The-Decline-and-Fall

Post #214 Happy 2010!

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:17:00 +0000

Well, well, well, don't Republicans feel embarrassed and ashamed? Health care reform has passed both the House and the Senate, and the party of "NO" is left to hoping that the bill falls apart in conference committee. But yet there have been no earthquakes or volcanoes or any other end-of-time scenarios.

Washington, D.C., is like a giant pre-school. Lil' Barack Obama showed up and spread his toys on the table, and Lil' Republican kicked the table over and then cried that Obama wasn't sharing. Like a five year old who wants to sulk, Lil' Republican ignored the numbers which said that health care reform was inevitable -- now, Republicans are on the outside looking in and crying that they wanted health care reform all along.

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

It's like Sarah Palin's bailout support -- ya know, George W. Bush's bank bailout that she supported during the '08 campaign but bad-mouthed in her book. Now that banks are paying back the money -- it looks like the bailout is working, expect Palin to say any day; "I was for it before I was against it."

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

'Ah,' ya ask, 'do you believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President?' Yes, of course, she is -- Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. There is no test -- just present a valid birth certificate. :p After all, we just had the governor of a large state who was not intellectually curious, politely speaking, as President -- wait, that did not turn so well.

Anywho, consider inconsistent former Vice President Dick Cheney who said "[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." Indeed, Cheney and his pals have been passing around a recording of a statement by Obama that shows he is weak on terror:

On Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio, Obama said, "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration has failed to understand."

Um, that is correct. How does that make us less safe?

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In other words, we are at war with that which is tangible -- Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, "terrorism," or a religion, Gawd-forbid.

How does that make us less safe?

The inconsistent Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, chimed in: "I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system."

How does that make us less safe? And how does the underwear bomber differ from the shoe bomber -- who, of course, was placed in the criminal-justice system by Bush/Cheney?

Consistency, please.

[rolleyes]

Post #213 Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ!

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:43:00 +0000

Thought that would get your attention. :p

I don't follow too closely the end-of-time commotion -- beyond knowing that December 21, 2012 is THE day -- and the search for the anti-Christ. But I do know there are three things to look for.

First, the anti-Christ will seduce people. Who can forget Palin's performance during the debate? I felt seduced.

Second, the anti-Christ will be seen as a savior. Well, Palin is already seen as savior of the GOP.

Third, the anti-Christ will wear a green hat.

I have a cousin who is all excited about Palin's book tour. Will she ask about the differences between reality and Pality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33918869/ns/today-today_books

Or if Palin has a green hat?

America 2009 [rolleyes]

When the shooting at Ft. Hood happened on a Thursday, I figured that out of respect for the dead it'd be at least until the round of Sunday talk shows BEFORE somebody blamed President Barak Obama. I was wrong. It was Friday afternoon, and I heard that Obama was "directly and personally" responsible.

I've tried and tried, but I just can't wrap my mind around that idea that Obama is to blame. It seems more reasonable to blame the previous President for starting the wars that set off the shooter.

But, of course, it is only reasonable to blame the shooter.

Speaking of reason, I thought Republicans were the 'law and order' crowd and would be cheering the trial of 9/11 mastermind. But no. Since we had a Republican in the White House whose policy was to ignore justice, Republicans are upset that a Democrat in the White House would show faith in our judicial system.

Don't Republicans realize the policy of the previous administration amounted to 'no consequence for terror' -- speeding? Ya want a trial? Kill thousands? Ha! Go to Miami Beach and ask Osama how effective the long arm of American justice is.

Speaking of Osama and his pals, why do they hate us? Why did they attack us on 9/11? I thought the answer was clear: They hate us because we are over there. They have probably never read the Constitution nor understand our government -- just as Russia was opposed during the '80s, not because of their government but because they were over there.

But I saw on TV just the other day some congressman doing his best impersonation of a 2002 George W. Bush: "They attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms, our values and our way of life."

America 2009 * sigh *

Has our educational system failed so badly -- in regards to both the congressman and the voters who elected a dolt? We need a savior. I wonder if Sarah Palin is busy?

