Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Condoleezza Rice avows; President is above law

Condi Rice Pulls a Nixon: If the President Orders Torture, It Must be Legal

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org Students at Stanford stood still as they listened to former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice speak.  As the scholars pondered the words of the prominent woman who presented her case for waterboarding, many mused; "Is it Richard Nixon, or Condoleezza Rice?  Which person thinks a President is above the law?" One might wonder.  Today, those who viewed a video taped classroom conversation with Secretary Rice express astonishment as well.  In her defense for any action she took to advocate for this an extreme interrogation technique Condoleezza Rice both blamed her former boss, George W. Bush and justified his decision.  "The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

Pupils in the room with the Bush Executive Branch envoy and now, the broader cyberspace community  ponder this interpretation of law and recollect.  More than three decades ago, past President, Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal," Americans rejected the notion   The United States Constitution was often cited.  Yet, today, Miss Rice remembers the reference differently.  Just as Richard M. Nixon was, once physically removed from the White House, citizen Rice has become the source of infinite fascination.

The erudite educator, former Secretary Rice may recall her history; nonetheless, her recollection is not as the recently released, exhaustive, Senate Intelligence Committee reports reveal.  As National Security Adviser to former President George W. Bush, in July 2002, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved a request from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to waterboard the alleged al-Qaida terrorist, Abu Zubaydah.

Philip Zelikow, the policy representative to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the National Securities Council (NSC) Deputies Committee, remembers as the Senate narrative study states.  Indeed, he express his concern his role in intense "interrogation plans," and for awareness that not only were there legal parameters to consider, thoughts of how lives and limbs could be crushed haunted Mister Zelikow.

Today, the former National Securities Council policy commissioner feels he has stayed silent for too long.  Now that light has begun to shine on the Bush Administration's seek-to-destroy-detainees-will strategy the former dissenter from within the Bush White House believes he must speak of what he classifies as torture.  He states, as is substantiated in the infamous "memos." 

(T)he program developed "interrogation plans" to disorient, abuse, dehumanize, and torment individuals over time.

The plan employed the combined, cumulative use of many techniques of medically-monitored physical coercion. Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.

Mister Zelikow retraces as Miss Rice does not.  In 2006, the United States Human Rights First organization revealed, since August 2002 almost 100 Iraq and Afghanistan detainees died, while in the custody of Americans. Accounts affirm, at least 34 of the these fatalities were suspected or confirmed homicides.  Most attest, blood was spilled at the hands of the Bush Administration.  How quickly those who approved such torturous measures forget the methods or the madness that allowed for murder.

As an expert in International Affairs; however, the Professor is likely extremely familiar with history further removed from her own personal reality.  Condoleezza Rice could possibly recite the facts as they relate to the ratification of resolution 39/46 of 10, which was adopted and opened for signature on December 1984.  On June 26, 1987, the General Assembly  put into force what the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment advised.

The approved Articles clearly outline the definition of torture, regardless of country or who might reign.  A casual reader need only peruse the first writ to understand what constitutes extreme persecution or a serious crime against humanity. 

Article 1 
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

The second statement explicates without exception who might have the power to ignore the initial premise.  In short, legally, the sanctioned rule, which the United States signed onto, states no man, women, child, Head of State, President, Premier, Prime Minister, or even autocrat can authorize the intentional infliction of agony.  Nor can a National Security Adviser advocate for what is essentially illegal and inhumane. 

Article 2 
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Yet, Secretary Rice avowed; her conveyance of a communiqué did not amount to a command for consent.  She, personally condoned nothing.  Condoleezza Rice, in her statement to Stanford students declared, "I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."

With International Law in mind, and her own desire not to be implicated in a high crime or misdemeanor, the once top Diplomat, now Political Science Professorand Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute proclaims. 

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)

Perhaps, Condoleezza Rice feels a bit uncertain.  She might think there is need to justify her actions.  As the American people speak of a possible special prosecutor Professor Rice may fear what the Obama Administration might do.  The current President has yet to issue a pardon to Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, former Commander-In-Chief Bush or any of their cohorts.   Miss Rice may hope her words will elicit the forgiveness Richard Milhous Nixon received from his successor, Gerald Ford.  

Likely, the former Secretary of State does now wonder whether her word may be  a greater source of "fascination" to someone such as Sir David Frost.  She is determined not to offer her confessions on air.  Contrite is not Condie's style.  For now, she, as other American's can only reflect on a transcript and wonder, "Is it Condoleezza Rice or Richard Nixon who better channels a questionable confidence?

Please ponder the program, that, were it not for the officially certified clemency, might have done another Administration in. 

Frost: The wave of dissent, occasionally violent, which followed in the wake of the Cambodian incursion, prompted President Nixon to demand better intelligence about the people who were opposing him. To this end, the Deputy White House Counsel, Tom Huston, arranged a series of meetings with representatives of the CIA, the FBI, and other police and intelligence agencies.

These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from J. Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.

Frost: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

Frost: By definition.

Nixon: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Frost: So, that in other words, really you were saying in that answer, really, between the burglary and murder, again, there's no subtle way to say that there was murder of a dissenter in this country because I don't know any evidence to that effect at all. But, the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?

Nixon: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.

Frost: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; speaking of the Presidency and in an interrogatory filed with the Church Committee, you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?

Nixon: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation. 

References for a "reasonable" Nixon/Rice reality . . . . 

• Condi Rice Pulls A Nixon: When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal, By Cenk Uygur.  Huffington Post. April 30, 2009
• Rice delivered OK to waterboarding.  MSNBC News. April 24, 2009
• The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter, By Philip Zelikow.  Foreign Policy. April 21, 2009
• Report probes US custody deaths. British Broadcasting Company. February 21, 2006
• Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment.  The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
• Nixon's Views on Presidential Power:  Excerpts from an Interview with David Frost. Landmark Supreme Court Cases.  May 19, 1977
• Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos. Bradbury And Bybee Memos Are Released In Response To Long-Running ACLU Lawsuits.  American Civil Liberties Union. April 16, 2001
• Torture Memorandums.  U.S. Department of Justice.  Office of Legal Counsel.  The New York Times.
• Condoleezza Rice on returning to campus,  By Adam Gorlick.  Stanford News Service. January 28, 2009
• Context of 'April 6, 1977: Nixon: 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal.'  History Commons.
• Real David Frost remembers 'fascinating' Nixon.  Cable News Network. January 5, 2009

Tortured

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org 

Never for a moment in my life have I been "in love." I do not believe in the notion. Fireworks have not filled my heart. Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me. Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze. Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me. Such sentiments always have. Fondness too fertile is but torture for me. I admire many, and adore none. For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation. To like another means more to me than to love or be loved. Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.

Today, it happened. I felt an a twinge that startled me. I stood still as he entered the room. I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine. Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years. In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed. Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder, what of his principles.

Early on, I knew that he and I differed in some respects. While we each loathe drama, I was never certain if he felt as I do; love need not be a tortuous trauma. Barry spoke of the need to work together. Yet, not necessarily in aspect of life. At times, he advocated aggressive actions I could not consider. This, for me, caused much confusion. Nonetheless, I liked the man I saw before me.

I recall the day we first met, face-to-face. We shook hands. He smiled. Barry was polite, not pushy. Amiable is the way I would describe him. Then, the second time we saw each other, we had a more extensive conversation. He took my hand in his. We each spoke with greater sincerity. As Barry and I chatted , he looked me straight in the eye. He listened to my personal tale. Visibly, he pondered the story I shared. Barry responded so genuinely to my inquiry, albeit an unconventional concern, I was surprised. Indeed, I was impressed, although less than I was when I read what he had written.

His books moved me. The more autobiographical tome endeared him to me. His notes on hope did not lack the spirit to inspire me. As one who "loves" to learn, which differs from the impulsive idea that I might be "in love," a person that can kindle my earnest thirst for knowledge truly electrifies me. I recall the moment I read the text that, all these years later, still resonates within me. Barry humbly offered, in a discussion of empathy . . .

It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule – not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes.

Barry told tales of his mother, his grandfather, and how through his interactions with each he realized there is reason to think "about the struggles and disappointments" others have seen in their lives. Reflection helped the younger Barry understand, every individual is not solely right or wrong. If he were to insist that, his way was the only approach that worked, "without regard to his [or her] feelings or needs, I was in some way diminishing myself." Such awareness, such a superior soul; Barry showed what I believe to be a human's greatest strength, vulnerability. Were I to have a heart to win, the words of this gentle-man could have surely swept me off my feet.

Even his calm demeanor is as I desire and live. Those close to me wonder of my own emotional tranquility. From his manner and manuscript, it would seem Barry believes as I do. Empathy elicits equilibrium. Today, he seemed to embrace this notion once again. We can choose to love our neighbors. We need not torture "those who are different from us."

Near noon, on April 23, 2009, at the Holocaust days of Remembrance Ceremony, Barry, the now President of the United States, Barack Obama spoke of this belief again. Once more, I felt a pang for the person who oft-expressed a profound connection to the feelings of another. The sweet soul who can bring me to tears, did so once again. On this historic occasion, Barry shared a profound realization through a personal story. The subject; the Holocaust and the torture our forebears felt or beheld.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable. My own great uncle returned from his service in World War II in a state of shock, saying little, alone with painful memories that would not leave his head. He went up into the attic, according to the stories that I've heard, and wouldn't come down for six months. He was one of the liberators -- someone who at a very tender age had seen the unimaginable. And so some of the liberators who are here today honor us with their presence -- all of whom we honor for their extraordinary service. My great uncle was part of the 89th Infantry Division -- the first Americans to reach a Nazi concentration camp. And they liberated Ohrdruf, part of Buchenwald, where tens of thousands had perished.

Stunned, by the saga, and the words that preceded the legend, I began to believe again. Perhaps the Barry I admire had a change of heart. Policies he never fully embraced, might not seem reasonable to him now.

During the campaign, Barry, Senator Barack Obama only promised to investigate, not to prosecute. Many months ago, before the August 2008 declaration, and thereafter, I had thought his stance reflected his vast ability to empathize. Yet, in the light of the ample evidence, most if not all of which affirms the Bush Administration engaged in extreme methods of interrogation, President Obama still supports or chooses to sustain a position that negates empathy for the victims. I shudder to think of how the Seventh Generation might be affected.

Hence, I am left to question what I thought was truth. Was the empathy I envisioned not as sincere as I hoped it to be? Perchance that is why, for me, love is as torture. I have faith no one has the power to disappoint me. Only my choices can be a source of much concern. For as long as I can recall, I have observed, once infatuation fades, we learn as I had before Barry entered the Oval Office. He is but another human. He embraces and then forgets, the power of empathy and the force of our past?

When, in homage to Holocaust victims, and survivors of a heinous hostility that forever stains world history, I sensed he knew. As I looked on, I forgot the setting. Intent on the torrent of news on torture techniques I read and heard throughout the day, I made an erroneous connection. As Barry, President Obama spoke of the deeds done in decades past, and those crimes committed by the previous Administration, I imagined the man I thought I knew meant to express empathy for those who suffered at the hands of Americans. The Chief Executive, on behalf of the United States avowed.

Their legacy is our inheritance. And the question is, how do we honor and preserve it? How do we ensure that "never again" isn't an empty slogan, or merely an aspiration, but also a call to action?

