009 1:17 PM
Well folks, is this a wake up call as to what Obama thinks about your feelings on this useless war?? We are going down the same old road of escalation and BS that Bush took us down!! A military strike to prove that he is the big man on campus and the death of over a hundred innocent people!! Nobel Peace Prize my ass!!!!!! Reply
Blame Bernanke for 'Great Recession'
Hugo Chavez: "Blame Capitalism for Climate Crisis"
Copenhagen: Imperialism Imposes Its Interests
Blame Bernanke for 'Great Recession'
Fed's 'Lite' Regulation Left Banks Exposed to Crisis
Bernanke, who was in charge of regulating the nation's largest banks, told the audience of bankers that their companies were not at risk. He said most were not even involved in subprime lending. And the broader economy, he concluded, would be fine.
Foreclosures already pocked Chicago's poorer neighborhoods but the downtown still was booming as the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago convened its annual conference in May 2007.
The keynote speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, assured the bankers and businessmen gathered at the Westin Hotel on Michigan Avenue that their prosperity was not threatened by the plight of borrowers struggling to repay high-cost subprime loans.
Bernanke, who was in charge of regulating the nation's largest banks, told the audience that these firms were not at risk. He said most were not even involved in subprime lending. And the broader economy, he concluded, would be fine.
"Importantly, we see no serious broad spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market," Bernanke said. "The troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits."
He was wrong. Five of the 10 largest subprime lenders during the previous year were banks regulated by the Fed. Even as Bernanke spoke, the spillover from subprime lending was driving the banking industry into a historic crisis that some firms would not survive. And the upheaval would shove the economy into recession.
Just as the Fed had failed to protect borrowers from the consequences of subprime lending, so too had it failed to protect banks.
The central bank's performance has sparked a great debate about its future as a regulator, pitting those who want to expand its role against those who want to strip its powers.
It also has come under pressure from politicians seeking greater oversight of its primary job, adjusting interest rates to moderate economic growth.
The battles have complicated Bernanke's bid for a second term as chairman. The Senate Banking Committee voted to approve Bernanke 16 to 7 on Thursday, setting the stage for a January battle on the Senate floor.
The Fed's failure to foresee the crisis or to require adequate safeguards happened in part because it did not understand the risks that banks were taking, according to documents and interviews with more than three dozen current and former government officials, bank executives and regulatory experts.
Regulatory agencies exist to lean against the wind. But rather than looking for warning signs, the Fed had joined -- and at times defined -- the mainstream consensus among policymakers that financial innovations had made banking safer.
Bernanke said the economy had entered an era of smaller and less frequent downturns, which he and others called "the great moderation."
The consequences of this miscalculation can be seen in the stories of three large banks the government ultimately rescued from collapse.
The Fed let Citigroup make vast investments without setting aside enough money to cover its eventual losses. The company would need more than $45 billion in federal aid.
The Fed watched as National City made billions of dollars in subprime loans that were never repaid. Regulators would arrange its sale to a rival, PNC.
And the Fed approved Wachovia's purchase of a California mortgage lender shortly before California mortgage lenders led the nation into recession. Wachovia, on the verge of collapse, was bought by Wells Fargo with government help.
"I don't think any regulatory agency can deny that it didn't have adequately targeted supervision in place," said Fed governor Daniel Tarullo, appointed by President Obama to overhaul the Fed's approach to regulation.
"Worldwide, there wasn't enough done on capital, liquidity and risk-management requirements. . . . There wasn't a structure in the supervisory process in which to ask the questions that needed to be asked about emerging risks throughout the financial system."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who has called the Fed's performance an "abysmal failure," wants to give its job to a new agency. Tarullo said the appropriate response is to improve the Fed, not to replace it.
"Supervision of the largest institutions is something that's going to be very hard to do and to do well," Tarullo said, "and the Fed is the one part of government that has the resources and the capacity and the expertise to fill this role."
Citigroup's bad bets
Citigroup grew fat during the great moderation, thanks to rules crafted by the Fed that allowed banks to gamble beyond their means.
For a time, the nation's largest bank profited massively. But as the crisis rolled in, Citigroup quickly ran low on money to cover its losing bets.
The crux of the problem was capital, the reserve that banks are required to hold against unexpected losses.
While bank regulation is divided among four federal agencies, the Fed has long played the leading role in dictating how much capital banks should hold. By the late 1990s, those rules were outdated.
Rather than wait for borrowers to repay loans, banks were adopting a technique called securitization.
The banks created pools of loans and sold investors the right to collect portions of the inflowing payments. The bank got its money upfront.
Equally important, under accounting rules it was allowed to report that the loans had been sold, and therefore it did not need to hold any additional capital. But in many cases, the bank still pledged to cover losses if borrowers defaulted.