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:04:00 +0000

Post #212 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. III

I am so disappointed. Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama, but yet there is still no update about joining the military. Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA.

But the website still incites a call to talk radio. Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service. The cynic in me says that Cheney does know her audience -- "ignorance is bliss."

But I am really disappointed because Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' ignores the big story of the week: Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation in the Valerie Plame affair -- on 72 occasions, Cheney equivocated, politely speaking, during his three-hour May 2004 interview. That is why Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared that "there is a cloud over the vice president."

Don't worry, Liz, I doubt the crowd you're speaking to has ever heard of Fitzgerald or even \Valerie Plame -- I'm sure they know that Obama is a Muslim! :p

But please explain, Liz:

How did 'Scooter' Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA? Libby's own handwritten notes suggest Libby found out from Cheney, and Libby talked to Cheney about this, according his grand jury testimony. Cheney "cannot recall Libby telling him how he first heard of Valerie Wilson," according to the FBI summary.

How long has ol' Dick suffered from a diminished mental capacity? Should somebody with a diminished mental capacity serve as Vice President!?!

[Insert your own 'diminished mental capacity-as-President' joke here.]

Rest easy, Liz: 'Your' crowd will not consider the implications -- either Dick Cheney has a diminished mental capacity, or he is full of crap! 'Your' crowd will never know.

By the way, the Cheney interview summary was released last Friday to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At least somebody wants an informed electorate.

Post #211 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. II

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:19:00 +0000

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama which it says has succeeded only in undermining the nation's security by moving away from the Bush era foreign policy. Yet there is no update about joining the military. Ya know, I'm beginning to think that Liz is as dismissive of the military as her father. :p

How many deferments did ol' Dick get during the Vietnam War!?! Four or five?

"I dismiss men like [Dick] Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did."

Who could be so disrespectful? Retired General Paul Eaton who served more than 30 years in the United States Army and from 2003-2004 oversaw the training of the Iraqi military. Ya know, one of those wishy-washy military guys.

Eaton continued: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

Of course, Liz repeats the same ol,' same ol:' "Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement." Almost as major as being asleep before 9/11. In August 2009, according to the "Washington Post," after first learning of the alleged Zazi plot, President Obama got briefings three times a day on it. In August 2001, where was ol' Dick?

From Eaton: "As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. ... No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation's youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right."

Post #210 disturbing trend

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:19:00 +0000

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect US wildlife....

[Picture is of a bear sitting at a picnic table. I've never had the time nor inclination to learn how to add a pic to this blog.]

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed... Bearack Obearma.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

I chuckled. But then I also wondered: How many peeps who chuckled do not recognize their own paws seeking the aid and comfort of government? I have diabetes and am covered by Medicare. Ya?

Post #209 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:22:00 +0000

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is not finished.

Take Action Now, the website extorts:

1) Join Keep America Safe -- give 'em your e-mail address and your home address so that ya can enjoy all sorts of right-wing propaganda (including, I bet, an offer to subscribe to "The Weekly Standard," the neo-con magazine by 'KeepAmericaSafe' co-founder Bill Krystol);
2) Contribute -- the low-end amounts are $25 or $10 per month (anything less means ya is a communist);
3) Write a letter to a news editor -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
4) Call talk radio -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
5) Write a letter to your congressman -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe."

What is missing? How about joining the military? Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA? Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service.

I'm going to give Liz Cheney the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that she's busy, not dismissive of the military like her father.

Post #208 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?, Pt. II

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:42:00 +0000

One complaint against my writing -- but not the only complaint, by the way -- is that I'm too short. Guilty. I happen to think that anybody who is smart enough to connect to the 'net is smart enough to get a point in one sentence -- no need to beat 'em over the head.

However, I'm forgetting the tip from freshman English 25 years ago: If something is important, repeat it. If something is important, repeat it. By repeating the same something a third time in a different way shows that it is really important.

So, I'm going to expand my Post #200, "Who Killed Stephen Hawking?"