I believe we start by doing what we are doing today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-conspirator.

In the face of horrors that defy comprehension, the impulse to silence is understandable.

I cried. Tremendously thankful for the oratory, indeed, I must say, for a second, I was elated.. I wondered. Had the person many think beloved, the individual I at least treasure, decided to rescind his prior position?

Might he have rejected the thought offered recently; "nothing will be gained by our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Could it be the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony helped the President to renew his faith in his earlier expression; "(H)istory returns "with a vengeance . . . "(A)s Faulkner reminds us, the past is never dead and buried -- it isn't even past." I hoped.

Perchance, he had worked through a struggle I too experience. As one who has no desire to hurt others, even those who have physically and psychologically harmed individuals, and our country's image, how might I think prosecution is just?

I truly embrace such an honorable ability to seek no retribution. Indeed, I may not fall "in love"; nonetheless, I would hope to live love.

I feel harsh reprisals are never wise. I also accept the enduring wisdom of a finer balance. I have experienced the need to empathize and the conflict of what I might do if one I treasure intentionally injures another. I have come to discover, if deleterious deeds are allowed to stand, sooner or later the other, I, and perchance, society will be subjected to adulterations that individuals or a culture cannot endure.

Awful actions we accept, avoid, or merely do not acknowledge become a foundation for the future. Humans inure. Lest we forget the Milgram shock experiment of decades ago, or the knowledge that when repeated in the present, proves again, as a Psychologist, Thomas Blass, espoused in “The Man Who Shocked the World.” Milgram extrapolated, to larger events like the Holocaust, or Abu Ghraib. “people can act destructively without coercion." “In things like interrogations, we don’t know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results.”

I wonder how many Americans came to accept violence as a necessity on September 11, 2001. On that dreadful day, a date that now lives in infamy, all Americans were placed in a precarious position. With the threat of terror etched into our every cell, each of us had to ask, what were we to do. In the 2004 edition of Dreams From My Father, the Barry, who I trusted to be so thoughtful whispered his woe for what might occur once the "world fractured." He penned . . .

This collective history, this past, directly touches my own . . .

I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a steady, unthinking application of force, of longer prison sentences and more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task. I know that the hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, dooms us all.

Those are the words of the Barry I was inspired to meet, the person I was reminded of when he stood with an audience of individuals who never forget the agony of torture. Today, as that empathetic soul, the President referred to the future, the generations to come, he stated, "We find cause for hope" when "people of every age and faith and background and race (are) united in common cause with suffering brothers and sisters halfway around the world." I thought of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay prison, and the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the need to empathize with victims of "extreme duress."

Oblivious to the purpose of this particular speech, in my moment of stupor, I surmised Mister Obama had not only accepted the association, but perhaps had realized what could occur if the transgressions of the previous Administration were allowed to stand as if all was in the past.

"Barry," Barack, the Commander-In-Chief, further elucidated; "Those [persons] can be our future . . . (D)uring this season when we celebrate liberation, resurrection, and the possibility of redemption, may each of us renew our resolve to do what must be done. And may we strive each day, both individually and as a nation, to be among the righteous.

I imagined the reference was to empathy, to the paradigms I too embrace. Punishment offers no benefits for people. Yet, there is a need to prosecute the culpable, to ensure that people are answerable for the most atrocious aggressions. It is vital, if we wish to prevent the numbness that humans so easily adopt, we must bring torture to the full light of day. Torment executed in our names, I think Barry would agree, hurts us. Surely, General and President Eisenhower did. Mister Obama acknowledged this only hours ago.

Eisenhower understood the danger of silence. He understood that if no one knew what had happened, that would be yet another atrocity -- and it would be the perpetrators' ultimate triumph.

What Eisenhower did to record these crimes for history is what we are doing here today. That's what Elie Wiesel and the survivors we honor here do by fighting to make their memories part of our collective memory. That's what the Holocaust Museum does every day on our National Mall, the place where we display for the world our triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from our history. It's the very opposite of silence.

But we must also remember that bearing witness is not the end of our obligation -- it's just the beginning. We know that evil has yet to run its course on Earth. We've seen it in this century in the mass graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war.

Barry knows what President Obama. spoke of in his address at the Holocaust Day of Remembrance Ceremony Love needed not be tortured. Expressions of fondness are found in empathy, not extreme duress.

President Eisenhower understood as I had hoped, on this day, Barry Obama had. What occurs far from view is never truly unseen. Nor can avoidance erase the scars left on a heart. While as a country, or as individuals we may prefer to retreat to the attic as President Obama's great uncle did, in truth, it is impossible to forget.

People who participated know this to be so. A belatedly brave Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, Ali Soufan, tell his tales of sorrowful love in My Tortured Decision. The mediator recalls how for seven years he has remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. Mister Soufan, as General Eisenhower did before him saw the need to "shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned."

I inquire; what will Barry do, and what of President Obama. Will the man who once held my hand and professed a need to be empathetic do as he declares his commitment? "(W)e have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges." Might he instead do as he hopes we will not, "wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others' sufferings are not our own."

I can only hope Barry will encourage the President to heed his own call. "(W)e have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- whether confronting those who tell lies about history, or doing everything we can to prevent and end atrocities like those that took place . . ."

Let us never forget Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib, or any America penitentiary camp, need not be our holocaust. Tales of tortured love need not be an American truth.

References for tortured love . . .

• Remarks by the President at the Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony. United States Capitol. April 23, 2009
• Our New Sort of War, It might be the most dangerous of all. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review. April 16, 2009
• Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'. Cable News Network. July 21, 2008
• Obama Challenges Grads to Cultivate Empathy, by Barack Obama. Northwestern University. June 19, 2006
• How Obama Did It, By Karen Tumulty. Time. June 5, 2008
• Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, By Barack Obama. 2004
• Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos. Office of the Press Secretary. White House. April 16, 2009
• On Interrogation Policies, Another Delicate Compromise From Obama, By Ben Pershing. Washington Post. April 17, 2009
• he Audacity of Hope, By Barack Obama
• Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture? By Mark Benjamin. Salon. August 4, 2008
• Science Chief Discusses Climate Strategy, Obama Adviser Hints at Compromise on Cap-and-Trade Emission Allowances. By Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. Thursday, April 9, 2009; A02
• A Guide to the Memos on Torture. The New York Times.
• Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?, By Benedict Carey. The New York Times. July 1, 2008
• William Faulkner.
• My Tortured Decision. By Ali Soufan. The New York Times. April 23, 2009
• In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture, Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said. By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick. Washington Post. Saturday, April 25, 2009

Rethinking Afghanistan; The Terror Tax

Rethink Afghanistan (Part 3): Cost of War

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org Tax time is reason enough to reflect on our budgets, personal and national.  How realistic are our expenditures?  Do we spend more than we earn?  Does our income allow for a few irrational indulgences?  Do discretionary dollars exist?  Might we consider our ample debt.  Does this represent a temporary deficit, easily resolved, or an obligation that cannot be paid promptly.  We may wish to rethink our reality.  At home, families have taken scissors to credit cards.  More than the minimum payment is made.  The intention is to lessen liabilities and increase savings.  In the month of April, after we pay Uncle Sam, most of us concluded, it is time to clean our own fiscal house.  Next, we move to the nation's ledger.   Expenses  The largest share of our moneys go to military operations.  The terror tax has become a tremendous burden of American household and communities.  Yet, few wish to rethink this "duty."

Much to the chagrin of those who do not favor debt, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were paid for on credit.  Taxes were not increased to pay for the two wars.  Indeed, President Bush cut tariff obligations for the American people while he increased the number of dollars devoted to military operations.  

The cash spent on what most would agree were and are protracted conflicts was not placed on the official ledger.  Nor did it exist in American coffers.  What were classified as "emergency supplemental" expenses were made available on loan.  Other countries, rich in resources, furnished the dollars the United States desired.  The currency would need to be re-paid, with interest!  That concept alone could be considered a tax on terror, or an attack on Americans who disfavor debt.

The current Commander-In-Chief promised he would not engage in such tactics.  The Obama Administration would be transparent.  What would be spent on war would be visible in formal, administrative, concrete calculations.  To that end, in February 2009, perhaps before most Americans filed a return, President Obama submitted his budget.  Headlines screamed, Obama's budget is the end of an era.

Cash and Change On Hand 
Change had come.  Obama re-thought Bush policies.  More money would be officially allocated to military operations.  The Pentagon Does Well with Obama Budget. The financial planned commitment to the Pentagon is an abundant $533.7 billion.   This amount represents a 4 percent increase over the previous 2009 allocation. This total excludes money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The budget includes an additional $75 billion in 2009 for "overseas contingency operations," a reference to the battles still ablaze in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locales.  Come 2010, $130 billion more will be available for combat.

Insufficient Funds 
Cautions presented six months ago, on October 15, 2008, by the Congressional Research Service apparently were not heeded by the new Administration.  Citizens also did not realize, cash for these conflicts is not countless.  It never was.  Calculations were offered.  However, then, as now, the numbers were ignored.  Perhaps, all aspects of the ostensibly perpetual wars were not rethought. 

Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan has cost U.S. Tax payers $172 billion to date, with a request for roughly $13.4 billion to fund the war through the remainder of Fiscal year 2009 expected in March or April.  This brings the total cost through FY 2009 to $185.1 billion.

This figures reflect the budgetary cost alone.  Projected costs over the long term are likely to total more than half a trillion dollars when future occupation and veteran's benefits are taken into account.  Interest payments could add another $200 billion to that figure. (1) All told, this is more than the size of the recent bailout of Wall Street, and rivals the historic economic stimulus bill just passed by Congress.

Countries outside the United States have spent additional billions on the War in Afghanistan, with the UK contributing roughly £4.5billion (2)and the cost to Canada totaling $7.7 billion to $10.5 billion in Canadian dollars through 2008. (3). 

Thus far, you and I, the American taxpayer, borrowed one hundred and eighty five billion dollars, or more,  to fight a war thought futile in Afghanistan.  In Iraq the dollars devoted to deploy each troop, one individual, was $500,000.  That is five hundred thousand dollars!  The money spent on a single soldier sent to Afghanistan is expected to be eight-hundred thousand greenbacks.

Financial Future in Doubt 
Many Progressives may wish to wail, "George W. Bush is to blame."  However, people from the political Party that takes pride in the actions of this President might rethink that truth.  

Days before American tax payments were due, Mister Obama asked Congress for an additional eighty three and four tenths billion dollars ($83.4) to fund the war just through the end of the year!  After Mister Obama assured Americans supplemental expenditures to pay for wars would not be requested, the President rescinded the pledge.  Excuses were made.  Explanations given.  Citizens were told the additional allotment would be the first and the last made by President Obama.

It seems circumstances caused the Chief Executive to rethink his stance on spending and Afghanistan.  Perhaps, citizens will also rethink their position.  In truth, only the people have the power to insist, it is time to cut the funds for war.

Rethinking Afghanistan Realities . . . 
Footnote References . . . 
1.  The $3 Trillion War. By Linda Bilmes  and Joseph Stiglitz.  Vanity Fair. April 2008 
2.  Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to £2.5bn, By Richard Norton-Taylor.  The Guardian. Friday 13, 2009 
3.  Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan.

References  and Resources . . . 

• Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? - Tax Day 2009.  National Priorities Project.
• National Debt Clocks and Savings Clocks.  ZFacts.
• Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Economy,By Lee Hudson Teslik.  Council on Foreign Relations.  March 11, 2008
• Testimony on Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Other Activities Related to the War on Terrorism.  Congressional Budget Office. October 24, 2007
• Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released.  U.S. Department of Defense. February 5, 2007
• 110th Congress-Defense Spending Issue Looms, By Michael Moran.  Council on Foreign Relations.  January 4, 2007
• The American Defense Budget.  Center for Defense Information. September 18, 2007
• Obama plans a more transparent budget, By Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds.  The Los Angeles Times.  February 24, 2009
• Obama's budget is the end of an era, By Janet Hook.  The Los Angeles Times.  February 27, 2009
• Pentagon Does Well with Obama Budget. By David Corn.  Congressional Quarterly. February 26, 2009 11:45 AM
• The $3 Trillion War. By Linda Bilmes  and Joseph Stiglitz.  Vanity Fair. April 2008
• Linda Bilmes on Our 'Three Trillion Dollar War'.  Fresh Air, WHYY. March 3, 2008
• Joseph Stiglitz on Our 'Three Trillion Dollar War'. By Dave Davies.  Fresh Air, WHYY. March 3, 2008
• Cost of war in Afghanistan soars to £2.5bn, By Richard Norton-Taylor.  The Guardian. Friday 13, 2009
• Economic Cost of War in Afghanistan.
• Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs.  United States Department of State.
• The Economic Cost of War, By James Glanz.  The New York Times. February 28, 2009
• Obama requests $83.4 billion more for war spending, By Julian E. Barnes.  Los Angeles Times. April 10, 2009
• War costs may total $2.4 trillion, By Ken Dilanian.  USA Today.  October 23, 2007
• Factors Driving Up Spending. By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Linda Bilmes.  The three trillion dollar war.
• Obama: No More War Spending Tricks, By Nathan Hodge.  Wired. February 25, 2009

Where is the restraint in spending?

Republican Response to Obama Budget Request - Bloomberg

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

On this fine day in February 2009, President Barack Obama submitted his budget blueprint.  For  the first time, in near a decade, transparency is built into a national financial plan.  The tremendous costs to wage the two wars America is engaged in are no longer hidden.  Outlays for military offenses have been written into the ledger, and not in the traditional invisible ink.  While one might think fiscal and political Conservatives would be pleased, upon receipt of the document, Republicans immediately pounced.  Senator Judd Greggspoke on the Grand Old Party's behalf when he asked, "Where is the restraint in spending?"

Interestingly, Senator Gregg and his fellow Republican Legislators did not solicit answers to this inquiry when the last Administration reigned.  For all those many years, the Conservatives did not concern themselves with the price the American people paid.  None on the "Right" worried of what might be when "unnecessary"wars are fought The monetary debt left to American children was not a consideration when combat was paid for on credit.  Then, as now, the greater trepidation was expressed for higher taxes.

America attacked its adversaries with borrowed money and on time borrowed from the brood.

As long as parents did not have to pay, or see the billions of bites taken from fruits reserved for their offspring, war, or supplementary spending was wonderful.  What is not so glorious for the wealthy are the words of President Obama, or his plan to pay as we go.  

"Having inherited a trillion-dollar deficit that will take a long time for us to close, we need to focus on what we need to move the economy forward, not on what's nice to have," Mister Obama said.  This statement did not make sense to Conservatives who rather do as the previous Administration had allowed them to do, trade common "cents" for an economic crisis.

Comfortable with artificial caps or spending, repeatedly supplemented, Republicans reacted poorly to the introduction of fiscal responsibility in the Obama Recovery Plan.  Intermittently the "Right" expresses concern for the children.  Nonetheless, each rant raises what seems to be the more real issue, taxes.  

Indeed, in the past, Progressives pondered levees.  Most Democrats wondered why Americans were not asked to sacrifice for two wars fought on credit.  It all began early in President George W. Bush's first term.  The date, September 11, 2001 will live in infamy.  The Council on Foreign Relations explained this in a report. 

Following 9/11, the United States launched new military endeavors on a number of fronts, including in Iraq.  Estimates for the total costs of these efforts remain sharply politicized.  Costs have consistently outpaced government predictions.  In September 2002, White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost of invading Iraq could amount to between $100 billion and $200 billion.  Mitch Daniels, who at the time headed the White House budget office, called Lindsey's estimates "very, very high" (MSNBC) and said the war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion; shortly thereafter, Lindsey left the White House.

In January 2004, a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total costs of Iraq's reconstruction would land between $50 billion and $100 billion.  But in October 2007, the CBO said in a new report that the United States had already spent $368 billion on its military operations in Iraq, $45 billion more in related services (veterans care, diplomatic services, training), and nearly $200 billion on top of that in Afghanistan.  

American initiated battles blazed abroad.  No money was allocated to pay for the combat.  Billions were kept off the books.  American babies were blinded from the truth.  Their parents placed a financial burden on them that could not be calculated.

Each year, with hat in hand, Commander-In-Chief George W. Bush came to Congress and said, cost cannot be a consideration.  We must protect our borders.  The compassionate Conservative Bush assured Senators and Representatives alike, inclusive of Judd Gregg who now reels over the cost of the Obama fiscal plan.  The country must be made safe for your brood and mine.  

Although the past President knew the battles would be protracted, and said so often, he never accounted for the projected expenditures in his budgets.  Very early on, the Bush Administration was asked to design a plan for war-related costs.  However, the White House ignored such silly suggestions.  Congress too did not comply with a request to consider the cash flow. 

Iraq Supplemental Requires Transparency 
Revenue Watch Institute

Legislative Action 
Congress must insist that clearly defined standards of transparency are incorporated into the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq.  Congress must require the President to submit at minimum a quarterly report, detailing the processes by which US funds are disbursed in Iraq, under the conditions elaborated below. 
Recommended Legislative Language:?

No competitive or non-competitive contracting or purchase activities may be undertaken using any of these funds unless the President certifies that the International Advisory and Monitoring Board mandated by Resolution 1483 has been established, and submits a quarterly report detailing:

• The extent of Iraqi consultation and participation in the contracting and purchase agreement process.
• Actions taken to be in compliance with the transparency obligations of UN Resolution 1483.  ?An independent cost and capacity estimate of the activity in question.
• In cases where non-Iraqi sources are awarded contracts, an explanation demonstrating that Iraqi companies lack the necessary resources and experience to perform the service at the independently estimated cost, and/or within a reasonable time frame.
• In cases where a no-bid contracting process is employed, a detailed justification for the non-competitive tender, including a demonstration that this justification was made available to the Iraqi public.

(An Iraqi Public Finance Oversight Board should be established as a formal channel to achieve an acceptable level of Iraqi consultation for all large-purchase contracting activities undertaken with these funds.  The International Advisory and Monitoring Board, as mandated under Res. 1483, should be empowered to audit all aspects of Development Fund for Iraq. . . .  

None of these possibilities were put in place.  No one believes the proposal was even taken under advisement.  Instead, the Bush Cheney Administration moved into foreign terrain ready for a fight.  Documents that might help determine the dollars needed to do these deeds were not sent to the House or Senate in advance.  Budgetary reviews for defense spending were deliberately shortsighted   More was left out than included in ledgers.  Emergency Supplemental funds were requested each year.  

In 2001 and thereafter, no one complained, at least not loudly, certainly not the Republicans who now demand we attend to our children's inheritance.  How might one argue against the need to protect the country, care for its citizens, and pay for the soldiers who keep this country safe?

Conservatives, in the early years of combat were gleeful with Congressional control.  They coalesced.  Democrats, defeated, chose to forfeit dignity and duty.  Progressives no longer believed they had the power to do what was right.  Resigned to the will of the President and his "people," the Left relented.  Legislators looked the other way when the economic experts strongly stated more money is needed.  Supplemental funds, off budget show support for the soldiers. 

On September 8, (2003) the White House requested an additional $87 billion of funding to cover the continued occupation and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004.  Of this $87 billion, $66 billion will be for military operations, and $21 billion will be for reconstruction in Iraq.

Congress caved.  Trillions trickled out of the country.  A few at home profited from the Shock and Awe plan.  However, no one wished to speak of Halliburton, the ties that remained to Vice President Cheney, or the off-the-book expense of wars.  

For persons affiliated with the Administration, defense contracts, no bid agreements to facilitate the folly known as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the monetary Mission was Accomplished.  However, for the majority of Americans, the loss of credibility, lives, limbs, and cash was a failure.

Citizens feel the calamity in an economic crisis.  Yet, Republican Representatives wish to blame Barack Obama for a budget, which will not hide such outrageous costs. 

Total cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars

The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] now estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, might top $1 trillion, plus an extra $705 billion in interest payments., The total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

Some experts say even those figures underestimate the true price tag.  Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, projected in a 2006 paper (PDF) with another economist, Linda Bilmes, that the total macroeconomic costs of the Iraq war itself would surpass $2 trillion.  This analysis differs from that of the CBO, which measured only the war's budgetary impact.  Stiglitz and Bilmes also predict a somewhat higher budgetary impact than the CBO did, though the CBO responds at the end of its 2007 report that some of the difference may be accounted for by factors like inflation and standard pay increases that have little to do with the Iraq war itself.

More recently, a group of Democrats on the U.S. congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report estimating the total long-term cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would range between $2.6 trillion and $4.5 trillion, depending on how quickly forces are drawn down.  These figures drew pointed criticisms from congressional Republicans, who released a statement (PDF) citing dozens of errors in the report's findings, some of which were subsequently changed.

Yes, the Republicans actively repute all claims of cost overruns.  For them, money spent on military actions were  and are justified.  The real issue, for the "Right" while subterranean, was revealed; as long as taxes were not raised on their personal wealth "fiscal Conservatives" felt fine.  

During the Bush years, Republicans had reason to feel content.  Those who want no new taxes had a friend in the White House who would hide the costs of combat.  Thus, then, concern was not expressed for the children, the credit crisis, or what these irresponsible parents caused.

Republicans would rather be critical of the Democrats for too many dollars spent and the way the Obama plan proposes to reduce the deficit.  "On the backs of the rich," those who think themselves "Right" rage.  Perchance it is important to peruse the books.  Republican rants may not reveal what detailed reports do.  Today, if the government continues to fund its fights on credit, as the Bush White House did, our progeny will inherit what prosperous parents refused to pay for with cash.   

Comparing the Defense Budget to the Total Economy 
The U.S. defense budget has risen over the past decade but remains substantially lower than historical levels when considered as a percentage of U.S. GDP.  President Bush requested $481.4 billion in discretional spending for the Department of Defense's 2008 budget.  That figure does not include any of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been paid for primarily through "emergency supplemental requests" that are not included in the federal budget's accounting. War spending is expected to tally to roughly $193 billion in 2008, an increase of $22 billion, or roughly 13 percent, over 2007 expenditures . . .

Allocations toward the "Global War on Terrorism," which exceed $145 billion for 2008, also fall outside the U.S. defense budget, and do not include the war-budget supplements. . . .

In a global context, U.S. spending on military-related endeavors ranks high.  According to 2005 data from SIPRI (PDF), the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States spends substantially more on military endeavors than any country in the world.  If war spending and allocations to the "Global War on Terror" are excluded, the U.S. military budget is still more than seven times that of its next closest competitor, China. If you include those other expenditures, U.S. military spending surpasses that of all other countries in the world combined.  