"It was like selling your car but agreeing to keep paying for any maintenance, repairs, oil changes," said Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University. "You've sold the benefit of the automobile, but you haven't sold the risk."
The Fed embraced securitization nonetheless. Increased lending boosted the economy. The Fed also wanted banks to remain competitive with lenders including General Electric and GMAC that were not subject to capital requirements.
Furthermore, the central bank trusted in the wisdom of financial markets, and investors were cheering companies that used securitization to boost profit.
In November 2001, the Fed and its fellow regulators ruled that securitization made banks safer.
In general, banks must hold $10 in capital for every $100 in loans and other assets, but banks can hold less on safer assets such as U.S. government bonds.
The safe list was now expanded. The Fed and its fellow federal regulators ruled that banks could hold as little as $5 on every $100 investment in loan pools.
The dangers of securitization were underscored the very next month by the collapse of energy giant Enron, which had abused the same accounting rules to conceal losses from investors.
But in 2003, the board that writes accounting rules backed away from planned reforms after banks protested that Enron was an exception.
The Fed sided with the industry, telling the board that securitization was safe and important to the economy, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Citigroup took grand advantage. By the end of 2006, the company had created pools holding more than $2 trillion in mortgage loans and other assets. The pools let Citigroup increase the assets it owned and controlled by 68 percent while increasing the size of its capital reserves by only 36 percent.
Citigroup kept creating loan pools for a year after the housing market started to sour. One of the last, launched July 27, 2007, was named Bonifacius, after a general immortalized by the historian Edward Gibbon as "the last of the Romans" because he died as the empire was collapsing.
By the early fall the new Bonifacius, along with the rest of the mortgage industry, was collapsing, too.
Citigroup found itself unable to sell a huge supply of high-risk loans it had made and bought as stock for loan pools. It also held a vast portfolio of shares in loan pools. As borrowers defaulted, the value of these loans and investments plummeted.
By the fall of 2008, Citigroup's spiraling losses had pushed it to the brink of collapse. The company held enough capital to meet the Fed's requirements; it just didn't hold enough to survive.
The federal government raced to provide the company with a pair of taxpayer bailouts, effectively increasing its capital by $65 billion -- or 48 percent more than it held at the end of 2007.
'No substantial issues'
In fall 2006, the Fed conducted a broad review of the nation's largest banks. The result was a picture of an industry in good health.
The report, called "Large Financial Institutions' Perspectives on Risk," found "no substantial issues of supervisory concern for these large financial institutions" and that "asset quality . . . remains strong," according to a summary by the Government Accountability Office. The Fed declined to release the internal report.
One bank given a clean bill of health was National City, a Cleveland company that had slowly built a regional presence in the Midwest and then quickly expanded into one of the nation's largest subprime mortgage lenders.
The Fed had another look in August 2007 when National City applied for permission to buy a small bank in Chicago. Fed regulators looked at National City's books and its management and again found nothing amiss.
In reality, the bank was ailing. Its subprime borrowers were starting to default on their loans. Less than two months after the Fed approved the merger, National City reported a third-quarter net loss of $19 million. The company never returned to profitability.
The Fed's failure to see the rot inside National City resulted from the central bank's reliance on others to identify problems.
In part this was a matter of policy. The Fed regulated National City, but the company's major subsidiary, a bank also called National City, was regulated by another federal agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In 1999, Congress passed a law instructing the Fed to rely on the OCC "to the fullest extent possible."
The law clearly authorized the Fed to conduct its own reviews where necessary, but the Fed lacked an effective system for determining when it should look more closely, said Orice Williams, director of financial markets and community investment at the GAO.
"If you aren't looking, how would you know there is a problem?" Williams said.
The hands-off approach also was a matter of philosophy. Rather than scrutinize banks directly, the Fed decided to push them to appoint internal risk managers who imposed their own checks and balances. Regulators focused on watching the watchmen.
Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, said that banking was becoming too complicated for regulators to keep up. As he put it bluntly in 1994, self-regulation was increasingly necessary "largely because government regulators cannot do that job."
Greenspan revisited the theme in a 2000 speech, saying, "The speed of transactions and the growing complexities of these instruments have required federal and state examiners to focus supervision more on risk-management procedures than on actual portfolios."
Some experts say the reliance on others clouded the central bank's ability to see the trouble brewing on the balance sheets of large banks. Others argue that the Fed had a clear view of the problems; it simply underestimated the risk. Either way, the approach had dire consequences.
By 2006, National City had become primarily a subprime mortgage lender, federal data show. Even as the Fed continued to regard National City as healthy, the company's executives were increasingly divided, with some warning that National City needed to pull back.
The following year, the bank sold its subprime lending operation to Merrill Lynch, but by then it was too late to get rid of the loans. As defaults rose, so did losses, and the bank could no longer persuade investors to lend it the money it needed to survive.