* * *

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government, BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient government. I'm sure that his health care is expensive, probably too expensive for Hawking to handle by himself/

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government' theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. Tho the government is keeping Stephen Hawking alive, they want to cite Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. But at least government will respond and change its ways. If we, the people, don't want 'death panels,' there won't be 'death panels' deciding the value of life and when to pull the plug on Hawking or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad. If Stephen Hawking had to rely on a private insurer....

Or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma. A private company will resist any change that may affect its bottom-line. Their 'death panels' -- which consist of accountants reading balance sheets -- are OK with them.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that? Isn't it the best strategy to copy an already-existing program? That is why the search for an "uniquely American" solution makes no sense -- our "uniquely American" solution is under our noses.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless." What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors.

Universal health care is also pro-workers. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "It [private insurance thro employers] makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness." -- government-run health care would mean nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

* * *

Better?

Post #207 Aaarrrggghhh!!!

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:10:00 +0000

I've come to really value my time on the 'net -- which seems to be getting less and less these days. And then I get crap in my e-box.

There are plenty of good and true and valid points on which to oppose Nancy Pelosi -- I have a few myself. But her new plane is NOT one.

Ya know the e-mail, the one that says Pelosi requested a "big fat jumbo jet" to ferry big supporters across country. That e-mail is a couple of years old. I'd gotten several over time but not recently. I thought it'd been thoroughly discredited and had died.

But there it was, again, in my e-box just the other day. The peeps who mindlessly -- without checking ar least at snopes.com -- hit "Fwd" on every rant don't realize what a disservice they're doing to their 'cause.' Whatever the 'cause' may be.

My Pelosi-hating e-pal had already lost credibility with me -- this was not his first error-filled "anti-Pelosi" e-mail. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't really care to know.

My advice is to NOT hit "Fwd" on a rant that doesn't have a link to show where it came from. Go to townhall.com or huffingtonpost.com and find a column ya agree with and e-mail that. Peeps who sign their columns have an interest in maintaining credibility. Keep in mind, tho, some columnists thrive on being over-the-top and playing fast and loose with the facts -- they usually claim to be a "comedian."

If ya lie down with dogs, ya get fleas. If ya send a column by a comedian, don't be surprised when peeps laugh at ya.

Post #206 Charles Krauthammer's Health-Care Reform Plan

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:28:00 +0000

QUICK! CALL 9-1-1!! LET'S RUSH THE CONSTITUTION TO THE HOSPITAL!!!

Charles Krauthammer wants to take away your Constitutional right to have your day in court. "[I'd a]bolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries."

I'll agree with Krauthammer that Obamacare "simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care."

But unConstitutional socialism is not the way to go.

Neo-cons. [rolleyes] No wonder the complaint is that Republicans have no plan. All that is heard is nonsense.

There are two components to Krauthammer's plan: 1) Tear up the Constitution; 2) Raise taxes. "The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts," Krauthammer said. "Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

"There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness."

Yep, but the solution is -- well....

"Tax employer-provided health-care benefits," Krauthammer said, "and return the money to the employee."

I must have been asleep that day during 'Conservatism 101,' but how does taxing businesses -- big and small, I'm guessing -- help? I appreciate the willingness to mention taxes -- taxes = services, after all. But I think my idea in my Post #203 to tax the individuals who use Obamacare is better.

Look, Obamacare is just too complicated. We ought to just copy an already-existing program -- Medicare, the plan for only Senators and congressmen, Charles Krauthammer's plan (not his neo-con fantasy but what he currently uses)....

Post #205 Don't want no socialism 'round here....

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:12:00 +0000

I have a few cows. I sell 'em for meat. What I really hate is the way the government sends a 'Agriculture Extension Officer' to tell me how to raise cows.

We need to get the government out of agriculture. Let's end the socialism of agri-welfare. Just think of the tax-savings for everybody, and I can pass my savings in the cost of raising cows along to ya. Wouldn't ya like cheaper hamburger?

I know what ya is thinking. But I promise to have a vet check out my cows every week -- keep 'Mad Cow disease' out of the food supply. Unless of course that is the week lil' BobbiSue needs braces. But, hey, the chances of ya getting sick is small.