That thought alone is awesome.  Rather than build a better world, engage in diplomatic talks with other nations, provide for peaceful negotiations, prepare American children for careers, prevent illness, care for the injured, or maintain the infrastructure . . . all of which would better the world for our offspring,  the Bush Administration spent trillions on destructive warfare.  

In the early years, the White House depleted a budget surplus for much of the money.  Some of the dollars came from the taxes paid by poor and Middle Class.  The super-rich Republicans were asked to contribute a lesser percent of their income.  When dollars from duties were exhausted, the Bush White House sought more funds from creditors.

Grand Old Party politicians, with the help of weakened Democrats, allowed the last Administration to squander more money than is possible to fathom on an unnecessary war.  No thought for the future of our children was mentioned.

Yet, today, with the introduction of a budget that calls for a reduction in troops and defense allocations, Republicans rage.  They do not wish to recognize that  the previous White House  already sacrificed the safety and fiscal sanity of the Seventh Generation.  

Until today, the Grand Old Party could not be bothered with war costs written into the budget.  Republicans did not ask, "where is the restraint in spending?"  Those on the "Right" played with the people's money as though it or they were mad, and now, on this fine February day, with a transparent plan delivered, Conservatives clamor, what of the children.

Cost of War Off Budget . . . 

• Judd Gregg Criticizes Obama Budget. By Ken Strickland.  MSNBC News. February 26, 2009
• U.S. Senator Judd Gregg.  US Senator New Hampshire.
• War Against Terror.  Cable News Network.
• Obama Plans Major Shifts in Spending, By Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear.  The New York Times. February 26, 2009
• Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain, Contrary To Veep's Claims, Researchers Say Financial Links Remain.  By Jarrett Murphy.  CBS News.September 26, 2003
• Total cost of the Iraq and Afghan Wars. Council on Foreign Relations
• Democratic Joint Economic Committee Report's Errors Allowed to Stand.  By Representative Saxton, Chris Frenze, Senator Brownback, Bryan Sanders..  November 14, 2007
• Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion. By Martin Wolk.  MSNBC News. March 17, 2006
• Bush rejects calls to end war, wants gradual troop withdrawals, By Anne Gearan.  Boston Globe. September 13, 2007
• 110th Congress-Defense Spending Issue Looms,  Michael Moran.  Council on Foreign Relations
• Paying for Iraq's Reconstruction. Congressional Budget Office.  January 4, 2007
• Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released.  U.S. Department of Defense. February 5, 2007
• Encore, By Linda Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz.  Forth Quarter 2006

Karl Rove and Captain Ahab-Conyers

O'Reilly offers Rove place to hide from subpoena

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org "The Architect," has apparently turned author.  Americans learned of Karl Rove's newest career on January 28, 2009.  During an interview with Fox News Broadcaster, Bill O'Reilly, the long-time Advisor to former President, George W. Bush, presented his novel manuscript to an expectant audience.  Most tuned in to hear whether he would honor a Congressional subpoena.  Few expected a reinterpretation of the epic fable, Moby Dick.  Yet, there it was, a drama delivered.

In this newer version, Congressman John Conyers is cast in the role of the antagonist.  The Chair of the Judiciary Committee plays the part of Captain Ahab.  Mister Rove sees himself as the lovable whale.  Moby-Karl seeks only to defend himself against obsessive attacks from the maniacal Ahab-Conyers.  Whilst the massive mammal quietly glides through calm seas, a fanatical Captain Ahab-Conyers follows.  Captain Ahab's anger and aggressive temperament stirs the waters.  The Chair of the Judiciary Committee creates waves.  Moby-Karl merely moves along.  He bothers no one, and wishes to go about his business, nothing more. Fascinated, Americans listen to Karl Rove spin his yarn.  The writer tells a tale of himself and his nemesis.  The two, Mister Rove explains, have been embroiled in a battle for years. Sailor Ahab-Conyers, envisions Moby-Karl as a giant marine mammal, fierce, and bent on destruction.  He notes Moby-Karl had successfully designed another of his divisive campaigns.   Captain Ahab-Conyers is certain, no one has been able to capture, let alone kill, the massive beast.  However, Skipper-Conyers hopes to change that truth.  He will slaughter the slippery creature.  He will do so legally, with a summons.  The sea Commander Ahab-Conyers, wishes to commence with a Congressional investigation.  It seems clear to him, Moby-Karl will use his political influence to alter the composition of the Justice Department.   Moby-Karl observes the Congressman-Captain is obsessed.  The massive mammal knows not why.  Captain Ahab-Conyers' only objective is vengeance.  Moby-Karl claims the sailor is determined to do the innocent Cetacea in. As the dramatist explains, the two had a chance encounter long ago.  Then, the largest ocean creature, Moby-Karl, smashed Conyers-Ahab's boat.  He was under attack.  Certainly, anyone would understand, he could do nothing but fight for his life.  The alleged "monster" bit the implacable Captain.  Conyers-Ahab lost his leg in the scuffle.   It was all "innocent" Moby-Karl cries out.  What could he do when confronted with the delusional assailant, Conyers-Ahab?  The Cetacea was defenseless.  The sea Commander had an arsenal of weaponry and a crew.  Members of Congress offered manual assistance and moral support.  The playwright Rove poses; Moby-Karl only had his own inherent compass to guide him, at least that was how Author Herman Melville presented the story in his script. In this newer version, Moby-Karl has a capable team too.  The whale has a wily swarm of legal eagles to assist him in any battle.  On the air, the mammoth marine mammal revealed the reality within the newer narrative.  Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration. On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin.  The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House.  The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove-even after he leaves office. The plot thickens.  In this story, the gentle giant Moby-Karl will not be the cause of Captain Ahab-Conyers demise.  Self-destructive tendencies will not determine the fate of a fixated Judicial Committee Chair.  If he fails in his quest, Chairman Ahab-Conyers will not have only himself to blame.  The onus will be one he shares with a slew of shrewd attorneys who found their way around earlier edicts such as the one offered In September 2008. United States District Judge John Bates ruled, "The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context," inscribed Bates, a Bush appointee. "In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity." Judge Bates, who may be cast as the Ishmael character in Rove's yarn, rejected the notion President Bush put forward.  The arbitrator ruled blanket executive privileges are not possible.  Perhaps, Mister Rove, did not consider this character when he re-wrote Herman Melville's work.  In the revised text, it seems "The Architect" omitted the Judge's recent decision .   In his manuscript, Romanticist Rove chose to reflect on rhetoric that is more hopeful.  He recalls the original plot.  The blameless Moby Dick survived.  No number of sailors, recruited to assist Captain Ahab, helped him bring down a beast who hurt others only in defense of himself.  Writer, Karl Rove draws on the analogy.  He muses Legislators who support Conyers will not be able to carry out the Chairman's plan.   This modern-day whale has defenders unlike any the Melville Cetacea could conceive of.  Moby-Karl Rove has a lawyer, Robert Luskin.  The legal representative has helped to expand the legend.  He was able to secure a stay of execution.   A letter penned by Lawyer Ruskin convinced Captain, Chairman Conyers to postpone a response to the subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee. Thus, once more Captain Ahab-Conyers, and the American people are left to ask.  Is justice delayed also justice denied? No one knows for sure.  The people cannot be sure at this point in the plot.  Did Karl Rove cast the curious character, Barack Obama?  Could the Author, Rove, the re-writer of history, make provisions for the majesty of a man not included in Melville's narrative.  Will Moby Dick again live on?  Might Karl Rove continue to exist with Executive Privileges, or, this time, will the sea creature fall victim to circumstances unforeseen?  Stay tuned for the sequel to this epic melodrama bought to you by "The Architect!" References for an neo-conservative Romanticism novel . . .  Karl Rove. Bill O'Reilly.  The O'Reilly Factor.  Fox News. Moby Dick.  Online Literature. House Judiciary Chairman Subpoenas Karl Rove. Transcript.  Fox News. January 26, 2009 Will Karl Rove Ever Testify?  By Eric Etheridge.  The New York Times.  January 30, 2008 President Bush. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 White House.  Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Karl Rove. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Fielding Letter to Rove. Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Fielding Letter to Miers.  Newsweek.  January 30, 2009 Letter to Rove Says He Has 'Absolute Immunity' and Can Ignore Subpoena, By Jason Leopold.  The Intelligence Daily. January 30, 2009 Buying Obama Time, Congress Delays Rove Subpoena Deadline, By Zachary Roth.  Talking Points Memo. January 30, 2009, 5:48PM Conyers to Rove: Time to Talk About US Attorneys, By Zachary Roth.  Talking Points Memo. January 26, 2009, 6:25PM Letter from House Judiciary Committee To Rove Lawyer Agreeing To Subpoena Delay.  January 30, 2009

Speaker Pelosi Proclaims Possible Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on prosecuting the Bush administration

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org She said it!  I never thought this day would come.  Change has truly arrived in America, even before the Presidential Inauguration.  Today, on Fox News, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, the only person who could, the woman who for so long would not, stated, she is Open to the Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials.  Oh joy!  Oh, bliss.  Never did I imagine this moment might become a reality.  Even the idea that this could be a possibility eluded me.  Today, on January 18, 2009, finally, I have hope.  I believe in the future, as Michelle Obama expressed, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, or I will be when I see an actionable censure.