In fall 2008, regulators arranged for the company to be sold for a pittance to its Pittsburgh rival PNC.
A warning ignored
In January 2005, National City's chief economist had delivered a prescient warning to the Fed's board of governors: An increasingly overvalued housing market posed a threat to the broader economy, not to mention his own bank and others deeply involved in writing mortgages.
The message wasn't well received. One board member expressed particular skepticism -- Ben Bernanke.
"Where do you think it will be the worst?" Bernanke asked, according to people who attended the meeting, one in a series of sessions the Fed holds with economists.
"I would have to say California," said the economist, Richard Dekaser.
"They have been saying that about California since I bought my first house in 1979," Bernanke replied.
This time the warnings were correct, and the collapse of the California real estate market would bring down the nation's fourth-largest bank, the largest casualty of the financial crisis.
Dekaser and Bernanke declined to comment on the exchange.
The Obama administration wants the Fed to police financial risks to the broader economy, a job that entails sorting real threats from the constant false alarms.
But in the dying days of the great moderation, the Fed repeatedly failed to discern which warnings were worth heeding.
In May 2006, the nation's fourth-largest bank, Wachovia, signed a deal to buy Golden West, one of the largest mortgage lenders in California. The Fed again was bombarded with warnings about California's housing bubble. A few even warned that the deal could endanger Wachovia.
"Should Wachovia's acquisition be approved, no commercial bank in the country will be in a more potentially unsafe financial position," Robert Gnaizda, policy director for the Greenlining Institute, a fair lending group in California, wrote in an August 2006 letter to the Fed.
The next month the board unanimously approved the deal. The Fed wrote in its approval that it had "carefully considered" the warnings about Golden West and concluded that Wachovia had sufficient capital to absorb losses and effective systems for assessing and managing risks.
The Fed's power to reject the merger application was a potentially important check on the wave of mergers that created banks so large that their distress would threaten the economy.
But from 1999 through last month, the Fed approved 5,670 applications to create or buy a bank and in that time denied only one. Fed officials note that 549 banks withdrew applications, in some cases under pressure from regulators.
The Fed's confidence in Wachovia was misplaced. The company's executives would later concede basic errors in risk management.
Wachovia concentrated lending in California's inland counties, where housing prices would fall more sharply than along the coast.
The bank also continued to offer Golden West's signature product, a mortgage built like a credit card that allowed borrowers to pay less than they owed each month for the first several years of the loan.
When the time came to start making full payments, many borrowers lacked the money. Consumer advocates described the loans as "time bombs."
By fall 2008, the bombs were exploding and Wachovia's losses were rising rapidly. Two years after Wachovia closed its deal for Golden West, regulators told the company it could no longer survive on its own.
A hasty sale to Wells Fargo was arranged with the help of billions of dollars in federal tax breaks.
Trusting the banks
Even on the verge of the financial crisis, the Fed continued to push for new international rules that would let many large banks hold less capital.
Under the proposed rules, called Basel II after the Swiss city where they were drafted, regulators further increased their reliance on banks' risk assessments, which now for the first time would form the basis for determining how much capital they should hold.
Not surprisingly, a test run conducted as part of the negotiations in 2005 found that the new rules would allow the 26 largest American banks to reduce their capital reserves by an average of 15 percent.
A key reason: The rules let banks hold much less capital on mortgage loans, still regarded as safe by regulators blind to the impending crisis.
The Fed presided over the international negotiations, but the skepticism of other U.S. regulators delayed the process and forced the Fed to limit how much capital banks could shed.
As late as summer 2007, Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., warned that the new rules "come uncomfortably close to letting banks set their own capital requirements."
Others warned that banks had no proven track record of measuring their own risks.
Finally, in December 2007, after almost a decade of work, the Fed persuaded the other agencies to approve the rules, although implementation was again delayed by several years.
One month later, Citigroup announced that it had lost $18 billion on mortgage-related investments. The former chief executive, Charles Prince, later told Congress that the company's internal systems for measuring risk "were wrong." The company immediately raised $12.5 billion in new capital from private investors.
It would eventually need much more.
tags: bernanke banks recession fed
Copenhagen: Imperialism Imposes Its Interests
Blame Bernanke for 'Great Recession'
Fed's 'Lite' Regulation Left Banks Exposed to Crisis
Bernanke, who was in charge of regulating the nation's largest banks, told the audience of bankers that their companies were not at risk. He said most were not even involved in subprime lending. And the broader economy, he concluded, would be fine.
Foreclosures already pocked Chicago's poorer neighborhoods but the downtown still was booming as the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago convened its annual conference in May 2007.
The keynote speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, assured the bankers and businessmen gathered at the Westin Hotel on Michigan Avenue that their prosperity was not threatened by the plight of borrowers struggling to repay high-cost subprime loans.