No, sir, no socialism for me! :p

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #204 9/11, revisited, Pt. III

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:56:00 +0000

As I said in my Post #175, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condi Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9'11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda" It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.

Post #203 Why Leadership Has Failed On Health Care Reform

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:47:00 +0000

The mistake President Obama is making in regard to health care reform is that he is being too timid -- there should be a government-takeover of health care. As the Preamble to the Constitution states: "promote the general Welfare."

The public-option that Obama wants is a time-consuming ruse -- the government will choke private insurers out of business. The eight [8] consumer protections that David Axelrod outlined in my post #201 are fine and dandy, but they are how the insurance companies make money and stay in business. Private insurers cannot compete with public coffers. All so that Obama can claim that he allowed the free market to work.

We have already had years and years and years of the free market; we need more now. Yes, that means government. Some problems are so big that government is the only answer. Even George Will agrees with me -- read his column about the success of Phoenix, Arizona.

I'm no fool, * heh * -- I realize that BIG government is just that -- BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient. But at least government will respond and change its ways. A private company will resist change.

As a Libertarian blue dog Democrat, * huh? * I realize that it is in the governments interest to run health care -- a pro-business stance. What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors. Whoever decided that businesses should be in charge of their employee's health care acted stupidly.

However, I cannot support anything that's not paid for -- beyond "we'll cut waste and fraud" or other voodoo.

I think a %10 'medical tax' on everbody who files an income tax return would do -- Ned the Wino who draws $10,000 in Social Security would pay $1000 for his 'Obamacare' card while Bill Gates would pay $5 billion. Or some kind of graduation -- Ned would pay %5, $500; Bill would pay %20, $10 billion.

Make it optional -- if anybody objects to "socialism," make 'em give up Social Security, Medicare, the use of federally-funded highways, etc.

I am disappointed that Obama is not shooting straight -- playing the free market game to outwit conservatives. We need more.

Post #202 Dick Cheney Terrorizes America

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:06:00 +0000

Dick Cheney, former Vice President who was asleep on 9/11, said that the Obama administration's respect for the rule of law and the decision to investigate the CIA serve as a reminder "if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."

Sweating, Dick? :p

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:59:00 +0000

Post #201 Fwd: Something Worth "Fwd"

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

This is probably one of the longest emails Ive ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.

So lets start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, youll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by whats below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: Its a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

2. We cant afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. Its a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the
up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. Its a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: Its a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: Its a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: Its myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: Its myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Womens reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured 2013 million people are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spoe. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Visit WhiteHouse.gov

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #200 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:43:00 +0000

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government's theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. They want to cite Stephen Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. All the while, it is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. Universal health care is also pro-workers -- nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

Post #199 Why I'm Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:05:00 +0000

Well, it's the same reason I oppose all marriages: The government has no interest in promoting unions of any kind -- thro tax breaks or any incentives.

It can be argued that, during the 19th century, the government had an interest in promoting unions and therefore children. The country needed to be populated, and government codifying the value of religious marriage was the way to go. But that changed sometime during the 20th century.

However, the government does have an interest in promoting the establishments of homes to raise children as this would be cheaper than government-financed orphanages.

Please note that my argument as of today has nothing to do with religion -- neither for nor against a religious definition of marriage. Separation of church and state, ya know....

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:32:00 +0000

Post #198 Conservatives Against Crowley

Sergeant James Crowley wasted government money when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. -- there was no crime. Crowley "got" his man -- but at what cost?

Did Gates raise his cane in a threatening manner? No. Did Gates punch Crowley? No! Did Gates throw a book? NO! There is no crime described in Crowley's official version. That is why the charges had to be dropped.

Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Guess what? Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. If Gates had of confessed to a crime or threatened to commit a crime, there would have been cause for an arrest. But nothing that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct.

Ya have a Constitutional right to engage in what Crowley refers to as "continued tumultuous behavior." Ya can call a cop fat, ugly and stupid -- he is paid to have the good judgment and ignore that, not act "stupidly."

And how were the good people of Cambridge protected and served by one of their finest being "downtown" instead of on the mean streets? Conseratives, if ya can get beyond your prefernce for the white man, ya will recognize this case for what it is -- wasteful government spending.

Post #197 Speaking of Dick Cheney...

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:51:00 +0000

... and wasteful government spending, Secret Service protection for former Vice President Dick Cheney has been extended.

Normally, former vice presidents only receive Secret Service protection for the first six months after leaving office. This is the first time a former vice president's security detail has been extended beyond the standard duration.

How long? Not being said. It seems that Cheney whined and was officially authorized for extra protection by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on July 17.

So, Cheney sought the aid and comfort of government. As Joe the Plumber would say, "Sounds like socialism to me." No word yet on whether Cheney plans to reimburse the government.

Why the extension? Cheney's paranoia -- the extension was not based on a specific threat against the former vice president. Rather, 1) the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) the political debate about the Bush administration's strategies, 3) Cheney's active public schedule -- his refusal to stay 'undisclosed' -- and 4) Scooter Libby is out there, and he didn't get a pardon. Who knows what Evil lurks in the heart of a man who writes about bestiality in a novel!?! :p

Post #196 War Is Over, Dick!

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:40:00 +0000

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, was the beginning of the end, the deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq's cities. It was an occasion for rejoicing, despite some continuing violence. The prime minister there declaring it a national holiday, a day of sovereignty.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed concern Monday that the insurgents were just waiting for U.S. forces to pull out to renew their attacks. "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point," he said.

Um, you had over five years, a trillion or so dollars, over 4000 American lives, tens of thousands Iraq lives to get it right, Dick! And now we are left to clean up your mess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is an important step forward as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny.

And there is more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who has served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But, take heart, Dick -- FAUX NEWS continues to spew.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Fox Report," June 30, 2009)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: But he referred to what we have achieved as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word -- democracy. That was a Bush idea was to lant a democracy in Iraq.

If we had wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war and gotten out.

It's true that the democracy established here is a fragile one. It's still struggling, and we will argue for decades over whether it was worth the 4,000 American lives, as we still argue half a century later with whether or not it was worth 36,000 lives to salvage a democracy in half of the Korean Peninsula.

Nonetheless, it is a democracy, and that's what makes it unique and distinctive, and an amazing achievement in a sea of autocracies and dictatorships, having an effect, by example, on Lebanon, on the gulf states, and even on Iran, where Iranians look to their west and see a country which is also Shiite, Arab, which the Persians consider
culturally inferior, and yet it has a democracy, it has elections, it has an Ayatollah Sistani who says the clerics ought to stay out of politics, nd the Iranians are living under a sixth century dictatorship run by mullahs.

So it's a remarkable achievement, and we ought to emphasize what we have achieved in terms of democracy.

And it's a pity that the president ignores that because the democratic nature of Iraq will establish the basis for a strategic alliance between America and Iraq in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

So, did we take our eye off the ball with a misguided act based on false premises that caused more damage than good? Or will we ultimately have a more democratic Middle East?

It's hard not to believe that we lost sight of the terrorists in Afghanistan because of Dick Cheney's paranoia.

But, until the U.S. completes its withdrawal and the full shape of postwar Iraq becomes clear, ultimate judgment is impossible. But even future successes must take into account American and Iraqi blood and treasure lost from a war of choice.

The problem with democracy is that the outcome of elections is not always desirable. Who do ya think will win the next Iraqi election? An American puppet or an Iraqi for the Iraqis!?! Then, there will be moaning on FAUX NEWS -- and curses for Dick Cheney....

Post #195 Tainted, Pt. II

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:38:00 +0000

"Why is the [Republican] party in trouble? Simple. Dubya got a hold of the keys, got high on neocon hooch, and crashed and rolled the family SUV.

"He launched an unnecessary war against a country that had not attacked us. With his utopian No Child Left Behind scheme and his Medicare drug plan, he did his passable imitation of LBJ, and blew a hole in the budget.

"Touting globalism, he presided over the loss of one in every four U.S. manufacturing jobs and ran up $5 trillion in trade deficits. He refused to defend the Mexican border against an invasion, then pushed an amnesty for the invaders.

"This was no Reaganite. This was the neocons' apprentice."

So said Pat Buchanan, May 8, 2009.

Every Republican should repeat that and then explain why ya supported amending the Constitution without an Amendment and why ya supported budget deficit after deficit and why ya supprted globalism. Explain what Reagan believed and why ya believe that.

I think Republicans' newly-found 'principles' have more to do with eing out-of-power than reading and researching about 'conservatism' and what it means.

Post #194, Tainted?

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:20:00 +0000

"Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

So said Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Tainted? With tax cuts and torture? :p

Graham also said: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing."

The debate rages: Should the Republican Party purge moderate voices like newly-Democrat Arlen Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats?

Please, please, I say, embrace 'conservative roots' and explain yourself for the past eight years, Mr. Republican. Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan and a conservative talk show host said, "We've been closeted for the last eight years; it's time for the right to come out of the closet."

Oh, dear. What exactly closet have ya been the victim of? Who put ya there!?! :p

Where were you when George W. Bush asked to take more than a trillion dollars out of the treasury in the form of tax cuts? Whatever happened to 'fiscal responsibility?'

Where were you when Bush wanted to expand the government's reach into your private life by the Patriot Act? Apparently, the belief in limited government only applies when a Democrat is in the White House.

Where were you when Bush wanted to appropriate the Constitutional authority to declare war for himself? Did your support go only as long as it was 'off-budget?'

Where were you when Bush extended prescription drug coverage to seniors, the largest expansion of government into health care since the birth of Medicare?

The question continue.

Where are you on war crimes? Ignore? Investigate? Prosecute?

Any Republican today who wants to lead that mob has a lot to answer for. Now, I think a 'conservative' party can bring a lot to the table, but they need to understand that History has taken another step to the Left -- todays Republicans do not understand that, nor do they understand their own complicity in that.

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:09:00 +0000

Post #193

Subject: My work here is done….

Now that George W. Bush is in exile in Texas, tossing and turning every night, fearing that every bump in the night is the posse coming to hold his sorry ass accountable for the war crimes of his administration, I can close this blog. I began this blog to take a few swipes at the Weasel before he left office. I will leave this blog here -- as long as blogspot agrees -- so that peeps can read it and say “Never again.” Never again will the voters be fooled by a charming ignorance.

I may add from time to time, especially as lame excuses for the Bush administration are offered -- such as Dick Cheney’s recent ‘civics lesson.’ What Dick does not seem to understand is that America is all about following the rules -- to torture is to become terrorists ourselves, a losing strategy. Thanks, Dick [rolleyes].

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:12:00 +0000

Post #192

Subject: We Got Fooled Again, Pt II

Hey, I know less about the economy than John McCain does, but I do know the solutions coming from Washington smell -- throwing money at Wall Street because they asked and inflicting another layer of bureaucracy -- “car czar” -- on those who actually work for a living.

It seems to me that Barack Obama’s first step to help the economy should be something easy, inexpensive and effective -- EIE. He should sign an executive order -- easy -- mandating that all new cars and trucks bought by the feds -- inexpensive; the feds need replacements every year -- be powered by something other than gas -- effective; creating a new market for Detroit. This will “grease the wheels” of lending, as loans to Detroit would now seem like a good idea; thus, lowering our bailout overhead.

By the way, the author of the last article I quoted -- my Post #191 -- William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years and has been a editor at Rolling Stone and Washington Post.

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:19:00 +0000

Post #191

Subject: We Got Fooled Again

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle By William Greider

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider

[It is, as Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” puts it, a betrayal by the Bush administration. George W. Bush took care of his pals -- even forcing banks that did not want or need help to accept taxpayer funds. Of course, we now know that banks cannot or will not account for that money.]

[I thought the whole idea was to ’grease the wheels’ of lending so that other bailouts would not be necessary.]

[Please, Mr. Obama, not another dime to reward incompetence -- cut our losses at $350 billion.]

[Note the date of this article.]

September 19, 2008

Obama's too smart to allow the ideas of the past to define his presidency. Yet Timothy Geithner is an architect and enabler of the unfolding crisis.

If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics--exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.

Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a brave conservative critic, put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."

A kindred critic, Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: "Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were 'smarter than the rest of us,' institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse."

Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.

A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own--cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.

Only with these conditions, and some others, should the federal government be willing to take ownership--temporarily--of the rotten financial assets that are dragging down funds, banks and brokerages. Paulson and the Federal Reserve are trying to replay the bailout approach used in the 1980s for the savings and loan crisis, but this situation is utterly different. The failed S&Ls held real assets--property, houses, shopping centers--that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value--not just the notorious mortgage securities but various derivative contracts and other esoteric deals that may be virtually worthless.

Despite what the pols in Washington think, the RTC bailout was also a Wall Street scandal. Many of the financial firms that had financed the S&L industry's reckless lending got to buy back the same properties for pennies from the RTC--profiting on the upside, then again on the downside. Guess who picked up the tab? I suspect Wall Street is envisioning a similar bonanza--the chance to harvest new profit from their own fraud and criminal irresponsibility.

If government acts responsibly, it will impose some other conditions on any broad rescue for the bankers. First, take due bills from any financial firms that get to hand off their spoiled assets, that is, a hard contract that repays government from any future profits once the crisis is over. Second, when the politicians get around to reforming financial regulations and dismantling the gimmicks and "too big to fail" institutions, Wall Street firms must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. Call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.

More important, if the taxpayers are compelled to refinance the villains in this drama, then Americans at large are entitled to equivalent treatment in their crisis. That means the suspension of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies for debt-soaked families during the duration of this crisis. The debtors will not escape injury and loss--their situation is too dire--but they deserve equal protection from government, the chance to work out things gradually over some years on reasonable terms.

The government, meanwhile, may have to create another emergency agency, something like the New Deal, that lends directly to the real economy--businesses, solvent banks, buyers and sellers in consumer markets. We don't know how much damage has been done to economic growth or how long the cold spell will last, but I don't trust the bankers in the meantime to provide investment capital and credit. If necessary, Washington has to fill that role, too.

Finally, the crisis is global, obviously, and requires concerted global action. Robert A. Johnson, a veteran of global finance now working with the Campaign for America's Future, suggests that our global trading partners may recognize the need for self-interested cooperation and can negotiate temporary--maybe permanent--reforms to balance the trading system and keep it functioning, while leading nations work to put the global financial system back in business.

The agenda is staggering. The United States is ill equipped to deal with it smartly, not to mention wisely. We have a brain-dead lame duck in the White House. The two presidential candidates are trapped by events, trying to say something relevant without getting blamed for the disaster. The people should make themselves heard in Washington, even if only to share their outrage.

noreply@blogger.com (TheDaF) — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:25:00 +0000

Post #190

Subject: War Crimes

“What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight… is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings”

-- General David Petraeus, May 10, 2007

On Thursday, December 11, 2008 -- eight days ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a report which laid out the case that George W. Bush and his entire National Security Council are war criminals. It is important that the Senate committee voted for the report unanimously -- every Republican, including John McCain, and every Democrat voted for this report. The report is titled "Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody."

To quote:

“Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam. Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies. In fact, the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" cited "pervasive anti U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" as an underlying factor fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that "there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

There ya go, Mr. Hawk -- and ya know who ya is: Keep Guantanamo open and create more enemies.

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee has publicly released a summary of this report -- the full report is still classified, although Committee Chairman Carl Levin has called for it to be declassified. The report details war crimes by the highest government officials, the top of the chain of command.

“Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.

“Conclusion 2: Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA's interrogation program during that period.”

These were the meetings at which John Ashcroft famously said, “History will not judge this kindly.”

“Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training -- such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals -- was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.”

Doesn’t anybody care what is going on in your name? I pray that we are on God’s side.