I, as the future First Lady, elucidated, feel "privileged." to witness a transformation that most never thought probable, let alone a viable potential.  I am elated.  I hold my breath, and await what could be if only she authorizes Congress to act.   Could it be true?  Indeed, an investigation into high crimes and misdemeanors might commence.  At least that is what an anxious nation heard as Nancy Pelosi spoke these words.  "I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it."  The California Democrat who holds the highest office in respect to this process continued, and mused that there might be "other things that are, maybe, spent better looking to the future rather than to the past." The nuance causes much concern.  Conservative Constitutional, and International Affairs Attorney, Bruce Fein, who advocates for a Bush/Cheneyimpeachment, may not think the sentiment sufficient.  The former Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, might wonder if the Speaker offered too little.  The decision is very late.  Still, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation scholar, Bruce Fein, might feel as I do. While the statement Speaker Pelosi shared is not all I had hoped for, it is a beginning.   Perchance the judicious John Nichols, a Journalist, might believe Nancy Pelosi's newfound wisdom is not as poignant as it could have been.  I know not what the man who prudently penned The Genius of Impeachment thinks of this novel declaration.  However, I trust he too was touched by what he often said he waited for, a window of opportunity. I, personally, feel blessed for the prospect of an investigation into practices that were injurious to democracy.  More importantly, I yearn for the day when the millions of displaced Iraqis and Afghanis experience a rightness.  For too long, these persons suffered from a wrong that most feared would be a precedent never corrected.   The innocent thousand times a thousand, troops, civilians, women, and children, who lost their lives needlessly in these same two Middle Eastern countries, I believe, would want no vengeance.  I have faith, the fallen would wish to know, they did not die in vain.  Their demise might elicit a dream.  There will be a day when people realize all that is done in our name matters,  people, of any and every race, color, and creed make a difference.  A life taken without cause could be the lesson that will teach a world.  A realization for what is right, is not a shame.  It is the blessing the dearly departed deserve. Those willing to right a wrong will not be blamed, if by their actions, no more high crimes and misdemeanors are committed.   There is much to be considered and remedied. There are authorizations for illegal wiretaps to rescind.  The loss of habeas corpus cannot be denied.  Propaganda that passed for press reports must be addressed.  The blindfold that stands for fairness must be replaced in what has become a politicized Justice Department.  Guantánamo Bay prison and torture "legitimized" cannot stand if humane treatment of prisoners is to matter.  Geneva Convention Rules must be sustained if there is to be a modicum of honor in war. Much must be addressed if America is ever to be acclaimed.  There is a fierce urgency to now.  Perhaps, at last, Nancy Pelosi feels it.  Fox News reported that the Speaker "hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular."  Wow!  I await.  Until then, I will hold the words of the California Democratic Leader dear, "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore.  I want to see the truth come forth." Nancy Pelosi, so too do I. References for a new reality . . .  Transcript: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 'FNS'  Fox News. January 18, 2009 Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials.  Fox News. January 18, 2009 Michelle Obama:  For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.  Breitbart TV. February 18, 2008 John Nichols.  The Nation. The Genius of Impeachment; The Founders' Cure for Royalism. By John Nichols.  The New Press. Bill Moyers Journal; Transcript.  Impeachment.  Bruce Fein.  Public Broadcasting Services. July 18, 2007 Carts Before Horses, Impeachment inquiry first, ask questions later.  By Bruce Fein.  Slate.  Friday, August 31, 2007 Please peruse a history of thoughts on a possible of impeachment.  View videos.  Ponder the precedence set if, as Americans, we do not embark upon the trail of Constitutional Law.  Please, consider what was and will be if prosecution is not pursued.  I thank you.  Impeachment; Not Impossible. Bush Cheney Censure Begins with You Tough Talk on Impeachment; Bill Moyers Journal Impeachment; Bush and Cheney Convict of Constitutional Crimes Democrats Avert Dennis Kucinich Privileged Resolution; Impeach Cheney Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin, Kucinich, and the People Call For Cheney Censure Impeach. Support Increases for Censure of Cheney and Bush

Confessions of Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney Interview ABC News Cheney Aware of Gitmo Waterboarding

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org There was a break in the news.  On Cable News Network Wolf Blitzer was noticeably moved.  He excitedly reported; Dick Cheney confessed.  Broadcaster Blitzer's words were a bit more tempered.  He said, "This just coming into The Situation Room.??The Vice President, Dick Cheney, has given ABC News an interview and confirming now publicly that the Bush administration did engage in the very controversial interrogation tactic of waterboarding."  The Commentator then asked America to listen to the clip.?  ABC? News Correspondent Jonathan Karl inquired of the outgoing high-level government official, "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?"  Without hesitation, the Vice President responded.? ?"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the -- the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do.  . . .  (T)hey talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do.  And I supported it.   Viewers vented.  Some shifted nervously in their seats.  However, The Judicial Watch was not amused.  Nor were they elated.  The answer was not the one this Conservative organization, hoped for, groped for, and searched for though the courts, for all these many years.  Vice President Cheney did not confess to sins conceived long before September 11, 2001.  He told said nothing of the maps and charts of Iraqi oil fields.  Foreign suitors for Iraqi oilfield contracts were not discussed as they had been in March 5, 2001, six months and six days before the infamous September 11 attacks.

No, Dick Cheney, spoke of none of what might have interested Judicial Watch.  Perchance, those involved with this institute listened and wondered of theIraq oil map. would the Vice President confess to knowledge of these?  From appearances, it seemed he would not.

Seeming pleased with his decision and participation, the man second to the Commander-In-Chief avowed, "It's been a remarkably successful effort and I think the results speak for themselves."  Indeed, the consequences do speak volumes, as does Dick Cheney's willingness to disclose what for so long has been an elusive truth.  Yet, a few wondered; was this statement a confession, or merely a confirmation of what had long been known, an acknowledgment of sorts?

As the words tripped off Dick Cheney's tongue, the public began to talk.  Millions were ecstatic.  He admitted it, they declared.  Throughout cyberspace and in local communities people were all abuzz.  Announcers throughout the airwaves and people on the streets pondered.  "Did he just say that?"  The answer was, of course he did.  Richard Bruce Cheney knew, as he has reason to understand.  He is indeed, above the law.  A myriad of moments affirmed this for him.  Given years of opportunities, the Democrats consistently have chosen not to touch him.

Oh, a few tried.  More might insist that Dick Cheney be removed from office, just as many attested to the need to indict the President.  However, nothing was done.  

Former Senator and nominee for the President, George McGovern could not convince the Democratic leadership.  Florida Congressman Robert Wexleractively campaigned to, at least, begin hearings.  In November 6, 2007 Dennis Kucinich offered a Privileged Resolution in his attempt to avail the Congress of the need to censure Cheney.  However, the Democrats averted the opportunity.

Hence, Dick Cheney trusted he was safe to speak of virtually anything.  Specifically, the Vice President was certain he was safe to discuss his role in 'purposeful persecution.'  Mister Cheney recalled that the Democrats decreed by their silence that torture was sanctioned.  In reality, Progressives presented the President and his Cabinet with a dictum of faith in the practice.  Those who supposedly sit on the Left side of the aisle signed, sealed, and delivered a permission slip for abusive behaviors on the part of Americans in December 2002, almost six years to the day from what some had hoped was a confession. 

The news today that leading Democrats, including Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi, were informed about the torture of military prisoners and allegedly didn't just acquiesce but actually approved it is not something that particularly surprises.  The descent into war crimes under this administration provoked very little public Democratic anger or resistance for the years in which it was used most promiscuously.  The presidential campaign of John Kerry offered only token opposition.  The subject never came up in a single presidential debate in 2004.  And the way in which the torture issue has subsequently been raised by Democrats bespeaks opportunism as much as principled outrage and opposition.

What was perhaps more extraordinary and less discussed from the ABC interview was the anomalous question posed to a reflective Vice President Cheney, had he changed.  Earlier in the interview, Dick Cheney had offered that the 9-11 terrorist attacks had definitely became "a prime motivation" for his future decisions.  He said, the events that occurred on that September day in 2001 'critically shaped his actions in the years that followed.'  Yet, concurrently, he attested to the fact he had not changed.  

Dick Cheney's answer was accurate and insincere, all in the same breath.  Judicial Watch, Incorporated, "a Conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, [which] promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government," might say this man is a marvel, an artist, and an articulate obfuscator.  Judicial Watch should know.  

When the Bush Administration formed the National Energy Policy Development Group and then proceeded to hold meetings in private, Judicial Watch sensed a clear violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  The foundation took legal actions.  "Unfortunately, on May 9, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Vice President's Energy Task Force did not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Act."

Hence, with a history of the Democrats and the Courts on Cheney's side the man felt no compunction to share what might have caused some havoc, were there any mayhem to be had by opponents of the Administration.  Jonathan Karl, the ABC News Journalist, who some thought captured a confession on tape affirmed and asked for another perchance candid comment,  Mister Karl stated, "You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war."  He was greeted with what is arguably not a confession; nor is the retort correct, or incorrect. 

Cheney: I disagree with that.

This portion of the answer is true.  Dick Cheney did differ with the notion that, were the intelligence correct, the United States would not have gone to war with Iraq.  However, his reason was not as he went on to state.  Stockpiles, an intent on the part of Saddam Hussein to supply terrorist organizations with arms or money did not incite the Vice President or likely the Administration.  Granted, Dick Cheney did and does believe as he shared on air. 

This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments.

What the Vice President neglected to say was what the Courts ruled he did not need to reveal.  ""Executive privilege was improperly invoked by Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and now the Bush administration," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated.  No, Dick Cheney did not, would not say that.  A confession of such clarity certainly would not come from this public servant, at least not yet.  That admission would be breaking news.  Cable News Network Wolf Blitzer and every other Broadcaster, were that declaration of guilt to occur, would have a real reason to be excited.  The Judicial Watch Educational Foundation would be elated.  Were that to happen, perchance, the American people would be moved to finally act.   For now, the public acquiesces while they sit, and await an authentic confession.

Confessions and Concessions . . . 

• Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields.  Judicial Watch. March 5, 2002
• Iraq oil map. Judicial Watch. March 5, 2002
• Foreign suitors for Iraqi oilfield contracts  Judicial Watch. March 5, 2002
• Call for Bush and Cheney Impeachment Hearings.  Congressman Robert Wexler.
• Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oil Fields  Judicial Watch.  July 17, 2003
• McGovern: Impeach Bush, Cheney Now. CBS News. January 6, 2008
• Debate on Cheney impeachment averted. MSNBC News. November 6, 2007
• Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment.  Congressman Dennis Kucinich.  November 2, 2007
• Kucinich Pushes Cheney Impeachment, By David M. Herszenhorn.  The New York Times. November 6, 2007
• The Democrats and Torture, By Andrew Sullivan.  The Atlantic. December 9, 2007
• Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002, In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say.  By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen.  Washington Post.  Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01
• Transcript: Cheney Defends Hard Line Tactics.  In Exclusive Interview With ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney Opens Up About His Hard Line Tactics.  .  ABC News.  December 15, 2008
• Exclusive: Cheney Holds Hard-Line Stance, In an Exclusive Interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney Opens Up About His Hard-Line Tactics.  By Jonathan Karl.  ABC News.  December 15, 2008
• Is Bush the Worst President in the Last 50 Years?  In Debate Over Bush Legacy, Karl Rove Defends Old Boss but Contradicts Him on WMD.  By Russell Goldman.  ABC News.  December 3, 2008
• Judicial Watch
• Judicial Watch V. National Energy Development Group, et al.  Cheney Task Force.  Judicial Watch.

Republican Rant; "Democrats Deregulate"

  Attempted Citizen Arrest of Karl Rove

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org Today, citizens of this country are confronted with a record realized under the Bush Administration.  Karl Rove, "The Architect" of the Bush campaign claims no responsibility for the cause or effect of his chief candidate's actions.  Nor does he acknowledge that his Grand Old Party might be answerable for accounts receivable.  However, others, those common folks less connected to the current Administration might disagree.  In an ominous moment, on a San Francisco stage Americans were given the opportunity to look into the future and remember earlier days and dictums.

In an address to the Mortgage Brokers Association citizens had an opportunity to hear Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain all at once, although only one of these fine fellows sat on the platform and professed his truth, all were present in the philosophies expressed.  The theme was one each has adopted.  "So the regulators in 2005 were the Republicans, and the deregulators, the anti-regulators, the let-them-do-anything-they-want crowd, were all Democrats, with all due respect,"

"The Architect" spoke and the moneyed audience, mesmerized by the magnificence of this individual who was able to change the dynamics, through deregulation, in a consumer-driven a nation, listened, except for the few who feared the past would indeed be prologue.

A few women attempted to perform a citizens' arrest.  The well-dressed Janine Boneparth mounted the stage where Karl Rove sat, and strove to handcuff the political guru.  She told the boisterous and bold "Bush Brain" he had committed treason.  She intended to take him into custody.

Janine, an average American could not forget the loans, credit, payments, and profits all unregulated that adversely affected millions of lives.  On more than one occasion, she heard, as she did on this day; Karl Rove admits, a lack of oversight is, responsible for the economic crisis that evolved under the auspices of George W. Bush.  Yet, she marveled, the man, who some say, was the mind behind the Bush White House façade, accepts no quilt.  Karl Rove said, Democrats done this country in.