Bernanke, who was in charge of regulating the nation's largest banks, told the audience that these firms were not at risk. He said most were not even involved in subprime lending. And the broader economy, he concluded, would be fine.
"Importantly, we see no serious broad spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market," Bernanke said. "The troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits."
He was wrong. Five of the 10 largest subprime lenders during the previous year were banks regulated by the Fed. Even as Bernanke spoke, the spillover from subprime lending was driving the banking industry into a historic crisis that some firms would not survive. And the upheaval would shove the economy into recession.
Just as the Fed had failed to protect borrowers from the consequences of subprime lending, so too had it failed to protect banks.
The central bank's performance has sparked a great debate about its future as a regulator, pitting those who want to expand its role against those who want to strip its powers.
It also has come under pressure from politicians seeking greater oversight of its primary job, adjusting interest rates to moderate economic growth.
The battles have complicated Bernanke's bid for a second term as chairman. The Senate Banking Committee voted to approve Bernanke 16 to 7 on Thursday, setting the stage for a January battle on the Senate floor.
The Fed's failure to foresee the crisis or to require adequate safeguards happened in part because it did not understand the risks that banks were taking, according to documents and interviews with more than three dozen current and former government officials, bank executives and regulatory experts.
Regulatory agencies exist to lean against the wind. But rather than looking for warning signs, the Fed had joined -- and at times defined -- the mainstream consensus among policymakers that financial innovations had made banking safer.
Bernanke said the economy had entered an era of smaller and less frequent downturns, which he and others called "the great moderation."
The consequences of this miscalculation can be seen in the stories of three large banks the government ultimately rescued from collapse.
The Fed let Citigroup make vast investments without setting aside enough money to cover its eventual losses. The company would need more than $45 billion in federal aid.
The Fed watched as National City made billions of dollars in subprime loans that were never repaid. Regulators would arrange its sale to a rival, PNC.
And the Fed approved Wachovia's purchase of a California mortgage lender shortly before California mortgage lenders led the nation into recession. Wachovia, on the verge of collapse, was bought by Wells Fargo with government help.
"I don't think any regulatory agency can deny that it didn't have adequately targeted supervision in place," said Fed governor Daniel Tarullo, appointed by President Obama to overhaul the Fed's approach to regulation.
"Worldwide, there wasn't enough done on capital, liquidity and risk-management requirements. . . . There wasn't a structure in the supervisory process in which to ask the questions that needed to be asked about emerging risks throughout the financial system."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who has called the Fed's performance an "abysmal failure," wants to give its job to a new agency. Tarullo said the appropriate response is to improve the Fed, not to replace it.
"Supervision of the largest institutions is something that's going to be very hard to do and to do well," Tarullo said, "and the Fed is the one part of government that has the resources and the capacity and the expertise to fill this role."
Citigroup's bad bets
Citigroup grew fat during the great moderation, thanks to rules crafted by the Fed that allowed banks to gamble beyond their means.
For a time, the nation's largest bank profited massively. But as the crisis rolled in, Citigroup quickly ran low on money to cover its losing bets.
The crux of the problem was capital, the reserve that banks are required to hold against unexpected losses.
While bank regulation is divided among four federal agencies, the Fed has long played the leading role in dictating how much capital banks should hold. By the late 1990s, those rules were outdated.
Rather than wait for borrowers to repay loans, banks were adopting a technique called securitization.
The banks created pools of loans and sold investors the right to collect portions of the inflowing payments. The bank got its money upfront.
Equally important, under accounting rules it was allowed to report that the loans had been sold, and therefore it did not need to hold any additional capital. But in many cases, the bank still pledged to cover losses if borrowers defaulted.
"It was like selling your car but agreeing to keep paying for any maintenance, repairs, oil changes," said Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Louisiana State University. "You've sold the benefit of the automobile, but you haven't sold the risk."
The Fed embraced securitization nonetheless. Increased lending boosted the economy. The Fed also wanted banks to remain competitive with lenders including General Electric and GMAC that were not subject to capital requirements.
Furthermore, the central bank trusted in the wisdom of financial markets, and investors were cheering companies that used securitization to boost profit.
In November 2001, the Fed and its fellow regulators ruled that securitization made banks safer.
In general, banks must hold $10 in capital for every $100 in loans and other assets, but banks can hold less on safer assets such as U.S. government bonds.
The safe list was now expanded. The Fed and its fellow federal regulators ruled that banks could hold as little as $5 on every $100 investment in loan pools.
The dangers of securitization were underscored the very next month by the collapse of energy giant Enron, which had abused the same accounting rules to conceal losses from investors.
But in 2003, the board that writes accounting rules backed away from planned reforms after banks protested that Enron was an exception.
The Fed sided with the industry, telling the board that securitization was safe and important to the economy, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Citigroup took grand advantage. By the end of 2006, the company had created pools holding more than $2 trillion in mortgage loans and other assets. The pools let Citigroup increase the assets it owned and controlled by 68 percent while increasing the size of its capital reserves by only 36 percent.
Citigroup kept creating loan pools for a year after the housing market started to sour. One of the last, launched July 27, 2007, was named Bonifacius, after a general immortalized by the historian Edward Gibbon as "the last of the Romans" because he died as the empire was collapsing.
By the early fall the new Bonifacius, along with the rest of the mortgage industry, was collapsing, too.
Citigroup found itself unable to sell a huge supply of high-risk loans it had made and bought as stock for loan pools. It also held a vast portfolio of shares in loan pools. As borrowers defaulted, the value of these loans and investments plummeted.
By the fall of 2008, Citigroup's spiraling losses had pushed it to the brink of collapse. The company held enough capital to meet the Fed's requirements; it just didn't hold enough to survive.
The federal government raced to provide the company with a pair of taxpayer bailouts, effectively increasing its capital by $65 billion -- or 48 percent more than it held at the end of 2007.
'No substantial issues'
In fall 2006, the Fed conducted a broad review of the nation's largest banks. The result was a picture of an industry in good health.
The report, called "Large Financial Institutions' Perspectives on Risk," found "no substantial issues of supervisory concern for these large financial institutions" and that "asset quality . . . remains strong," according to a summary by the Government Accountability Office. The Fed declined to release the internal report.
One bank given a clean bill of health was National City, a Cleveland company that had slowly built a regional presence in the Midwest and then quickly expanded into one of the nation's largest subprime mortgage lenders.
The Fed had another look in August 2007 when National City applied for permission to buy a small bank in Chicago. Fed regulators looked at National City's books and its management and again found nothing amiss.
In reality, the bank was ailing. Its subprime borrowers were starting to default on their loans. Less than two months after the Fed approved the merger, National City reported a third-quarter net loss of $19 million. The company never returned to profitability.
The Fed's failure to see the rot inside National City resulted from the central bank's reliance on others to identify problems.
In part this was a matter of policy. The Fed regulated National City, but the company's major subsidiary, a bank also called National City, was regulated by another federal agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In 1999, Congress passed a law instructing the Fed to rely on the OCC "to the fullest extent possible."
The law clearly authorized the Fed to conduct its own reviews where necessary, but the Fed lacked an effective system for determining when it should look more closely, said Orice Williams, director of financial markets and community investment at the GAO.
"If you aren't looking, how would you know there is a problem?" Williams said.
The hands-off approach also was a matter of philosophy. Rather than scrutinize banks directly, the Fed decided to push them to appoint internal risk managers who imposed their own checks and balances. Regulators focused on watching the watchmen.
Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, said that banking was becoming too complicated for regulators to keep up. As he put it bluntly in 1994, self-regulation was increasingly necessary "largely because government regulators cannot do that job."
Greenspan revisited the theme in a 2000 speech, saying, "The speed of transactions and the growing complexities of these instruments have required federal and state examiners to focus supervision more on risk-management procedures than on actual portfolios."
Some experts say the reliance on others clouded the central bank's ability to see the trouble brewing on the balance sheets of large banks. Others argue that the Fed had a clear view of the problems; it simply underestimated the risk. Either way, the approach had dire consequences.
By 2006, National City had become primarily a subprime mortgage lender, federal data show. Even as the Fed continued to regard National City as healthy, the company's executives were increasingly divided, with some warning that National City needed to pull back.
The following year, the bank sold its subprime lending operation to Merrill Lynch, but by then it was too late to get rid of the loans. As defaults rose, so did losses, and the bank could no longer persuade investors to lend it the money it needed to survive.
In fall 2008, regulators arranged for the company to be sold for a pittance to its Pittsburgh rival PNC.
A warning ignored
In January 2005, National City's chief economist had delivered a prescient warning to the Fed's board of governors: An increasingly overvalued housing market posed a threat to the broader economy, not to mention his own bank and others deeply involved in writing mortgages.
The message wasn't well received. One board member expressed particular skepticism -- Ben Bernanke.
"Where do you think it will be the worst?" Bernanke asked, according to people who attended the meeting, one in a series of sessions the Fed holds with economists.
"I would have to say California," said the economist, Richard Dekaser.
"They have been saying that about California since I bought my first house in 1979," Bernanke replied.
This time the warnings were correct, and the collapse of the California real estate market would bring down the nation's fourth-largest bank, the largest casualty of the financial crisis.
Dekaser and Bernanke declined to comment on the exchange.
The Obama administration wants the Fed to police financial risks to the broader economy, a job that entails sorting real threats from the constant false alarms.
But in the dying days of the great moderation, the Fed repeatedly failed to discern which warnings were worth heeding.
In May 2006, the nation's fourth-largest bank, Wachovia, signed a deal to buy Golden West, one of the largest mortgage lenders in California. The Fed again was bombarded with warnings about California's housing bubble. A few even warned that the deal could endanger Wachovia.
"Should Wachovia's acquisition be approved, no commercial bank in the country will be in a more potentially unsafe financial position," Robert Gnaizda, policy director for the Greenlining Institute, a fair lending group in California, wrote in an August 2006 letter to the Fed.
The next month the board unanimously approved the deal. The Fed wrote in its approval that it had "carefully considered" the warnings about Golden West and concluded that Wachovia had sufficient capital to absorb losses and effective systems for assessing and managing risks.
The Fed's power to reject the merger application was a potentially important check on the wave of mergers that created banks so large that their distress would threaten the economy.
But from 1999 through last month, the Fed approved 5,670 applications to create or buy a bank and in that time denied only one. Fed officials note that 549 banks withdrew applications, in some cases under pressure from regulators.
The Fed's confidence in Wachovia was misplaced. The company's executives would later concede basic errors in risk management.
Wachovia concentrated lending in California's inland counties, where housing prices would fall more sharply than along the coast.
The bank also continued to offer Golden West's signature product, a mortgage built like a credit card that allowed borrowers to pay less than they owed each month for the first several years of the loan.
When the time came to start making full payments, many borrowers lacked the money. Consumer advocates described the loans as "time bombs."
By fall 2008, the bombs were exploding and Wachovia's losses were rising rapidly. Two years after Wachovia closed its deal for Golden West, regulators told the company it could no longer survive on its own.
A hasty sale to Wells Fargo was arranged with the help of billions of dollars in federal tax breaks.
Trusting the banks
Even on the verge of the financial crisis, the Fed continued to push for new international rules that would let many large banks hold less capital.
Under the proposed rules, called Basel II after the Swiss city where they were drafted, regulators further increased their reliance on banks' risk assessments, which now for the first time would form the basis for determining how much capital they should hold.
Not surprisingly, a test run conducted as part of the negotiations in 2005 found that the new rules would allow the 26 largest American banks to reduce their capital reserves by an average of 15 percent.
A key reason: The rules let banks hold much less capital on mortgage loans, still regarded as safe by regulators blind to the impending crisis.
The Fed presided over the international negotiations, but the skepticism of other U.S. regulators delayed the process and forced the Fed to limit how much capital banks could shed.
As late as summer 2007, Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., warned that the new rules "come uncomfortably close to letting banks set their own capital requirements."
Others warned that banks had no proven track record of measuring their own risks.
Finally, in December 2007, after almost a decade of work, the Fed persuaded the other agencies to approve the rules, although implementation was again delayed by several years.
One month later, Citigroup announced that it had lost $18 billion on mortgage-related investments. The former chief executive, Charles Prince, later told Congress that the company's internal systems for measuring risk "were wrong." The company immediately raised $12.5 billion in new capital from private investors.
It would eventually need much more.
tags: bernanke banks recession fed
Obama:Another Fucking War President
Obama: Another Fucking War President
« H E » email
posted Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Obama: Another Fucking War President
The Neocons Are Back: "Attack Iran!"
Forty Million Americans Are Living in Poverty
"I Love My Troops"
America's 'Defense' Industry Needs
Its Products to Be Consumed
Thus, Endless War
Obama vowed to continue Bush's war policies in Afghanistan. He has more than doubled the number of US troops and aircraft. Obama's eagerness to expand the war demonstrates his political inexperience and a faulty grasp of events in Afghanistan.
A change of administration in Washington, and departure of the reviled Bush, offered an ideal opportunity for Washington to declare a pause in the Afghan War and reassess its policies.
It also presented an ideal opportunity to offer negotiations to Taliban and its growing number of supporters.
The Afghan War will have to be ended by a political settlement that includes the Taliban-led nationalist alliance that represents over half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun people.
There is simply no purely military solution to this grinding conflict - as even the Secretary General of NATO admits.
But instead of diplomacy, the new administration elected to stick its head ever deeper into the Afghan hornet's nest. The bill for an intensified war has now reached $4 billion monthly.
This at a time when the United States is bankrupt and running on borrowed money from China and Japan.
The 20,000 to 30,000 more US troops slated to go to Afghanistan will also be standing on a smoking volcano: Pakistan.
The Afghan War is relentlessly seeping into Pakistan, enflaming its people against the NATO powers and, as Lord West rightly says, generating new jihadist forces.
Polls show most Pakistanis strongly oppose the US-led war in Afghanistan and the grudging involvement of their armed forces in it. Intensifying US air attacks on Pakistan have aroused fierce anti-American sentiment across this nation of 165 million.
Why is President Obama, who came to power on an anti-war platform, committed to expanding a war where there are no vital US interests?
Oil is certainly one reason. The proposed route for pipelines taking oil and gas from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea coast runs right through Taliban-Pashtun territory.
Another reason: Americans still want revenge for 9/11. In the absence of a clear perpetrator, the Taliban has been selected as the most convenient and identifiable target though it had nothing to do with the attacks and knew nothing about them.
The 9/11 attacks were mounted from Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan, and planned by a group of Pakistanis. Washington has yet to offer a White Paper promised in 2001 'proving' the guilt of Osama bin Laden in the attacks.
There is also the less obvious question of NATO. Washington arm-twisted the reluctant NATO alliance badly for the US-led forces as their vulnerable supply lines come increasingly under Taliban attack.
Here in Europe, the majority of public opinion opposes the Afghanistan War as a neo-colonial adventure for oil and imperial influence.
The US could survive a defeat in Afghanistan, as it did in Vietnam. But the NATO alliance might not.
The end of the Cold War and collapse of the USSR removed the raison d'être from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which was created to resist Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of America's leading strategists, NATO serves as the primary tool for America's strategic domination of Europe. Japan fulfills the same role for the US in Asia. The Soviet Union used the Warsaw Pact to dominate Eastern Europe.
The US also uses NATO to help deter the creation of a truly united - and rival - Europe with its own unified armed forces. The EU will not become a truly integrated national state until it has its own independent armed forces.
NATO's defeat in Afghanistan would raise questions about its continuing purpose and obedience to US strategic demands.
Calls would inevitably come for empowerment of the European Defense Union, an independent European armed force that answers to the EU in Brussels, not to Washington.
This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons why vested interests in Washington - notably the Pentagon - have prevailed on the new president to expand the war in Afghanistan by claiming that America's influence in Europe depends on victory in Afghanistan.
The US and its allies cannot be seen to be defeated by a bunch of Afghan tribesmen.
Coming after the epic defeat in Vietnam and the trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq, defeat in Afghanistan is simply unthinkable to the military-industrial-petroleum-financial complex.
The last empire that suffered defeat at the hands of the Afghans, the once mighty Soviet Union, quickly fell apart. Washington has clearly taken this dire lesson to heart.
tags: afghanistan war president obama
« H E » email
posted Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Obama: Another Fucking War President
The Neocons Are Back: "Attack Iran!"
Forty Million Americans Are Living in Poverty
"I Love My Troops"
America's 'Defense' Industry Needs
Its Products to Be Consumed
Thus, Endless War
Obama vowed to continue Bush's war policies in Afghanistan. He has more than doubled the number of US troops and aircraft. Obama's eagerness to expand the war demonstrates his political inexperience and a faulty grasp of events in Afghanistan.
A change of administration in Washington, and departure of the reviled Bush, offered an ideal opportunity for Washington to declare a pause in the Afghan War and reassess its policies.
It also presented an ideal opportunity to offer negotiations to Taliban and its growing number of supporters.
The Afghan War will have to be ended by a political settlement that includes the Taliban-led nationalist alliance that represents over half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun people.
There is simply no purely military solution to this grinding conflict - as even the Secretary General of NATO admits.
But instead of diplomacy, the new administration elected to stick its head ever deeper into the Afghan hornet's nest. The bill for an intensified war has now reached $4 billion monthly.
This at a time when the United States is bankrupt and running on borrowed money from China and Japan.
The 20,000 to 30,000 more US troops slated to go to Afghanistan will also be standing on a smoking volcano: Pakistan.
The Afghan War is relentlessly seeping into Pakistan, enflaming its people against the NATO powers and, as Lord West rightly says, generating new jihadist forces.
Polls show most Pakistanis strongly oppose the US-led war in Afghanistan and the grudging involvement of their armed forces in it. Intensifying US air attacks on Pakistan have aroused fierce anti-American sentiment across this nation of 165 million.
Why is President Obama, who came to power on an anti-war platform, committed to expanding a war where there are no vital US interests?
Oil is certainly one reason. The proposed route for pipelines taking oil and gas from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea coast runs right through Taliban-Pashtun territory.
Another reason: Americans still want revenge for 9/11. In the absence of a clear perpetrator, the Taliban has been selected as the most convenient and identifiable target though it had nothing to do with the attacks and knew nothing about them.
The 9/11 attacks were mounted from Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan, and planned by a group of Pakistanis. Washington has yet to offer a White Paper promised in 2001 'proving' the guilt of Osama bin Laden in the attacks.
There is also the less obvious question of NATO. Washington arm-twisted the reluctant NATO alliance badly for the US-led forces as their vulnerable supply lines come increasingly under Taliban attack.
Here in Europe, the majority of public opinion opposes the Afghanistan War as a neo-colonial adventure for oil and imperial influence.
The US could survive a defeat in Afghanistan, as it did in Vietnam. But the NATO alliance might not.
The end of the Cold War and collapse of the USSR removed the raison d'être from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which was created to resist Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of America's leading strategists, NATO serves as the primary tool for America's strategic domination of Europe. Japan fulfills the same role for the US in Asia. The Soviet Union used the Warsaw Pact to dominate Eastern Europe.
The US also uses NATO to help deter the creation of a truly united - and rival - Europe with its own unified armed forces. The EU will not become a truly integrated national state until it has its own independent armed forces.
NATO's defeat in Afghanistan would raise questions about its continuing purpose and obedience to US strategic demands.
Calls would inevitably come for empowerment of the European Defense Union, an independent European armed force that answers to the EU in Brussels, not to Washington.
This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons why vested interests in Washington - notably the Pentagon - have prevailed on the new president to expand the war in Afghanistan by claiming that America's influence in Europe depends on victory in Afghanistan.
The US and its allies cannot be seen to be defeated by a bunch of Afghan tribesmen.
Coming after the epic defeat in Vietnam and the trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq, defeat in Afghanistan is simply unthinkable to the military-industrial-petroleum-financial complex.
The last empire that suffered defeat at the hands of the Afghans, the once mighty Soviet Union, quickly fell apart. Washington has clearly taken this dire lesson to heart.
tags: afghanistan war president obama
Monday, December 21, 2009
Obama's healthcare reform is a piece of shit
Idiocy
by kos
Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 08:20:08 AM PST
I get spam:
We will not back down
From: President Barack Obama to Markos
Markos --
As we head into the final stretch on health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.
So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.
But do not doubt -- the opponents of reform will not rest. So I need you to fight alongside me.
We must continue to build out our campaign -- to spread the facts on the air and on the ground, and to bring in more volunteers and train them to join the fight. I urgently need your help to keep this 50-state movement for reform going strong.
Please donate $5 or whatever you can afford today:
http://my.democrats.org/...
Let's win this together,
President Barack Obama
Really? All we have to do is send the DNC $5 and we get ponies? The same DNC that is enabling corporatist Democrats to water down and destroy any hope for health care reform? That DNC?
This is so freakin' obnoxious I can hardly stand it. We are about to get a turd of a "reform" package, potentially worse than the status quo. We have the insurance industry declaring victory, Republicans cackling with glee, and the administration is using that piece of shit to raise money?
Obama spent all year enabling Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, and he thinks we're supposed to get excited about whatever end result we're about to get, so much so that we're going to fork over money? Well, it might work with some of you guys, but I'm certainly not biting. In fact, this is insulting, betraying a lack of understanding of just how pissed the base is at this so-called reform. The administration may be happy to declare victory with a mandate that enriches insurance companies, yet creates little incentive to control costs or change the very business practices that have screwed so many people. But I'll pass.
Democrats are demoralized, and have little incentive to turn out next year. The teabaggers will turn out. If this is how the Obama camp thinks we can energize the base -- by promising them a health care pony for $5 to the same Democratic Party that is home to the likes of Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and the rest of the obstructionist gang -- then we're in for a world of hurt in 2010.
by kos
Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 08:20:08 AM PST
I get spam:
We will not back down
From: President Barack Obama to Markos
Markos --
As we head into the final stretch on health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.
So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.
But do not doubt -- the opponents of reform will not rest. So I need you to fight alongside me.
We must continue to build out our campaign -- to spread the facts on the air and on the ground, and to bring in more volunteers and train them to join the fight. I urgently need your help to keep this 50-state movement for reform going strong.
Please donate $5 or whatever you can afford today:
http://my.democrats.org/...
Let's win this together,
President Barack Obama
Really? All we have to do is send the DNC $5 and we get ponies? The same DNC that is enabling corporatist Democrats to water down and destroy any hope for health care reform? That DNC?
This is so freakin' obnoxious I can hardly stand it. We are about to get a turd of a "reform" package, potentially worse than the status quo. We have the insurance industry declaring victory, Republicans cackling with glee, and the administration is using that piece of shit to raise money?
Obama spent all year enabling Max Baucus and Olympia Snowe, and he thinks we're supposed to get excited about whatever end result we're about to get, so much so that we're going to fork over money? Well, it might work with some of you guys, but I'm certainly not biting. In fact, this is insulting, betraying a lack of understanding of just how pissed the base is at this so-called reform. The administration may be happy to declare victory with a mandate that enriches insurance companies, yet creates little incentive to control costs or change the very business practices that have screwed so many people. But I'll pass.
Democrats are demoralized, and have little incentive to turn out next year. The teabaggers will turn out. If this is how the Obama camp thinks we can energize the base -- by promising them a health care pony for $5 to the same Democratic Party that is home to the likes of Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and the rest of the obstructionist gang -- then we're in for a world of hurt in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Reggae Rising
