The First Big 'Debate' of '08

For the record, I am not a supporter of Senator Obama. The alternative offered by the Republican wing of the Business Party, McCain and Palin is, however, as pathetic mentally as it is disturbing morally.

Just heard part of the 'Big Debate' between Obama and McCain - little more than a parlour game with a moderator, not a debate at all but that’s the game.

McCain made a gaffe that some might have picked up on re: the opinion of his advisor, Henry 'I'm-not-dead-yet' Kissinger about meeting with Iran.

McCain vehemently refuted Senator Obama's claim that Henry K favored high-level discussions with Iran without setting preconditions. McCain then reflexively bellowed about Iran's vow to destroy Israel, asserting that any high-level meetings without preconditions would serve to legitimize Iran's bellicose anti-Zionist ravings.

Obama was correct, however. Kissinger stated the night before in a panel interview on CNN with other former Secretaries of State that he would recommend the next US president arrange a series of meetings starting with the Secretary of State without pre-conditions.

For McCain to use the vivid specter of the Holocaust as the prime rationale for continuing the failed policies of undiplomatic belligerence toward Iran is one thing. (Politically expedient. Plays well to AIPAC.)

To openly bluster that Kissinger, his own revered advisor, never said the very things he stated clearly the evening before on CNN points out two things, both distressing.

First, McCain’s out of touch on this most important foreign policy issue with one of his own most respected and experienced advisors. To disagree with his advisors is one thing; to rail on that Kissinger never said what he said and use McCain’s decades-long personal relationship with Henry as his supporting argument to refute the veracity of Obama’s claim is ludicrous. (It’s no wonder real debates aren’t presented. It’s also no wonder that McCain tried to opt out of having this little tete-a-tete; in a battle of wits, he’s an unarmed man.)

Second, McCain (and his campaign staff) are apparently so out of touch with current affairs that McCain would enter the most widely touted ‘debate’ of the campaign without an awareness of important public statements on US policy by his own advisor, Henry Kissinger, on a widely seen CNN special on the presidential election with focus on the very 'debate' for which McCain was presumably preparing.

There’s little wonder in light of this gaffe why McCain would prefer not meeting with Iran or other leaders ‘unfriendly’ to the US. He’d get blown out of the water for simple lack of preparation (if not intellect) and then blow a gasket in the resulting temper tantrum.

Bush explains ‘Free Enterprise’

Bush bails out more of his buddies; McCain still thinks banking deregulation is just peachy and Paulson could give a good-god-damn about the US taxpayer.

Bush explains ‘Free Enterprise’

Simply put: it’s not ‘Free’ – not for the taxpayers, anyway.

President Bush: “Our system of free enterprise rests on the conviction that the federal government should interfere in the marketplace only when necessary. Given the precarious state of today’s financial markets and their vital importance to the daily lives of the American people, government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential.”

Essential to maintaining the position of the unscrupulous wastrels, socio-pathic mega-gamblers, and the morally bankrupt business elite, that is.

John McCain weighed in, as well. The Straight-talking Senator was asked by Scott Pelley of ‘60 Minutes’ if he still defended his support of deregulating the financial industry in light of the fiasco on Wall Street.

Scott Pelley: “In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?”

Sen. McCain: “No. I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”

It should be remembered that McCain’s former advisor on economic affairs, Phil Gramm, was one of the principal conspirators in pushing through legislation de-regulating the banking industry.

Meanwhile, on the Hill, Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson feels that American taxpayers who are caught in the credit squeeze created by the mis-management of investment bankers are not entitled to bail-outs or assistance.

Henry Paulson: “The ultimate taxpayer protection will be the stability this troubled asset relief program provides to our financial system, even as it will involve a significant investment of taxpayer dollars. I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative—a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion.”

How Mr Paulson has been able to foretell the future with sufficient accuracy to determine ‘the alternative’ to the American people shelling out an estimated $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) to rescue failed businesses when he presumably could not foresee the current financial debacle remains unanswered. Mr Paulson did not elaborate upon whether or not other less extreme, less ‘bold approach(es)’ had been considered.

It is evident that President Bush and his administration are confident of the largesse of the American taxpayer to rescue even foreign banks from the financial calamity brought on by deregulation and the ‘Free Market’. Over the weekend, the size of the proposed bailout grew as the Bush administration said foreign banks, including Barclays and UBS, should be eligible for the bailout. The Financial Times reports some industry groups are lobbying for the fund to grow even larger by including a clause that would allow banks to account for any losses realized over a number of years.

Secretary Paulson is convinced that the American people will be less burdened by this $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) bail-out than by any attempt by the Fed or the Treasury to assist those millions of home-owners facing fore-closure, homelessness and destitution. Mr Paulson did not expound upon this irrationality.

His worry is ‘economic expansion’, and those folks in foreclosure as a result of predatory sub-prime loan programs simply cannot be expected to be a viable part of the anticipated ‘economic expansion’. Now, that’s what some wags might call ‘compassionate conservatism’.

900,000,000,000

Nine hundred billion

Nine-zero-zero, zero-zero-zero, zero-zero-zero, zero-zero-zero.

No, that number's not from the odometer on the Starship Enterprise nor the distance from here to the center of the galaxy.

That’s $900,000,000,000!

US dollars, that is.

First Bear-Sterns, then Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, now AIG; all are being bail-out by the US government!

That means the US taxpayers (not those who top the 5% stratum and have been getting all the breaks from Reagan-omics Mark II but all the rest of us) are now being forced by the administration to borrow more money to bail-out companies mismanaged by greedy, unscrupulous gamblers.

Meanwhile, some 4,000,000 home-owners who were at the mercy of predatory loan-sharking are forced from their homes for lack of government support. Not to mention our deteriorating infrastructure, under-financed education system, nearly-non-existent health care system, etc which could be - should be – at the front of the line for disbursements rather than these vipers in pin-stripe.

Add that astronomic number to the billions spent (and borrowed) every week to pay for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and anyone with more numeric savvy than a third-grade can see that the US economy is in deep doo-doo.

To hear Bush and McCain talk, you’d think otherwise.

“Sound Fundamentals”? Fundamentally F***ed, you mean, don’t you?

Lingering Ruminations on the RNC (ugh)

You know what really amazed me about the RNC?

The fact that each of the speakers at the RNC, Thompson, Leiberman, McCain and Palin (et al.) went on and on about the problems of America but never, ever mentioned the Bush administration or any of the principals who have master-minded the mess we’re in. Of course, they want to distance themselves from Bush/Cheney and company – Bush delivered his speech from the White House; Cheney was in the Caucasus shilling for Big Oil – that’s easy to figure.

The amazing thing is the deceitful, callous panache, if you will, that was displayed by those hard-working spin-meisters who crafted the speeches at the RNC. Any writer will tell you that would be incredibly difficult to be able to bring up the Iraq debacle, the faltering economy, record home foreclosures, rising unemployment, the power of lobbyists, and so on, pushing all of the right ‘hot buttons’ for voters without ever mentioning or alluding to the fact that all of these problems lay directly at the door of the Bush administrations and the GOP.

Granted that the Dems – inept, complacent bunch of craven goldbricks that they are, with few exceptions – have done next to nothing since gaining control of Congress but rubber stamp the decrees from the Imperial Palace at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but the big problems were well out of the gate by then.

And then to top it all off with calling McCain/Palin a pair of Mavericks and a ticket for Change! Wow! Mavericks that run with the herd and change that won’t actually change anything. Amazing chutzpa!

Of course, it could be called worse things.

They're At It Again!

Like murderous 2-year olds, you can't take your eyes off of them for a moment. They're making war with an ally, now!

The Bush and Cheney Gang - who else!? While the ridiculous spectacle of personality politics in the US distracts us, Bush/Cheney are attacking Pakistan.

Again and again!

Killing hundreds of men, women, children and - oh, by the way, the occasional member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

My, my. Do tell! There are Taliban and Al-Qaeda member in Eastern Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan? In the Tora Bora Mountains! There!?

This is not news. This is the same old info we’ve had since before the Russians bailed on their Afghani adventure. The CIA and the ISI recruited and hired those thugs to harass the Ruskies. The thugs did a pretty good job and they continue to do a pretty good job at harassing occupying forces. And they’re still in the same area of the world where the USA armed them.

Of course, with the Bush/Cheney eyes on a different prize, they were not so interested in finding some Arab with bad kidneys in a cave and bringing him to trial. (What would you imagine we could all learn from several days of Bin Laden’s testimony in a witness box?)

A third of world oil reserves! Makes your head spin! Bush could revive Arbusco Oil (and probably run it into the ground)and Cheney would probably get free virgins and a gazillion bucks a month in retainers from Halliburton just for his rolodex.

But I digress…

US forces are attacking our ‘key partner in the War on Terror’! What the f… is with that? I suppose Bush/Cheney and their round-table of socio-paths figured the Pakistanis wouldn’t mind if the US killed a few dozen people in the Tribal Areas for a ‘good cause’. Of course, they were advised against such an insane, immoral action by the Intelligence Community, but did they listen? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

You’ve got to give credit where it is due, though. This is a tried and true tactic for winning the war on terror; it’s proven successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a nutshell, here’s the plan: make every person in the region hate the US for brutally murdering a family member or loved one. Then everybody in the region, man, woman and child, will share a culturally rooted vow to affect terrible, bloody vengeance on the USA.

That will take care of ‘collateral damage’ for good; whoever’s on photo-op detail at the White House will simply read the teleprompter and sign the executive order making ‘them’ all terrorists.

Ipso facto…

Presto change-o! Nobody’s an innocent because they’ve all been defined as ‘evil terr’rists’ by Imperial decree.

Then we just nuke ‘em all and take the oil.