This person who many believe is the master of manipulation, does not place the onus for the fiscal demise on a majority Republican Congress, which governed for most of the last two-terms.  Nor does the personal chum of the President, George W. Bush receive any wrath.  Certainly, Rove concurs, as Senator John McCain says on the campaign stump, as George W. once did, the Grand Old Party President is not responsible for laws loosened for the financial industry.

Lest "the Architect" and Americans forget, when it comes to deregulation, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and John McCain were and indeed are best friends.  In February 2008, Karl Rove announced that he had contributed $2300 to the then presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

When asked of the donation, potential President McCain said he has "always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics," The perhaps, soon-to-be Commander-In-chief McCain refused to condemn campaign tactics Mister Rove used to diminish and destroy candidate McCain in the 2000 South Carolina race.  Months ago, and likely now, Arizona Senator McCain proclaimed, "Nobody denies he's [Karl Rove is] one of the smartest political minds in America.  I'd be glad to get his advice.  Perhaps, John McCain did seek the former Presidential Advisor Rove's counsel

Americans are led to believe that apparently, all those years in the Oval Office did not soil the hands of the Bush Brain, the Texas oilman, or their accomplice in the Senate, John McCain.  While each endorsed deregulation for decades, in the present day, the three claim to have played no role in the process of oversight reduction.  

Countless among the common folk see through the veil that protects the current President, the potential Commander-In-Chief, and Karl Rove.  Citizens who chose to be more conscious and conscientious have acted on what they believe is truth for quite some time.  Karl Rove, away from the  safety and sanctuary of the White House, which protected him as Deputy Chief of Staff, met many a countryman or women who thought he must be placed behind bars for transgressions against the State and its people.  

Since August 2007, "The Architect" has not been a public servant, or an Advisor to the President; yet, the American people do not forget the adversarial influence the "Bush Brain" had on official policy.  Many, trust even as a political pundit, an analyst for Fox News, and writer for the Wall Street Journal, this man has clout.  Amongst the constituency, there is a belief that Karl Rove can and does unconstructively change the culture, the climate, and the country.  His rhetoric may reap lucrative rewards; nonetheless, numerous have faith the man is a crook.  Hence, common folks try to take "Turd Blossom" into custody.  These civilians must not yet have heard the message; the Democrats did the deeds that cause such grave calamities. 

On March 9, Rove gave a speech -- the fee was a reported $40,000 -- at the University of Iowa.  What was described as a hostile crowd greeted his remarks, often interrupting with shouted questions.  Replied Rove: 
You got a chance to ask your questions later and make your stupid statements.  Let me make mine.

Two people tried to make a citizens' arrest of Rove for his crimes as a member of the Bush administration.  At one point, according to CNN, someone in the audience yelled, "Can we have our $40,000 back?"  To which the man sometimes known as "Bush's Brain," replied, "No you can't."

No one can recover funds from the man or men who some say stole our nation's sanity, although many have tried.  Nor can they apprehend "The Architect" of America's demise.  Secret Service surrounds George W. Bush and John Sidney McCain.  For now, there is no chance these men will be brought down.

Any who try to arrest the more accessible White House advisor will likely be greeted with a Rovian reprisal.  A denial, a declaration such as 'the Democrats done us in,' or a dig to the abdomen might accompany an attempt to detain the infamous "Bush Brain."

Janine Boneparth learned this lesson on October 21, 2008, at the Mortgage Bankers Association's annual convention.  Karl Rove elbowed Boneparth away.  She was then escorted off the stage.  Karl Rove acted as though nothing occurred.  He continued to deliver his message and debate former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.

The true demons, Karl Rove declared are the Democrats. While the Progressives worked to reinstate some sense of regulation, often their efforts were obstructed.  The Conservatives intent on a free market, a for profit society, thwarted attempts to reform a system so flawed as to cause century's old financial institutions to crumble.  Americans, or Karl Rove, need only look at the record of the current leader of the Republican Party to affirm the veracity of what was and is.  An assessment may help Misters Rove, Bush, and McCain to remember; the Republicans opted for deregulation 

"I Don't Think Anyone Who Wants To Increase The Burden Of Government Regulation And Higher Taxes Has Any Real Understanding Of Economics." During a McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, John McCain said, "When we come out of this recession and we will because I believe that the fundamentals of our economy are good ... Sen. Clinton [a Democrat] wants the government to make the decisions for you on your health care, I want the families to make the decisions on their health care. I don't think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and higher taxes has any real understanding of economics and the economy and what is needed in order to ensure the future of this country." [McCain Town Hall in Inez, Kentucky, ]

The implication or allegation is the Democrats will do America wrong again, just as they have done in the world according to Karl.  Mister Rove, Senator McCain, persons who support Grand Old Party, and surely the President proclaim Progressives posit restraint on a free enterprise system.  Contrary to the recent claims of Karl Rove that Democrats deregulate, John McCain states, Liberals will lead this country down the path of bigger government.  At least that was what Senator McCain swore to then before the bailout.

During this town hall meeting, Senator McCain expressed his empathy.  He recognized Americans were hurting.  He spoke of how hard it is for the average Joe or Jane to survive in  times such as these.  Damn those Democrats.  

As the Presidential aspirant assessed the economic crisis, he surmised that he had a solution, much as George W. Bush did, and the current President's Brain, Karl Rove did and does.

Senator McCain stated his deep conviction, as he had months earlier, before he voted for a mega-billion dollar government bailout for big-businesses.  Back in the day, before it was unpopular to be a Republican or deregulator  John McCain avowed. 

"Let's Reduce Regulation." While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, "I'm asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don't know the answer to that because it's kind of a technical term . . .I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you've got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people's tax burden. Let's reduce it. Let's reduce regulation."  . . .

"We Need To Return To The Reagan Years . . . We Need Less Regulation." As shown on PBS's "Washington Week," John McCain said, "We need to return to the Reagan years. We need to have fiscal conservatism. We need less government. We need less regulation. We need to end of spending spree which has eroded our base of Republican support."

The words reverberated. The sentiments were consistent with those oft affirmed by Republicans, Chief executive Bush, and the guru, Karl Rove.  Were is the operative word.  When Americans were led to believe freer markets would benefit them, the Rove and McCain message was Democrats were wrong to impose regulations.  Now that the population has realized a harsh reality, profits do not trickle down the tables have turned.  Rove, his friend George W., and fellow Republicans such as Senator McCain revel in regulation.   Witness the recent vote for a $700 Billion dollar rescue plan.  President Bush, Republican appointees such as Treasury Secretary Paulson, and of course, John McCain endorse more government and greater restrictions.  

Blame the Democrats for what you have done also works for the Grand Old Party when wizardry is necessary.  Perchance this theory explains the recent vote for a "bailout." In an interview with Mike Wallace, John McCain elucidates.  The senior Senator from Arizona helps Americans to understand, the constructs of deregulation, and Socialism.  The Presidential aspirant envisions no dichotomy, or does he? 

McCain: So is one of the tenets of socialism redistribution of the wealth? Not just socialism - a lot of other liberal and left wing philosophies - redistribution of the wealth? I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth creation by Joe the Plumber.

Wallace: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that's being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn't that socialism?

McCain: That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington.

And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home.

They're bailing out the banks. They're bailing out these institutions.

Wallace: But you voted for that.

McCain: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank. . . .

But the point is that, of course, when a - when a - that's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people.

Well-done Senator McCain.  The prose of the now "populace" political pundit and the potential President reveal a rabid reason for citizens unrest, or desire to arrest the former Bush "advisor."  

As, "The Architect" perchance crafts another campaign.  Another Presidential aspirant is directed to "deregulate" as Rove reveals Republicans do or do not.  After a careful assessment of the facts, folly, and flippant reality Karl Rove and John McCain present, Americans might muse as Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell did. Perhaps we are as Dorothy in the Land of Oz.  The man behind the curtain, and the gent who stood in front of it for oh so many years, join John McCain as he now leads in the pledge. 

"Less Government, Lower Taxes, Less Regulation, Safer America Is What I Can Give America . . . I can make a case that a less government, lower taxes, less regulation, safer America is what I can give America. But I don't underestimate the size of the challenge" . . . or the vastness of the veils needed to disguise the decree of deregulation.

Mister Rove was "Right."  Democrats [sic] such as John McCain [?] have foisted a lack of directives and direction onto Americans.  Some may say "G-d bless America."  As the Presidential Election nears, citizens might consider, if attempts to arrest Karl Rove or restrain John McCain fail, then "Lord help America. The Grand Old Party will have  its way with us once again.  

References for Republican Regulations and Democrats Deregulation . . . 

• 'I'm Always for Less Regulation. Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2008
• McCain's Economy Platform: ?Big Tax Cuts, With Caveats, By Bob Davis.  Wall Street Journal. March 3, 2008
• Karl Rove in SF: Protestor attempts citizen's arrest, By Johanna Neuman.  The Los Angeles Times. October 21, 2008
• How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis, By Kevin Hassett.  Bloomberg. September 22, 2008
• John McCain: Town Hall 04/23/08  YouTube.
• Washington Week, Public Broadcasting Services. January 25, 2008
• CNN, "Ballot Bowl", March 15, 2008
• CNN Newsroom. Cable News Network. February 14, 2008
• McCain Embrace Rove.  Huffington News. February 10, 2008
• Alec Baldwin Points Fingers At Barney Frank & Democrats for Fiscal Crisis, By Noel Sheppard.  Free Republic. October 5, 2008
• Bush Officials Urge Swift Action on Rescue Powers, By Edmund L. Andrews. The New York Times. September 20, 2008
• Transcript: John McCain on 'FOX News Sunday.  Fox News.  Monday, October 20, 2008

My Hair; His Energy Policy

Bush Oil Dancing!

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

"Drill baby, drill," is the now ever-present and popular battle-cry for many Americans. From Presidential candidates to everyday people, those who wish to consume sweet light crude as they have for a more than a century remind me of my hair, and the current President's energy policy. I ponder the parallels and invite you to consider . . .

During a recent press conference, as I gazed upon the President of the United States, noticeably aged after years in the Oval Office, I thought of my hair and my history. His wavy gray locks are not as the strands that fall from my head. Nor did the diminutive curl that danced on his brow remind me of my own tresses. The style the Chief Executive donned did not resemble the permanent waves, pompadours, or ponytails I once wore. As George W. Bush spoke of his energy policy, I pondered. His approach to petroleum and power were as the methodology I embraced when I colored my hair.

For years, I addressed the truth of my tresses just as the President assesses the paradox of propulsion. In speech after speech, George W. Bush proposes, as he did on this occasion; America needs to end its addiction to oil. In the past, I proclaimed, I need to bring to a halt the habit of dying my hair. I, as President Bush, postured and yet, I did next to nothing to truly take me closer to my stated objective.

My progression towards a chemical free treatment of my hair was, as it seems Mister Bush's advancement is. I avoided more authentic change than I approached. My evolution was perhaps slowed by love. The tale of transformation began oh, so long ago.

Decades ago, I met a man who felt like family. Indeed, emotionally Eugene was part of my intimate circle. Gene did much with my Mom, Dad, brother, and I. As a pair, Eugene and I often ventured off together. We chatted on the telephone, spent time in each other's home. We were close. This fine fellow was influential in many aspects of my life. I respected his opinion. I valued his friendship. His wisdom often wowed me.

Thus, when my good friend Gene, who was also my hairdresser, told me the tint would brighten my face, I thought he must have reason to think this sage advice. At first, I protested. As insecure as I was about my appearance, I was confident that my natural hair color was perfect. Still, I considered the source. Therefore, I trusted the recommendation.

Possibly, George W. Bush could share a similar story. A loved one might have said, "Your future will be bright if you dabble in petroleum. extraction" "Build an oil well, my boy, and become a billionaire, or at least a multi-millionaire with substantial influence." "Taste the Texas Tea, and your life will be wondrous," could have been the claim Papa George Herbert or Momma Barbara uttered.

"Oil," family or friends may have opined, will improve the quality of the your existence. Perchance George felt as I did. He had no cause to distrust those he was close to. Indeed, relatives of the heir apparent could avow, with knowledge, to refine sweet crude would put money in a person's pocket. Black gold had helped to grow profits for the Bush brood for generations. As evidence, any of those related to George W. might have offered the family history.

Oil:. The Bushes’ ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye. George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries. George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore.

Frequently a boy child will follow a father's path. Fondness can fashion a future. On land and in the seas sweet light crude secured the Bush family's future. Young George W. Bush looked at evidence. His ancestral past, and his present circumstances even at an early age, helped establish a proven record. Investments in petroleum equate to prosperity. After a scant assessment, the youthful Bush likely decided, drill, drill, drill. That would be the life for him. Silver platters can be persuasive. The opinions of friends and family can also be extremely influential.

Through our personal acquaintance, Gene taught me to trust him and to have faith in his beliefs. Eugene had experience with hair dye. He felt the practice was safe, sane, and offered a sensational opportunity to liven up a face and an existence. Although initially hesitant, I concluded I would at least "try" what quickly became my habit. However, what I did not realize was once you begin on a path, it is a challenge to change course. Dark roots appeared in no time, as did my demand for more hair-dye.

George too may have approached his novel exploration cautiously. Many offspring resolve, they do not wish to be in the family business. The son of the senior Bush might have thought to play at this prospect until he found something better. However, George W. may have quickly discovered just as I did; it is easy to become hooked on a habit, newly acquired or tried and true.

When a career choice yields great wealth and greater opportunity, it is difficult to resist the temptation to continue on a prosperous path. Once the journey begins, an oilman such as George W. Bush realized, empty gas tanks require more fuel. Electrical equipment must be charged. The demand is endless. The people, such as the Bush band, who earn income from the supply, are happy to serve. Thus, the dissonance thrives.

The provider of power or the person caught in a mad pursuit for peroxide journeys deeper into an endless downward spiral. However, neither is aware of the consequences. Gene might not have considered that his chosen career shaded his truth. Nor did I ponder that a professional hair-styler has a singular perspective.

When first introduced to the idea of hair-dye, I pondered; who was the person who presented the proposition. However, I did not think of the veracity, or what later was so clear. Eugene was trained to trust in toxic dyes. When a person sees tinted hair all day, and into the evening, shades of stain on strands of hair seem sensible. The individual that takes the time to apply the colors, surely must think the work wise.

Perhaps, a young George W. Bush also concerned himself with the credibility of those who counseled him. He too found reason to have faith. The future President of the United States might not have pondered further. He may not have investigated the possible hazards associated with oil production or petroleum use. Often, when presented with a choice, we cannot imagine the infinite unknown possibilities, probabilities, or the perils.

My friend not only shaded my hair; his beliefs tainted my own. The hair on my head, and the thoughts in my gray matter were tinted. The Bush family may have colored the consciousness of the youthful George and persuaded a future President to forget what he could have known. Petroleum pollutes. Refined crude contaminates the air and seas. The fumes from Texas Tea in an engine cause temperatures on the terrain and in the troposphere to rise.

Granted, I understood how chemical treatments harmed my tresses and dulled the tint. Aware of the damage done beneath the surface of a follicle, I persuaded myself it was slight and worth the sacrifice. Possibly, the Bush family thought the same of their endeavors. Certainly, George W. Bush still does. He offers plans for renewable energy as he continues to pursue petroleum. Ah, the dynamics of a decision are vast and deep.

Only now, as the globe warms, the climate changes, and the weather whips people and their property into oblivion, does Mister Bush face the true cost of his earlier decision. Only recently did the President recognize the harmful influence of fossil fuels on the environment. Today, he finally acknowledges the immediate need for a commitment to cleaner energy. Just as I slowly understood, the damage chemicals did to my hair, George W. now touts his mindfulness. There is a problem. The planet is in peril.

As death and destruction beckon for attention, George sees as I did when I looked into the mirror. Life, or the look, was out of balance. The natural beauty was gone. The breaks were bad. Chemicals had stripped the surface . . . of the land or my locks.

However, while Mister Bush sees a need for transformation, it seems he is, as I was, reluctant to recognize the seriousness of the situation. His does not act decisively to change what has become his [and our nations'] practice.

President Bush advised Americans to ponder alterative renewable sources for power. This country's Commander touted; viable resolutions for our energy crisis are easily accessible. "Biodiesel refineries can produce fuel from soybeans, and vegetable oils, and recycled cooking grease, from waste materials." The President proposed Americans could invest in clean energy. Indeed, he exclaimed; we must go green. However, for Mister Bush an emerald endeavor is black as oil or golden as bullion. This oilman has reaped many a reward from America's addiction, as have we all. Convenience is but one benefit cheap energy bestows upon the United States public. Profits have been more profound, more colorful for Chief Executive Bush.

Possibly, for the President charcoal is a fine hue. "George," if I might speak in the familiar, seems to think as I once did. One shade can be substituted for another. Only the more transparent tones cause George W. Bush much angst. Who will or how might moguls who have invested lifetimes of worth, as this oil magnate has, harness, the sun, the wind, and water. Mister Bush is unable to imagine a future so different from the life he and his family have long known. Thus, he avoids the option he says he appreciates, just as I eschewed the thought of using no tint at all on my mane. The untried did not ring true.

Attempts to transform what has been an American tradition are preferred by this President (and perhaps, the public.) George W. Bush speaks of clean coal, as though there is such a substance. Coal is a recognizable source of energy; yet, not a renewable or alternative choice. Coal generates 54% of the electricity used in the United States. Whilst he ran for President, candidate Bush pledged that he would commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology. Indeed, as promised, the National Energy Policy and budget requests to Congress demonstrated the President's dedication to this cause.

Few fear what they do not wish to accept. The Chief Executive favors an element that is essentially filthy. The President might muse clean coal is the change. Yet, he ignores that the hard black sedimentary rock is a health hazard to all it serves. This "plentiful" element pollutes when it is mined, transported to the power plant, stored, and burned. This combustible material destroys life throughout the global community. Many species cannot survive as well as man believes he might when nature is out of balance.

Equilibrium is the gracious essence that helps us to thrive. I too sought to sustain symmetry. I pondered the many ways in which my mane might maintain its sheen and still be enhanced. I hoped to find energy in color. When confronted with the notion that a tint could damage my tresses, I also contemplated other options. Clean dye; that was my criteria.

I assessed what I thought would be safe. With a similar pious conviction, I concluded henna could perhaps be a practical possibility . . . that is if I wanted to enhance the natural hue of my hair. At the time, this substitute seemed sensible to me. I thought only of what I believed true, just as George W. Bush does today. Plants are pure, plentiful, and will provide what I need . . . or want, perchance.

I had not authentically considered the possible predicament a product could cause. At first blush, I was content with what seemed an ideal and equal opportunity. Then, later, after I acknowledged my error, I was easily satisfied with what I trusted to be an indigenous replacement.

Now, cognizant of the connection between my hair and his history, I wonder; what concerns did George W. Bush weigh. Did he study the consequences of his choices? Did he hear or think to heed any of the cautions? Might President Bush have ruminated on the probable ruin of the land and lives? Could he have predicted what might happen if we raped the land to gratify our need for energy?

One never knows what is in the heart or mind of another. Nonetheless, as I reflect upon times gone by in my own life, I trust the President did not imagine, and perchance, still, he has no idea of what he reaped and sowed. I surely did not.

For me, awareness arrived slowly. As I processed my hair, I did not have the opportunity to notice the subtle changes. I was too close to the situation. I could not see what I did not wish to acknowledge. I suspect George W. Bush [and Americans absorbed in what feels, oh, so fine] do not realize what harm unhealthy dependence causes.

To dye or to die. To drive vehicles powered with fossil fuels or to authentically preserve the planet, which is now in peril. These might be the questions George and I avoided, or only addressed half-heartedly.

When I thought tinted hair was desirable, each alternative possibility required me to treat my hair with color. Upon reflection, I realize I had not known to think of how the texture or tone of my mane might change if I ingested a more nutritious diet. That is another story for another time. Today, I wonder. Was George open enough to evaluate horizons he had yet to explore?

As I gazed upon the President speaking of energy, I could not help but think of how Mister Bush said we must work to improve technology. He confidently confirmed, we can wean ourselves away from fossil fuels. In his own words the President espoused , "(A)t the same time" we must find "oil and gas here at home." The mantra is very familiar. It was mine. I believe this rationalization is reflected in the adage 'You can have your cake and eat it too.'

Indeed, for a very long time, I indulged in similar silly logic. As the blonde stain grew out, I said, I could refresh the look and limit my use of artificial satin all at the same time. Oh, if only that was possible. As long as dye is applied, the harmful effects of the treatment will not fade away. The problem was, and is, whether we speak of fossil fuels or human hair, the more you invest in the unhealthy habits you claim to condemn the less likely it is that change will come.

Much to our detriment, individuals such as George and I are, and mankind is, comfortable with the familiar. Humans are content to engage as they have for so long, regardless of whether a practice nourishes the body, soul, or the planet.

People may plan for or posit a change. George W. Bush emphatically pronounced, "(N)ow is the time to get it done." He or I might suggest a slow move towards purity. However, as my hair taught me, as long as I [or we] do as we have done, nothing will be different.

As long as I stained my mane, there was more reason to stain my mane. As long as America satisfies its addiction to oil, there is more reason to continue to gratify the love of gasoline. When manufacturers build more machines reliant on petroleum, they encourage a greater dependence on fossil fuels. An obsession for oil is as a mania for a colored mane. Each, initially, captivates an individual and then controls the person.

Most of us learn to love what we later determine may be detrimental.

George W. Bush, just as many Americans seem to be, is as I was. The President is caught in a horrific, harmful, spiral, and yet comfortable with what he knows and does. While the cost, to the environment, and to personal pocketbooks, may encourage a desire for change, convenience and expediency are enormously more persuasive. Oh, how well, I know this to be true.

I was once victim to a viability that made sense. The President and the American people are caught up in the same conundrum. If he, or we, fails to eliminate our physical and psychological, dependence on oil now there may not be a later.

To transform our reality we need to recognize the delicate dance for what it is. Just as less dye was an unwise compromise for me, limited selective, additional drilling is a concession with consequences. Partial progression will not alter our habituation. It is time to stop! To rethink, reinvent, to re-power our plants and public opinion is to truly care for our selves and for generations to come.

Resources or Reflections on Refinery . . .

Drill, Baby, Drill: Breaking Down Sarah Palin's VP Speech, By Maura Judkis. USA Today. September 4, 2008

Up and Down the Learning Curve. Editorial. The New York times. October 11, 2008

Americans favor offshore drilling, By Ben Rooney. Cable News Network. July 30, 2008

Energy for America's Future. The White House.

Press Conference by the President . The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. July 15, 2008

Energy for America's Future The White House. 2008

Press Conference By the President. Office of the Press Secretary. July 15, 2008

President Bush Attends Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008. Office of the Press Secretary. March 5, 2008

Enormous Wealth Spilled Into American Coffers, By Robert G. Kaiser. The Washington Post. Cornell Library. Monday, February 11, 2002; Page A17

Clean Coal Technology & 
The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative. United States Department of energy.

'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That. By Jeff Biggers. Washington Post. Sunday, March 2, 2008; B02

pdf 'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That. By Jeff Biggers. Washington Post. Sunday, March 2, 2008; B02

Coal versus Wind. Union of Concerned Scientist.

To Color or not to Color, By Perri Jackson. Organic Consumer Organization. October 28, 2004

Risks Of Dyeing Your Hair, Why Chemicals are Harmful, By Ezilon.com Articles. February 1, 2006, 20:35

Paging Dr. Gupta: Hair Dye, Cancer. Cable News Network. January 28, 2004

Biofuels: 'Green gold' or problems untold? Cable News Network. February 25, 2008

Bioenergy: Fuelling the food crisis? By Stephanie Holmes. British Broadcasting Company [BBC]. June 4, 2008

On Warming, Bush Vows U.S. 'Will Do Its Part,' Critics Praise Attention But Call Ideas Lacking. By Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. 
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page A03

pdf On Warming, Bush Vows U.S. 'Will Do Its Part,' Critics Praise Attention But Call Ideas Lacking. By Peter Baker and Juliet Eilperin. Washington Post. 
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page A03

Bush Family Values, By Elizabeth drew. The Nation. February 12, 2004

Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil, By Kevin Phillips. The Los Angeles Times. February 8, 2004

President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address , Office of the Press Secretary. January 31, 2006

Causes of Global Warming, EcoBridge.

Gone: Mass Extinction and the Hazards of Earth's Vanishing Biodiversity, 
By 2100, half of all species will be extinct. Who will survive? By Julia Whitty. Mother Jones. April 25, 2007

pdf Gone: Mass Extinction and the Hazards of Earth's Vanishing Biodiversity, 
By 2100, half of all species will be extinct. Who will survive? By Julia Whitty. Mother Jones. April 25, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Americana, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Dynasty, Emotional Decisions, Energy Enigma, Environment, Global Warming, Nature, Oil, Oil Companies , Policy, Price of Petroleum, Short-term Solutions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bailouts Blaze; Exuberance Explodes

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash’

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Never spend your money before you have it.
~ Thomas Jefferson

I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Tis Sunday, September 28, 2008. The weather is warm and word on the streets is warmer. Fire from Hades, fervor, and fury heat the debate heard on the streets and in the halls of Congress. Businesses fail. Banks do too. Bailouts are planned and these too falter. Those in the White House are red hot with concern. People in Treasury Department and within Secretary Henry Paulson's office sense the burn. Many fear they too will be scorched. The flames are intense on the Hill. Yet, on American avenues many feel, while inflamed by the rhetoric, chilled at the prospect that this immediate need for a bailout is but a hoax or perchance, just hype.

Citizens in this country have been lied to too often; particularly, the public believes, the current Administration has been irresponsible with facts and finances. Candidates and Congress have delivered a fair share of untruths. Tycoons, most accept, fudge the numbers. Countless conclude, there is no one, in government, or in corporate offices, they can trust. Hence, when confronted with the claim, American taxpayers must bailout Wall Street, most say, and what of Main Street? What of me?

The electorate fumes. Even the apathetic are steamed. Big-businesses will receive bailouts while the poor wallow in economic waste. What is a person to do?

History might tell us we can do nothing. Rome burned and Nero fiddled. That is often the case when people are provided with fruits of folly in hopes they might forget financial woes. "The fundamentals of the economy are (still) strong," is uttered to appease Americans and perchance, those throughout the globe.

Today, and throughout this week we might recall the recession, the correction that preceded the perceived bump. The year was 1929, near four score ago. The month was October, and the date was the 27th. While America had realized many fiscal depressions in years prior, none was as the crash heard on that solemn Thursday afternoon. Few expected what amounted to a sonic boom. The smoke rose from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The fire on that day singed portfolios and people. The rumbles and rubble reminded many of the ruins of Pompeii. Some could not bear the high temperature of an explosive economy.

At first, economists and leaders thought this was a mild bump, perhaps merely a correction of the market, or in any case, no worse than the recession the nation suffered after World War I.

Numbers soon proved the optimists incorrect. The depression steadily worsened. By spring of 1933, when FDR took the oath of office, unemployment had risen from 8 to 15 million (roughly 1/3 of the non-farmer workforce) and the gross national product had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion. Forty percent of the farms in Mississippi were on the auction block on FDR's inauguration day. Although the depression was world wide, no other country except Germany reached so high a percentage of unemployed.

The poor were hit the hardest. By 1932, Harlem had an unemployment rate of 50 percent and property owned or managed by blacks fell from 30 percent to 5 percent in 1935. Farmers in the Midwest were doubly hit by economic downturns and the Dust Bowl. Schools, with budgets shrinking, shortened both the school day and the school year.

The breadth and depth of the crisis made it the Great Depression.

No one knew how best to respond to the crisis.

Nor does anyone today. On boulevards and in banks, citizen question why do we need a bailout for big-businesses. What of the common folk? Who will or has ever assisted the little guys and gals. All these questions and more are apt. Where were the regulators, and what ever became of regulations?

No one wondered, not even those in the well-educated Middle Class when they could cash in on high home prices. Few fretted when it was easy to secure a loan. Brokers and borrowers could live in the lap of luxury when no one was watching the safe or our fiscal security.

It was fun, to burn billions, while it lasted. Now, as Americans sit on piles of ash, once called McMansions or glorious abodes, too many millions weep for what they were happy to have wrought. Credit card companies call and demand; they must collect on the debt. Americans whimper. "I cannot pay." My foundation, my funds were burned when all was set ablaze.

When life was good Americans bought the oratory from the Oval Office. People purchased businesses, stocks, bonds, clothing, and any capital that could boost a sense of wellness. Americans spent . . . it all, and on what. Inflated images. Irrational exuberance was contagious. It spread as a wild fire in a forest full of tinder dry trees. Yet, now the Bush's are bare. Everyone has his or her hand out. "Alms for the poor" is not the cry. "Alms for the rich is what citizens are told will help. People read.

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash’
The US stock market could suffer a devastating crash with shares losing a third of their value this week if Hank Paulson’s financial bailout plan fails, US Treasury officials have warned.

By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway 

Telegraph
28 September 2008, 10:14AM BST

The financial system could face a meltdown of 1929 proportions unless US politicians succeed in their efforts for a $700bn rescue scheme, experts added.

The warning came as Republicans and Democrats met in Washington for a rare weekend debating session to attempt to seal agreement on the contentious plan, aimed at preventing a long-lasting recession in the US.

Officials close to Paulson are privately painting a far bleaker portrait of the fragility of the global economy than that advanced by President George W Bush in his televised address last week.

One Republican said that the message from government officials is that “the economy is dropping into the john.” He added: “We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days.

“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.” . . .

Peter Spencer, economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club, said: “This is the time you have to bail people out and ask questions later. It is very difficult to see how the US banking system would survive without that.

This has the potential to make 1929 look like a walk in the park.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said: “We hope sometime [Sunday] evening we can announce some kind of agreement in principle. We may not have another day.”

Rebel Republicans - who see Paulson’s proposals as socialism by the back door - were warned they will be responsible for causing an “amazing catastrophe” if they continue to oppose the plans, which would see taxpayers buy up the bad debts of failing banks. Instead they want an insurance scheme for banks, which would spread the cost to private enterprise.

Would it be that insurers could ensure, people will not do as they have done and ignore all cautions. In the past, professors preached, "Remember the Alamo," Today, teachers beckon, "Recall the demise of American International Group (AIG)," an insurance company who fell only a week ago.

A person considered a prominent and extremely prosperous investor attempted to teach the world of what no one wished to see. Early in May 2008, Entrepreneur, Berkshire Hathaway Chairman, Warren Buffett warned us the winds from the warm blaze would scorch all life on the planet today. He said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, we are in for a "long, deep recession," "Perhaps not in the sense that economists would define it. But the people are already feeling the effects. It will be deeper and last longer than many think."

Sadly, Few heard him. People were off shopping. Most paid for purchases with fire. Sales, while robust, were often transactions that led to greater debt. For decades now, people have preferred to buy now and pay later. Only now do Americans experience an economic pinch.

Awestruck by the economic wreckage, people ask why. Why me? Why now; and a few astute monetary masters say, "Why not?" Economists wonder why is it that humans do not learn from history. People look back after they are burned. The question might not be what caused the fire or the frenzy. That answer is easily found. Humans, flawed and filled with the foible of avarice wish to accumulate what they cannot afford. Perchance, the query could be, who or how often will people pursue a bailout? When will debt not be an option and when will humans guard against avariciousness?

References for Fiscal Resources . . .

Increase in Area Retail Vacancies Is Modest, By Ylan Q. Mui. Washington Post. Monday, August 4, 2008; D01

Stocks Fall as Bailout Plan Falters. Washington Post. September 28, 2008

U.S. Forces WaMu Sale As Bank Founders, Historic Failure Prompts Deal With J.P. Morgan. By Binyamin Appelbaum. Washington Post. 
Friday, September 26, 2008; A01

Treasury Secretary's Bailout Request Compared To Spam Scam, By Sarah Lai Stirland. Wired. September 23, 2008

Bush and Candidates to Meet on Bailout, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. September 25, 2008

Trust But Verify, By James K. Galbraith and William K. Black. The Nation. September 23, 2008

Bipartisan Support for Wall St. Rescue Plan Emerges, By Brian Knowlton and David M. Herszenhorn. The New York Times. September 22, 2008

Analysis: Credit crisis erodes faith in Washington, By Deb Riechmann. The Associated Press. Saturday, September 27, 2008; 5:46 PM

The Great Depression. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

World War I. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

FDR. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers.

Everybody Calm Down. A Government Hand In the Economy Is as Old as the Republic. By Robert J. Shiller. Washington Post. Sunday, September 28, 2008; Page B01

Bailout failure 'will cause US crash.’ By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway. Telegraph. September 28, 2008

'Germans Know Something About Business.' Interview. Der Spiegel. May 28, 2008

Economy Fitful, Americans Start to Pay as They Go, By Peter S. Goodman. The New York Times. February 5, 2008

More Americans using credit cards to stay afloat, By Kathy Chu. USA Today. March 30, 2008

How AIG's Federal Bailout Affects Policyholders' Payouts, By Kimberly Lankford. Kiplinger's Personal Finance. Washington Post. Sunday, September 28, 2008; Page F03

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 28, 2008 at 01:00 PM in Bush 43 Administration, Business, Capitalism and Competition, Congress and Bush, Corporate Criminals, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack