Dubai isn’t alone in debt overload
Here is another situation Government spending money they do not have, and who gets stuck with the bill, you got it, the taxpayer, and just think you as an American taxpayer built this, is it nice to know where our Government spends our money.
___________________________________________________________

By Graham Bowley and Catherine Rampell
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Like overstretched American homeowners, governments and companies across the globe are groaning under the weight of debts that, some fear, might never be fully paid back.

As Dubai, that one-time wonderland in the desert, struggles to pay its bills, a troubling question hangs over the financial world: Is this latest financial crisis an isolated event, or a harbinger of still more debt shocks?

For the moment, at least, global investors seem to be taking Dubai’s sinking fortunes in their stride. On Monday, the American stock market rose modestly, even as share prices plunged throughout the Persian Gulf.

But the travails of Dubai, a boomtown that, with its palm-shaped islands and indoor ski slope became a potent symbol of hyperwealth, nonetheless have some economists wondering where other debt bombs might be lurking — and just how dangerous they might turn out to be.

Big banks that have only just begun to recover from the financial shocks of last year are now nervously eyeing their potential exposure to highly indebted corporations and governments.

From the Baltics to the Mediterranean, the bills for an unprecedented borrowing binge are starting to fall due. In Russia and the former Soviet bloc, where high oil prices helped feed blistering growth, a mountain of debt must be refinanced as short-term i.o.u.’s come due.

Even in rich nations like the United States and Japan, which are increasing government spending to shore up slack economies, mounting budget deficits are raising concern about governments’ ability to shoulder their debts, especially once interest rates start to rise again.

The numbers are startling. In Germany, long the bastion of fiscal rectitude in Europe, government debt is on the rise. There, the government debt outstanding is expected to increase to the equivalent of 77 percent of the nation’s economic output next year, from 60 percent in 2002. In Britain, that figure is expected to more than double over the same period, to more than 80 percent.

The burdens are even greater in Ireland and Latvia, where economic booms driven by easy credit and soaring property values have given way to precipitous busts. Public debt in Ireland is expected to soar to 83 percent of gross domestic product next year, from just 25 percent in 2007. Latvia is sinking into debt even faster. Its borrowings will reach the equivalent of nearly half the economy next year, up from 9 percent a mere two years ago.

Like Latvia, the Baltic states of Lithuania and Estonia remain worryingly exposed, as do Bulgaria and Hungary. All of these nations carry foreign debt that exceeds 100 percent of their G.D.P.’s, said Ivan Tchakarov, chief economist for Russia and the former Soviet states at Nomura bank. External debt is often held in a foreign currency, which means governments cannot use devaluation of their own currencies as a tool to reduce their debt when they run into trouble, according to Maurice Obstfeld, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Few analysts predict a major nation will default on it government debts in the immediate future. Indeed, many maintain that rich nations and the International Monetary Fund would intervene if a government needed a bailout.

But there are no assurances that companies in these nations, which, like governments, gorged on debt in good times, will be rescued. Dubai’s refusal to guarantee the debts of its investment arm, Dubai World, may set a precedent for other indebted governments to abandon companies that investors had in the past assumed enjoyed full state backing.

“I see very good reasons to be worried that at some point in 2010 we are going to see more cases of ring-fencing because governments realize they can’t afford to guarantee the debts of these companies,” said Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of the global sovereign risk group and chief economist of Moody’s.

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist whose recent book, “This Time Is Different,” chronicles 800 years of financial crises, said: “I think right now every vulnerable country has one or two deep-pocketed backers that pretty much rule out a sudden run.” But Mr. Rogoff said he expected a wave of defaults about two years from now, when the countries now serving as implicit guarantors turn their focus to economic problems at home.

One feature of the financial crisis is that some governments have taken on increasingly short-term debt. In the United States, for example, Treasury debt maturing within one year has risen from around 33 percent of total debt two years ago to around 44 percent this summer, while falling slightly since then, according to Wrightson ICAP. The United States will soon have debt problems of its own.

“In another couple years as industrialized countries’ own debts — in places like Germany, Japan and the United States — get worse, they will become more reluctant to open up their wallets to spendthrift emerging markets, or at least countries they view that way,” Mr. Rogoff said.

This might spell trouble for struggling nations. Facing a need to roll over their maturing debts, emerging markets may have to borrow around $65 billion in 2010 alone, according to Gary N. Kleiman of Kleiman International.

But while government debt may be a problem, corporate debt may set off a crisis that, in some ways, is already unfolding.

Corporate borrowing surged over the last five years. According to Mr. Kleiman, $200 billion of corporate debt is coming due this year or next year. He estimates that companies in Russia and the United Arab Emirates account for about half of that borrowing.

“This is where the Achilles heel is,” he said.

Companies in several countries face immediate tests. Companies in China will have to borrow $8.8 billion in 2010; companies in Mexico $11 billion.

According to an analysis by JPMorgan Chase, Russian companies borrowed $220 billion from banks or by selling bonds from 2006 to 2008. That is the equivalent of 13 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product. In the Emirates, that figure was $135.6 billion, or 53 percent of G.D.P.; in Turkey, it was $72 billion, or 10 percent of G.D.P.; and in Kazakhstan, it was $44 billion, or 44 percent of G.D.P.

In the past, if companies could not meet those obligations, governments might have stepped in. But already some companies have defaulted on payments after assumed government guarantees failed to materialize.

In Russia, for instance, the foreign debt totals more than $470 billion. But only a tiny fraction of that — about $29 billion — is sovereign debt. The rest is owed by Russian companies, including state giants like Gazprom.

The most troubling case in Russia is Rusal, the world’s largest aluminum company, which owes $16 billion and has been in a standstill on repayment this year while dealing with creditors.

A subsidiary of a Russian state aircraft manufacturer defaulted on bonds last autumn despite a presumed sovereign guarantee. In Ukraine, the state energy company, Naftogaz, and a state railroad, have restructured or asked to restructure their debt.

“This was a trail that was blazed in this part of the world,” said Rory MacFarquhar, an economist at Goldman Sachs in Moscow, referring to governments retreating from implied guarantees of state company debt, as in the case of Dubai World.

The Dubai World debt restructuring is already lifting borrowing costs for Russian companies that must repay a total of $20 billion in December, according to Vladimir Tikhomirov, chief economist of UralSib bank in Moscow.

THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR: WHY DID HE ACT AS HE DID?
Disturbing questions about the official account have been raised not only by the four aircraft
crashes of 9/11 but also by President Bush’s behavior on that day. Although the questions that
critics have raised about that behavior are legion, I will focus on those that seem most disturbing.
The president’s schedule that day called for him to visit an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida,
where he was to listen to students read as a “photo opportunity.” He arrived at the school shortly
before 9:00 AM, at which time, according to at least one version of the official account, he was
told that a plane had flown into the WTC. Since it was by then known that this plane as well as
two others had been hijacked, one would assume, critics point out, that the president would also
know this. Allan Wood and Paul Thompson state the problem thus:
The first media reports of Flight 11’s crash into the World Trade Center began
around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. CNN broke into its regular
programming at that time…. So within minutes, millions were aware of the story,
yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.>1
Critics find this difficult to believe.
The members of the president s traveling staff, including the Secret Service, argues Barrie
Zwicker, “have the best communications equipment in the world.” Accordingly, says Zwicker,
within a minute after the first airliner hit the World Trade Center, the Secret Service and the
president would have known about it. >2 In fact, Thompson points out, Vice President Cheney
evidendy let the cat out of the bag. During his interview on “Meet the Press” on September 16,
Cheney said: “The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after
the World Trade Center was…”—stopping himself, Thompson adds, before finishing the
sentence.>3 So, the Secret Service personnel in the presidents motorcade, including the ones in
his own car, would have known about the first attack on the WTC before the motorcade arrived at
the school at 9:00. Indeed, it is even part of the official account that Ari Fleischer, the White
House press secretary, learned about the first attack on the way. Having cited that story,
Thompson adds: “It would make sense that Bush is told about the crash immediately and at the
same time that others hear about it. Yet Bush and others claim he isn’t told until he arrives at the
school.” Thompsons implied question, of course, is that if President Bush knew about the crash
before arriving at the school, why did he and others pretend otherwise?
The vice presidents inadvertent revelation about the open lines between the Secret Service and
the FAA creates an even greater difficulty, critics point out, for another part of the official
account. Upon learning that a plane had hit the WTC, President Bush reportedly referred to the
crash as a “horrible accident.” >4 However, Zwicker’s complete statement, only partially
summarized above, includes the point that by that time, the Secret Service and the president
would have known that several airliners had been hijacked. So how could President Bush have
assumed that the first crash into the WTC was an accident? Giving voice to the disturbing
question raised by this story, Thompson asks: “[Are] Bush and his aides putting on a charade to
pretend he doesn’t know there is a national emergency? If so, why?”>5
In any case, the president was then reportedly updated on the situation via telephone by his
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, who would presumably have made sure that he
knew not only about all the hijackings but also that the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, had
already concluded that the hijackings were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden to carry out terrorist
attacks.>6 But the president reportedly told the school’s principal that “a commercial plane has hit
the World Trade Center and we’re going to go ahead and…do the reading thing anyway.”>7
Critics find this incredible. If the hijackings were unanticipated occurrences, as claimed, with one
of the hijacked airplanes having already completed its terrorist mission, the country was suffering
the worst terrorist attack of its history. And yet the Commander in Chief, rather than making sure
that his military was prepared to shoot down all hijacked planes, sticks to his planned schedule.
The strangeness of this behavior is brought out well in a summary of the situation by Wood and
Thompson:
At approximately 8:48 AM…,the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center
were broadcast on live television…. By that time, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House,
the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three
commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown
deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly
off course and also heading toward Manhattan…. So why, at 9:03 AM—fifteen
minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did
President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute
pre-planned photo op?>8
Bush’s behavior is made even more astounding by the fact that his Secret Service would have
had to assume that he was one of the intended targets. Indeed, one Secret Service agent,
seeing the television coverage of the crash of the second airliner into the WTC, reportedly said:
“We’re out of here.”>9 But if one of the agents actually said this, he was obviously overruled. At
the same time, by contrast, Cheney and Rice were reportedly being rushed to bunkers under the
White House.>10 And yet, “For some reason, Secret Service agents [do] not hustle [Bush]
away,” comments the Globe and Mail ”Why doesn’t this happen to Bush at the same time?”
Thompson asks. “Why doesn’t the Secret Service move Bush away from his known location?”>11
The reason for pressing this question is that, as Wood and Thompson point out: “Hijackers could
have crashed a plane into Bush’s publicized location and his security would have been completely
helpless to stop it.”>12
This apparently unconcerned behavior, critics point out, continued for almost an hour. The
intelligence expert James Bamford has written:
[H]aving just been told that the country was under attack, the Commander in Chief
appeared uninterested in further details. He never asked if there had been any
additional threats, where the artacks were coming from, how to best protect me
country from further attacks…. Instead, in the middle of a modern-day Pearl
Harbor, he simply turned back to the matter at hand: the day’s photo op. >13
This photo opportunity involved, as indicated above, the president’s listening to second graders
read a book about a pet goat. After Bush had been in the classroom a few minutes, his chief of
staff, Andrew Card came in and whispered in his ear, reportedly telling him about the second
attack. But the president, after a brief pause, had the children go ahead with the reading
demonstration. To emphasize the strangeness of this behavior, Bamford adds this reflection:
As President Bush continued with his reading lesson, life within the burning towers
of the World Trade Center was becoming ever more desperate…. Within minutes,
people began jumping, preferring a quick death to burning alive or suffocating.>14
While this was going on, the president was listening to the students read: “The-Pet-Goat. A-girlgot-
a-pet-goat. But-the-goat -did-some-things-that-made-the-girls-dad-mad.” After listening to
this for several minutes, President Bush made a joke, saying: “Really good readers, whew! These
must be sixth graders!”>15
Another person who has found the contrast between the presidents behavior and what was
happening in New York troubling is Lorie van Auken, whose husband was one of the victims of the
attacks on the towers. Having obtained the video of the presidents session with the children, she
watched it over and over, saying later: “I couldn’t stop watching the president sitting there,
listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building.” Also, noting that the
president had just been told by an advisor that the country was under attack, she wondered how
the president could make a joke.>16
Besides joking, the president lingered, not at all acting like a commander in chief with an
emergency on his hands. Indeed, according to a book called Fighting Back by the White House
correspondent for the Washington Times, Bill Sammon—a book that presents the White House
perspective on most issues and generally provides an extremely sympathetic account of the
president >17—Bush was “openly stretching out the moment.” When the lesson was over,
according to Sammon’s account, Bush said:
Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you all so much for showing
me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don’t you? Reading more than they
watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh
that’s great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very
impressed. >18
Bush then continued to talk, advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. And in
response to a question, he talked about his education policy.” Sammon describes Bush as smiling
and chatting with the children “as if he didn’t have a care in the world” and “in the most relaxed
manner imaginable.” After a reporter asked if the president had heard about what had happened
in New York, Bush said, “I’ll talk about it later,” then, in Sammons words, “stepped forward and
shook hands with [the classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another
photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time…. Bush lingered until the press was gone.”
Sammon, in fact, refers to the president as “the dawdler in chief.”>20
Amazingly, perhaps stung by the criticisms of the president’s behavior, the White House put out a
different account a year later. Andrew Card, Bush’s chief of staff, was quoted as saying that after
he told the president about the second attack on the World Trade Center, Bush “excused himself
very politely to the teacher and to the students” and left the classroom within “a matter of
seconds.”>21 In an alternative wording of the new story, Card said, “Not that many seconds later
the president excused himself from the classroom.”>22 Apparently, say critics, the White House
was so confident that none of its lies about 9/11 would be challenged by the media that it felt safe
telling this one even though it is flatly contradicted by Sammons pro-Bush book and by the video
tape produced that day, which, as Wood and Thompson put it, “shows these statements are lies
—unless ‘a matter of seconds’ means over 700 seconds!”23
In any case, back to real history, the president finally left the classroom at 9:16 to meet with his
advisors, reportedly to prepare his television address to the nation, which he delivered at 9:29.
Thompson comments: “The talk occurs at exactly the time and place stated in his publicly
announced advance schedule—making Bush a possible terrorist target.”>24 And not only Bush.
When Andrew Card and Karl Rove were later asked why the president had not left the classroom
as soon as he had word of the second attack, their answer, Wood and Thompson point out, was
that he did not want to upset the children. But, they ask, “why didn’t Bush’s concern for the
children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist
targets?”>25 Might the answer be that Bush knew that there was really no danger?
In any case, the president and his people then went in their scheduled motorcade on their
scheduled route to the airport, during which they reportedly learned that the Pentagon had been
struck and also heard that the president’s plane, Air Force One, was a terrorist target.
Nevertheless no military escort was ordered. “Amazingly,” says Thompson, “his plane takes off
without any fighters protecting it,”>26 This seems especially surprising given the feet that there
were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the United States and there was no way to know at
that time how many airlines had been hijacked. For example, about an hour later, Thompson
reports, the FAA had said that there were six missing aircraft— a figure that Cheney
subsequendy mentioned—and at one time eleven flights were suspected of having been
hijacked.>27 According to Karl Rove, furthermore, the Secret Service had learned of “a specific
threat made to Air Force One.”>28 So, why had fighter jets not been ordered from one of the two
nearby military bases, which have fighters on 24-hour alert?>29
The strangeness of the president’s behavior, given the apparent circumstances, has not gone
unnoticed by family members of the victims of the attacks of 9/11. For example, Kristen
Breitweiser, whose question about how a plane could have struck the Pentagon was quoted
earlier, also said:
It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn’t the Secret Service whisk him
out of that school? He was on live local television in Florida. The terrorists, you
know, had been in Florida…. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.>30
Much attention at the time was given to the fact that once Air Force Onebecame airborne at 9:55,
President Bush remained away from Washington for a long time, perhaps, speculated some
commentators, out of fear. Indeed, some reporters who criticized the president on that score lost
their jobs >31—which may account for why the White House could later be confident that the
news media would not challenge any of its fabrications. In any case, the real question, the critics
suggest, is why there was apparently no fear during the first hour. The implied question is, of
course, a disturbing one: Did the president and at least the head of his Secret Service detail
know that he was not a target?
The idea that the Bush administiarion had advance knowledge of the attacks is further suggested
by a statement later made by Bush himslef: “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in,”
he claimed, “and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly
myself, and I said, There’s one terrible pilot.” >32 Given the fact that according to the official
story, Bush did not have access to a television set until at least 15 minutes later, >33 this
statement raised questions. An article in the Boston Herald said:
Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we
all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day.
Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans
witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card
whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.
Pointing out that Bush had told this story several times, the writer asked: “How could the
Commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building—as it happened?”>34
This is an excellent question. But it is simply one of many excellent questions mat have been
raised by individual reporters and then allowed to die by the rest of the news media. They have
not pressed for an answer.
Thierry Meyssan, however, has suggested a possible answer. Pointing out that “according to his
own declaration, the President of the United States saw pictures of the first crash before the
second had taken place,” Meyssan emphasizes the fact that the pictures reportedly seen by Bush
could not have been “those accidentally filmed by French documentary-makers Jules and Gédéon
Naudet,” because “their video was not released until thirteen hours later.” On the morning of
9/11, therefore, Bush could not have seen the pictures of the first crash that we have all seen
time and time again. Therefore, Meyssan suggests, the pictures must
have been secret images transmitted to him without delay in the secure
communications room that was installed in the elementary school in preparation for
his visit. But if the US intelligence services could have filmed the first attack, that
means they must have been informed beforehand.>35
Meyssans suggestion, in other words, is that although the president did not see the plane fly into
the first building “as it happened,” he did see it, as he claimed, before he went into the classroom.
========================
According to critics of the official account, in sum, the behaviour of President Bush on 9/11
reinforces the conclusion, inferable from the fate of the four crashed airliners, that government
and military officials at the highest level had advance knowledge of, and conspired to allow; the
traumatic events of that day.>36 With regard to our list of possible views, furthermore, the critical
account of the president’s behaviour seems to eliminate the first five possible views, according to
which the White House had no expectation of any attacks. The behavior of President Bush and
his Secret Service seems to imply at least the sixth view, according to which the White House
expected some sort of arracks. Furthemore, if we accept Meyssans conjecture about Bush’s
statement that he saw the first WTC crash on television before entering the classroom, the
seventh view—according to which the White House had foreknowledge of the targets and the
timing of the attacks—is suggested. That view is also suggested by the evidence that President
Bush and his Secret Service seemed to know that they would not be targets of the attack.
For the critics of the official account, this conclusion for some sort of official complicity is made
even stronger when the events of 9/11 are seen in me larger context provided by information
about relevant events both prior to and after 9/11. This larger context will be the subject of the
second part of this book.

Bush and his Secret Service seemed to know that they would not be targets of the attack.
For the critics of the official account, this conclusion for some sort of official complicity is made
even stronger when the events of 9/11 are seen in me larger context provided by information
about relevant events both prior to and after 9/11. This larger context will be the subject of the
second part of this book.

FOOTNOTES for Chapter four

1Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, “An Interesting Day. President Bush’s Movements and Actions
on 9/11,” Center for Cooperative Research (www.cooperativeresearch.org), under “When Did
Bush First Learn of the Attacks,” citing New York Times, September 15, and CNN, September 11,
2001. (This article will henceforth be cited simply as “Wood and Thompson,” followed by the
heading under which the material is found.)
2Barrie Zwicker, “The Great Deception,” Vision TV Insight, MediaFile (www.visiontv.ca), February
18, 2002, cited in Ahmed, 166.
3Thompson, “September 11″ (After 8:46 AM), quoting “Meet the Press,” NBC News, September
16, 2001.
4CNN, December 4, 2001, Daily Mail, September 8, 2002, and ABC News, September 11, 2002,
cited in Thompson (Between 8:55-9:00 AM).
5Thompson (Between 8:55-9:00 AM).
6Time, September 12, and Christian Science Monitor. September 17, 2001, cited in Thompson
(Between 8:55-9:00 .AM). A few minutes after 8:46, CIA Director Tenet reportedly learned from a
cell phone call that the WTC had been “attacked” by an airplane, after which he said to Senator
Boren, with whom he was having breakfast: “You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over
it” (ABC News, September 14, 2002, cited in Thompson [After 8:46 AM]).
7Associated Press, August 19, 2002, quoted in Thompson (Between 8:55-9:00 AM).
8Wood and Thompson, introductory discussion.
9Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002, quoted in Thompson (9:30 AM).
10New York Times, September 16, 2001, Telegraph, December 16, 2001, ABC News, September
14, 2002, and Washington Post, January 27, 2002, quoted in Thompson (After 9:30 AM).
11Thompson (After 9:30 AM) and (9:06 AM), quoting Globe and Mail September 12, 2001.
12Wood and Thompson, under “Why Stay?”
13James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency (New
York Anchor Books, 2002), 633, cited in Thompson (9:06 AM).
14Bamford, 633.
15Bamford, 633, and Time, September 9, 2001, cited in Thompson (9:06-9:16 AM).
16Gail Sheehy, “Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush,” New York Observer, August 21, 2002.
17Sammons sympathies are further shown by another book published at about the same rime, At
Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election (Washington: Regnery, 2002).
18Bill Sammon, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism: From Inside the Bush White House
(Washington: Regnery, 2002), 89-90, quoted in Wood and Thompson, under “When Did Bush
Leave the Classroom?”
19Tampa Tribune, September 1; St. Petersburg Times, September 8; and New York Post,
September 12, 2002, cited in Wood and Thompson, under “when Did Bush Leave the Classroom?
“
20Sammon, Fighting Back 90, quoted in Wood and Thompson, under “When Did Bush Leave the
Classroom?” and “Rewriting History.”
21San Francisco Chronicle, September 11, 2002, quoted in Wood and Thompson, under
“Rewriting History.”
22MSNBC, September 9, 2002.
23Wood and Thompson, under “Rewriting History.”
24Thompson, 9:29 AM.
25Wood and Thomspon, under “Why Stay?”, citing MSNBC, October 29, 2002, and ABC,
September 11, 2002.
26Thompson (9:34 AM) and (9:56 AM). Air Force One took off at 9:35 AM. It would be a t least 90
minutes before it had an escort (Wood and Thompson, under “When Does the Fighter Escort
Finally Arrive?”).
27Thompson (9:30 AM) and (10:42 AM), citing Time, September 14, Los Angeles Times.
September 17, 2001, and USA Today. August 13, 2002.
28New Yorker, October 1, 2001, cited in Wood and Thompson, under “Air Force One Departs
Sarasota.” As Wood and Thompson also point out (under “Were There Threats to Air Force One?
“), a little later in the day, Dick Cheney originated, and then Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer spread, a
story that a threat against the White House and Air Force One was received from terrorists who
used the secret code for Air Force One, which suggested either that there was a mole in the
White House or that terrorists had hacked their way into White House computers. This story, first
published by William Safire of the New York Times (September 13, 2001), spread throughout the
media, although there was considerable skepticism, based on suspicion that the story was
created to dampen down criticism of Bush for remaining away from Washington for so long (St.
Petersburg Times, September 13, and Telegraph, December 16, 2001). When Ari Fleischer was
pressed for credible evidence on September 15, he replied that that topic had already been
exhausted. Finally, on September 26, CBS News laid the story to rest with this explanation:
“Sources say White House staffers apparently misunderstood comments made by their security
detail.” Slate magazine gave its “Whopper of the Week” award to Cheney, Fleischer, and Rove
(Slate, September 28, 2001). Unfortunately, Thierry Meyssan, having evidently missed the
retraction, based his most speculative theory on this bogus report (9/11: The Big Lie, Ch. 3:
“Moles in the White House”). But he can perhaps be forgiven, since CBS, evidently forgetting
about its own debunking, revived the story a year later (CBS, September 11, 2002, cited in Wood
and Thompson, under “Rewriting History”).
29Wood and Thompson, under “Air Force One Takes OffWithout Fighter Escort.” 30Kristen
Breitweiser’s comments, made on Phil Donahue’s television show on August 13, 2002, are quoted
in Thompson, “Timeline,” August 13, 2002.
31Washington Post, September 29, 2001, cited in Wood and Thompson, introductory discussion.
32CNN December 4, 2001, quoted in Thompson (9:01 AM).
33Washington Times, October 7, 2002, quoted in Thompson (9:01 AM).
34Boston Herald, October 22, 2002, quoted in Thompson (9:01 AM).
35Meyssan, 9/11: The Big Lie, 38-39. Other revisionists have suggested that images of this crash
might have been transmitted to the president’s limousine, so that he would have seen them
before arriving at the school.
36President Bush is not the only high official, furthermore, whose reported behavior that day has
raised serious questions. Critics have also found the reported behavior of General Richard Myers,
then Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, suspicious. See Israel and Bykov, “Guilty for
9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers” (www.emperors-clothes.com), who say that Myers “offered three
mutually contradictory cover stories.” See also Ahmed, 164-66.

September 11, 2001

A plane hit the World Trade Center noth tower at 8:46 a.m. A second plane hit the World Trade Center’s south tower at 9:03 a.m. Then at 9:38 a.m. the Pentagon was hit.
President G.W. Bush arrived at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fl. shortly before 9:00 a.m. that morning, where he was going to listen to children read as part of a photo-op.

The first media reports of Flight 11’s crash into the World Trade Center began
around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. CNN broke into its regular
programming at that time…. So within minutes, millions were aware of the story,
yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.

Next statement and question:

At approximately 8:48 AM…,the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center
were broadcast on live television…. By that time, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House,
the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three
commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown
deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly
off course and also heading toward Manhattan…. So why, at 9:03 AM—fifteen
minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did
President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute
pre-planned photo op?

So, Bush continued with his little school lesson and in the mean time, Dick Cheney and Ms. Rice were being rushed to bunkers beneath the White House.

Next:

Having just been told that the country was under attack, the Commander in Chief
appeared uninterested in further details. He never asked if there had been any
additional threats, where the artacks were coming from, how to best protect my
country from further attacks…. Instead, in the middle of a modern-day Pearl
Harbor, he simply turned back to the matter at hand: the day’s photo op.

Andrew Card had informed Bush that the 2nd plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush paused for a minute, then had the children continue, making this statement: “Really good readers, whew! These
must be sixth graders!”

Another person who has found the contrast between the presidents behavior and what was
happening in New York troubling is Lorie van Auken, whose husband was one of the victims of the
attacks on the towers. Having obtained the video of the presidents session with the children, she
watched it over and over, saying later: “I couldn’t stop watching the president sitting there,
listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building.” Also, noting that the
president had just been told by an advisor that the country was under attack, she wondered how
the president could make a joke.

About a year later Andrew Card came out with a different story; that after he told Bush about the 2nd plane, he (Bush) left the classroom “seconds” later.

But according to the video tape produced that day … “seconds” later turned out to be 700 seconds.

Anyway, the President left the classroom at 9:16 a.m.

And the last point of today:

In any case, the president and his people then went in their scheduled motorcade on their
scheduled route to the airport, during which they reportedly learned that the Pentagon had been
struck and also heard that the president’s plane, Air Force One, was a terrorist target.
Nevertheless no military escort was ordered. “Amazingly,” says Thompson, “his plane takes off
without any fighters protecting it,”>26 This seems especially surprising given the fact that there
were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the United States and there was no way to know at
that time how many airlines had been hijacked. For example, about an hour later, Thompson
reports, the FAA had said that there were six missing aircraft— a figure that Cheney
subsequendy mentioned—and at one time eleven flights were suspected of having been
hijacked.>27 According to Karl Rove, furthermore, the Secret Service had learned of “a specific
threat made to Air Force One.”>28 So, why had fighter jets not been ordered from one of the two
nearby military bases, which have fighters on 24-hour alert?>29
The strangeness of the president’s behavior, given the apparent circumstances, has not gone
unnoticed by family members of the victims of the attacks of 9/11. For example, Kristen
Breitweiser, whose question about how a plane could have struck the Pentagon was quoted
earlier, also said:
It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn’t the Secret Service whisk him
out of that school? He was on live local television in Florida. The terrorists, you
know, had been in Florida…. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.

link

As of Jan. 2001 the total outstanding public debt was: $5,735,197,779,458.19
As of Jan. 2009 the total outstanding public debt was: $10,627,708,753,691.49

So, during the eight Bush years the public debt was increased: $4,892,510,974,233.30

Right now, 11/18/09 (actually 11/16/09) the debt is: $12,031,299,186,290.07

Obama and company has increased the public debt in less than 11 months: $1,405,590,432,598.58

source

Then we have a story today like this from Reuters:
Obama: Too much debt could fuel double-dip recession

BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.

It appears “double-dipping” is coming on strong.

“Le podrás amar u odiar, pero nunca ignorar” (E.Schulltz)

Tiene unos pequeños ojos que se esconden tras unas gafas de cristales redondeados, que acostumbran ver más allá que el resto. Padece de evidente sobrepeso. Suele llevar una gorra de beisbol, barba mal cuidada y americana oscura. Es periodista, cineasta, documentalista, escritor, guionista, productor, showman y sobretodo polémico. Pues bien, esta descripción corresponde a aquel que consigue quitar el sueño a G.W.Bush, así como a algunas importantes multinacionales y grupos conservadores estadounidenses. Su insaciable apetito de saber le ha llevado a desentrañar secretos que valen miles de dólares, sin embargo nada ni nadie consigue silenciarlo. Como bien resume la frase con la que inauguro esta entrada, Michael Moore podrá gustarte o disgustarte, pero jamás te dejará indiferente.

Moore nació en Flint, Míchigan. Por aquel tiempo, en esta ciudad se ubicaba una de las muchas fábricas de General Motors, donde sus padres y abuelos trabajaban. Fue educado en la religión católica romana y asistió a la escuela primaria St. John’s Elementary School, y a los 14 años estuvo en un seminario diocesano. Continuó sus estudios en Davison High School, donde participaba de forma activa tanto en las obras de teatro y en los concursos de debates.
Con veintidós años fundó “The Flint Voice”, un diario alternativo en el que trabajó como editor durante diez años. A mediados de los años ochenta fue productor, director, autor y presentador de la serie televisiva TV Nation, que sólo vio la luz hasta su segunda temporada.

En 1989 dirigió “Roger and me” un documental que narra lo ocurrido en su pueblo natal, cuando la General Motors cerró sus fábricas para abrir nuevas en México y así abaratar costes. Le siguió “The Big One” (1997), otro documental que desentraña las consecuencias del ansioso apetito de las grandes corporaciones por conseguir más beneficios. Posteriormente hizo “Bowling for Columbine” (2003), en el que condena el mal uso de las armas en su país como consecuencia de la cultura de miedo. “Sicko” (2007) muestra la cruenta realidad del sistema sanitario estadounidense, de gestión privada y regido por empresas aseguradoras. Estos son algunos de los trabajos de Moore como documentalista, un género que gracias a él cobra importancia por momentos. Tanto es así que ha sido galardonado en los premios Oscar al mejor largometraje por Bowling for Columbine y en el Festival de Cannes por Fahrenheit 9/11, entre otros.

Como escritor, Moore es autor de varios libros que han sido éxitos de ventas como Downize This! Random Tretas from an Unarmed American y Adventures in a TV Nation, escrito en colaboración con su mujer Kathleen Glynn. También escribió “¿Qué han hecho con mi país, tío?” y “Estúpidos hombres blancos” ambos traducidos al español.

En los años 1999 y 2000, Michael Moore ha producido dos temporadas de la serie televisiva The Awful Truth, definida por Los Angeles Times como “la más cómica y divertida sátira política”.

by Sherman H. Skolnick 9/10/02

Excerpts:

If the American monopoly press told the truth, which they cannot do, what might the headlines be? Such as:

SOME TOP MILITARY OPPOSE WHITE HOUSE
FOREIGN PRESS CONFIRM BUSH SKULL & BONES SEX STORY
U.S. ARISTOCRACY TO STAGE MORE TERRORIST EVENTS?
9-11 PRIOR KNOWLEDGE CONFIRMED

In exclusive stories since 1995, we have told of a group of highly patriotic Admirals and Generals, in military jargon called flag officers, who opposed Commander-in-Chief Clinton. Under the Uniform Military Code, they felt authorized to arrest their Commander-in-Chief.

If Clinton arrested them for mutiny, they would, if not assassinated, defend themselves with their documented charges of treason by him. For example, that Clinton reportedly gave U.S. industrial, financial, and military secrets to the head of the Red Chinese Secret Police, Wang Jun, who met Clinton from time to time in the White House.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, provides:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (Emphasis added.)

Of the original group of 24 such flag officers, ten have been assassinated, including some in a sabotaged military aircraft, near Alexander City, Alabama, April 17, 1995 (two days before the Clinton White House prior knowledge multiple bombings of a Federal Office building in Oklahoma City). And likewise murdered have been the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jeremy Boorda, highest naval officer in uniform, and Gen. David McCloud, head of the Alaska Military District. Also snuffed out was former Director of Central Intelligence, William Colby, assisting this group in their planned arrest of Commander-in-Chief Clinton.

The group, subsequently enlarged, vows to arrest Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush. If Bush has them arrested for mutiny, they intend, if not assassinated, to defend themselves with their several documented charges of his treason. Included are

[1] Bush’s acts of treachery against the American people, in secret deals he made with the Red Chinese, giving them U.S. financial, industrial, and military secrets.

[2] George W. Bush and Daddy Bush profitting from secret business deals with the bin Laden Family, in the U.S. and overseas, with them not on the outs with Osama, he and his CIA-trained out-of-uniform army being at war against the United States and being a sworn enemy of the United States; within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

[3] Bush Family, including George W., Jeb, Neil, and Daddy Bush, profitting from treasonous secret business deals with some in the Saudi Royal Family, who are sworn enemies of the United States and financing secretly Osama bin Laden; within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3.

[4] Acts by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, as supervised by his father, with prior knowledge of 9-11 incidents. [5] Acts by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, as supervised by Daddy Bush, ordering and authorizing a military stand-down on the morning of September 11, 2001, aiding and abetting the murder of some three thousands persons, most of them U.S. citizens, within the United States of America.

[ 6] George W. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, as supervised by Daddy Bush formerly head of the secret political police the CIA, authorizing and ordering the American CIA, in combination with other Americans and others, to allow, permit, and condone, and procure to be done, and acquiesce in the same, of the escape from being captured and brought to the U.S. for criminal trial, of Osama bin Laden, both prior to Black Tuesday and thereafter.

Read the rest here

by Sherman H. Skolnick 10/7/01 …

“THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC”, Part Two (excerpts)

The high-level treason that afflicts us cannot be cured or delayed by the alleged “U.S. Government” as now constituted. Within our borders, traitors to the U.S. Constitution and to the Bill of Rights, and to the American common people, cannot be prosecuted. Without the consent of us, the governed, they are in charge, have been in charge, and will remain in charge, to the bitter collapse of our organic law. With complete impunity, they turn over our most profound industrial, financial, and MILITARY secrets, to sworn enemies of the United States of America, such as to Red China and Iraq [the Bush Family and Bill Clinton have done that].

Will George Herbert Walker Bush confess his prior knowledge of the violence occurring on September 11, 2001? Will he admit that HE was running the country from in or near the White House on that tragic day? What provision, if any, of the U.S. Constitution, empowers the Elder Bush to have such a power? Will the Elder Bush confess openly his private business partnership which went sour with Saddam Hussein, being part of an unpublicized lawsuit in Chicago? [See our website series, "The Secrets of Timothy McVeigh", giving the name and number of the litigation and other details.My exclusive details were in a populist paper, Spotlight, August 19, 1991.]

Will his son, George W. Bush, confess his private business partnerships with the bin Laden Family, including Osama bin Laden who is not that much on the outs with his family reportedly receiving tens of millions of dollars from them secretly? Will George W. Bush confess that he and HIS family have a huge financial interest with the oil cartel which wants to overthrow the Kabul government so the Afghanistan oil and natural gas pipeline project can proceed?

Click here for the whole article (pt. 2)

So this is actually something that was in the works during the Bush administration and Obama is taking it on as his own now…

Politifact.com

Pursuing new trade policies

Updated: Friday, November 6th, 2009 | By Lukas Pleva

In an effort to appeal to labor unions and environmentalists during the campaign, Barack Obama promised that he would “will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.”

Obama has a chance to address the promise with pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. All three were drawn up and signed under President George W. Bush, but Congress has yet to ratify any of them.

Obama and other Democrats have opposed the Colombia and South Korea trade agreements because of Colombia’s record in dealing with labor leaders and their belief that South Korea hasn’t done enough to open up its market to American cars.

The Obama administration appears to be moving toward eventually passing the pacts, but still addressing those concerns. Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, hinted in a recent speech that he and his negotiating team are close to removing the obstacles that stand in the way of passing the Panama trade agreement. Labor and environmental standards are the focus of these negotiations.

Some other examples of the administration’s focus on Obama’s promise:

*The administration’s 2009 Trade Policy Agenda, released in February, calls for a trade agenda that will “reflect our respect for … our environment … and the rights of workers.”

* Kirk has emphasized on several occasions that he and his negotiating team are waiting for labor rights reforms to become permanent in countries such as Colombia and Panama before the U.S. signs trade agreements with them.

* In late October, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, said that Obama won’t open the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, for renegotiation, but the administration is still pushing for inclusion of more stringent environmental and labor standards into the treaty.

* In September, the U.S. held talks with Jordan officials about the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Lewis Karesh, who led the team, said “the meetings in Jordan are an important example of the United States’ increased engagement on labor issues.”

We’ll wait and see if Obama succeeds, but in the meantime, we rate this promise In The Works.

Sources:

Global Atlanta, U.S. Trade Rep: No Timeline for Votes on FTAs, October 9, 2009.

Reuters, Lawmakers see trade deal chance after healthcare, October 29, 2009.

The Canadian Press, U.S. envoy says ’side letters’ on labour and environment may benefit NAFTA, October 21, 2009.

Office of the United States Trade Representative, Press Release, September 30, 2009.

Reuters, USTR Kirk sets speech on long-delayed Korea pact, October 30, 2009.

til later,

from the mind of…

The U.S. Army says 12 people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting rampage on the Fort Hood Army base in Texas.  Source

The media played down the fact that President G.W. Bush kept Americans safe after the 9/11 attacks that was started even before he became president.  Will the media play down the fact that Obama has not kept Americans safe on his watch?  My opinion is that Obama has done very little to protect Americans from terrorist, if anything he has made it easier for attacks such as we had today in Texas.  Obama has attack the CIA and has weaken the Home Land Security by his appointee to oversee it.   All views on the subject is welcome.

I used www.feedping.com to ping by blogs to search engines!

As always Obama cannot refrain from blaming Bush for his own failures. Charles Krauthammer calls Obama’s attacks on Bush ‘disgusting’ and child-like. He also says tha Obama should be courageous enough to admit that he’s rethinking his strategy…and that his actions are beyond disgraceful!

Hat tip: Jim Hoft

Manch einer sagt: “Was wären wir ohne die interessanten, unterhaltsamen und lehrreichen Medien.” In der Tat, selbst, wenn ihnen nichts einfällt, haben sie immer noch was zu bieten, wie zum Beispiel die “Politikverdrossenheit”, featuring “die da oben”. Dass bei der Bundestagswahl 2009 die Wahlbeteiligung mit 71% die niedrigste seit Bestehen der Bundesrepublik war (1), kann aber mE. nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass fast drei Viertel der Bürger daran teilnahmen, während die “Partei der Nichtwähler” nur eines betrug. In Amerika sind die Verhältnisse quasi umgekehrt, eine vergleichsweise hervorragend funktionierende Demokratie findet man auch dort.

Nun inszenieren sich die Medien gern als “Volkes Stimme”, als Gegenspieler der Politik. Mich persönlich jedoch nerven die ungezählten ungewählten Medienvertreter der selbstverliebten, selbsternannten, sogenannten “Vierten Gewalt”.

Nach dem Fernsehduell zwischen Kanzlerin Dr. Merkel und Herausforderer Steinmeier hatte die FAZ in Anspielung auf das unsägliche Benehmen der vier Moderatoren treffend bemerkt: “Ergebnis 4:2″. Ich habe die Sendung nicht gesehen, aber mich sehr gefreut zu erfahren, dass die beiden altgedienten Kontrahenten hier am selben Strang zogen und sich nicht zu Komparsen einer Quiz-Show degradieren liessen.

Gestern machte bei Merkel-Hasser Kewil einer seiner devoten Kommentatoren (2) auf die Tatsache aufmerksam, dass Dr. Merkel auf einer Pressekonferenz unlängst eine Frage abblockte (3). Ein juveniler Gockel hatte sinngemäß gefragt, wie es sein könne, dass die Kanzlerin einen Menschen als Finanzminister für geeignet halte, der vergessen habe, dass in seinem Schreibtisch 100.000 DM lagerten. Da hatte er sich aber ein vermeintliches Husarenstück ausgedacht um sich selbst in Szene zu setzen, und er rutschte auch die ganze Zeit unruhig hin und her. Würde die Pointe sitzen? Nein! Der eine oder andere Kollege rang sich zwar ein zwanghaftes Lächeln ab, aber Dr. Merkel meinte nur trocken: “Weil diese Person mein Vertrauen hat.” Da mußte der Investigator natörrrlich nochmal nachlegen, und nun konnte er auch vereinzelte Lacher herauskitzeln, jedoch ließ sich die Kanzlerin auf keinen Wettbewerb der WITZE ein, sondern bat um die nächste FRAGE. Vielleicht hätte sie diesen erzählen können: Kommen zwei Flöhe aus dem Kino, sagt der eine: “Gehn wir jetzt zu Fuß oder nehmen wir uns ‘nen Hund?” Das ist zwar mein persönlicher Lieblingswitz, aber eine Pressekonferenz der deutschen Regierung ist eben doch keine Fernsehshow und sollte keine Bühne für aufgeblasene Pickelgesichter sein, die investigativen Journalismus mit pubertären Initiationsritualen verwechseln.

Erinnern Sie sich noch an den “Schuhwerfer von Bagdad”, einen irakischen “Journalisten”, der bei einer Pressekonferenz seine beiden Schuhe auf Mr. President G.W.Bush schleuderte – ohne zu treffen? Was für ein Loser, was für ein Feigling, was für ein völlig vermessenes Ork. Natürlich hat er auf die Güte Mr. Bushs und die entspannte westliche Grundhaltung zählen können. Hätte er seine Aktion an Aff-Affie oder Mammut Gardinenstange ausprobiert, hätte man ihm mit Sicherheit doch zumindest die Füße amputiert (“Damit DAS nicht wieder vorkommt”). Es ist bezeichnend, dass die Orkschwaden diesen Angeber als Held ansehen und ihm ein Denkmal setzten. Na, da hat einer dieser gescheiterten Möchtegern-Popstars dieses freischaffenden, freischwebenden und korrupten intellektuellen Lumpenproletariats mal bekommen, wonach er sich so sehr sehnte: die Aufmerksamkeit der ganzen Welt. Und jetzt kann er wirklich stolz sein, für alle Zeiten verewigt als überdimensionierter No-Name-Zweistreifen-Stinkstiefel (4).

Da wurde ein Schuh draus: Das Bronzedenkmal ist zwei Meter groß und dient praktischerweise auch als Komposthaufen.

Nun steht die Mehrheit besagten Personals sicher politisch links, und die meisten sind Orkversteher. Andererseits halten nur wenige starkem Druck und Entbehrungen stand und sind wahre Journalisten. Die meisten sonnen sich zwar gern im Rampenlicht und fahren angeberische Cabrios, aber ich bin sicher, dass wir bald erleben werden, wie dieselbe Journaille, die im Fall Sarrazin in den vorhersehbaren Beißreflex verfiel, die unverzügliche Ausweisung von Vergewaltiger Ali bis Kopftuchmädchen Zainab fordern wird. Dass sie dann auf meiner Seite steht, macht sie mir nicht sympathischer, denn ich bin gar nicht so arg politikverdrossen – aber fürwahr medienverdrossen.

Time am 28. Oktober 2009

_____

(1) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestagswahl_2009
(2) http://fact-fiction.net/?p=3152#comment-109946
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaWE8K2nRVs&NR=1
(4) http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/international/nahost/Irak-USA%3Bart2662,2719086

Here’s a link for folks to check Obama’s approval rating and compare to G.W. Bush’s for the same amount of time in office … Question: Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

Link

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he’s already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.

CBS’ Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, “Today – Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months.”

POLITICO CLICK: President Obama ties George W. Bush on golf – Patrick Gavin.

IN THE MEAN-TIME:

Click below for more:
14 Americans killed in 2 Afghan helicopter crashes

Cartoon by: Scott Stantis

Cartoon by Glenn Foden

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s effort to lead the world economic recovery by spending the U.S. out of its recession is undermining the dollar…
As threats of a financial meltdown fade, the currency is falling victim to an unprecedented budget deficit, near-zero interest rates and slow growth. The dollar is down 10 percent against six trading partners’ legal tender in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s first eight-and-a-half months, the sharpest drop for a new occupant of that office since the Reagan administration’s James Baker persuaded world leaders to boost the deutsche mark and yen by debasing the dollar in 1985. This year’s drop followed its best two quarters in 16 years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, which included some of Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package and the lowest tax revenue in more than 50 years, was $1.4 trillion, more than India’s gross domestic product. The administration will announce the final figure by mid-October.

Faced with administration projections of shortfalls totaling $9.1 trillion over the next decade, Obama and Congress have pledged to restore discipline. Fed officials have discussed how — but not when — they plan to reduce the central bank’s balance sheet, which has doubled to $2.1 trillion under emergency lending programs to unfreeze the credit markets.

Read more about how the Obama administration is restoring financial discipline here

Cartoon by: Lisa Benson

Cartoon by: Scott Stantis
:

President Obama stated his foreign policy philosophy before the election.  At that time he made the now famous promise to negotiate with anyone.  Implicit in that promise was the implication that prior to that time negotiations were something shunned in American foreign policy.  This is not accurate, especially when it comes to Iran.

Last October, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a National Defense University speech, that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.”  Doesn’t quite match up to Obama’s premise, does it?  Here are some facts:

Carter – In 1979 after the fall of the Shah, the Carter Administration attempted to establish relations with Iran’s Revolutionary regime, offering aid, arms and understanding.  The regime asked for more and this was followed by the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in November, ending negotiations for the Carter Administration.

Reagan – The Reagan administration tried to come to an understanding with Iran during the Iraq war, providing military equipment and intelligence about Iraqi forces.  Again, no positive response from Iran.

Clinton – President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly apologized for past American transgressions against Iran, including its part in overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.  This effort to foster a more positive relationship with Iran ended when supreme leader Ali Khamenei proclaimed America its enemy in 1999.

G. W. Bush – Even the Bush administration made an attempt at negotiations.  British foreign minister Jack Straw urged the United States, who acquiesced, to negotiate and it did with Iran’s National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani.  It was reported that the Bush administration was close to arriving at a deal with Iran, only to have Iran back out at the last moment.

Now President Obama, 30 years later and after multiple failures by previous presidents, will once again try to negotiate with Iran.  This effort will fail for the same reason all previous attempts failed; the radical clerics running Iran have disdain for Western culture and religions.  Their radical view of Islam requires that they do battle with the infidels of the West.  You cannot negotiate with a party that does not want compromise.  Our choice is either capitulation or confrontation.

We have had various regime changes in our country since the Iranian revolution in 1979.  This included Republicans and Democrats, some with a more accommodating view towards Iran.  The West and Iran cannot peacefully coexist unless there is regime change in Iran.  Given this reality, our government should be actively supporting those Iranians who want to bring about this change.

It is naïve for President Obama to believe that the power of his voice and words can change realities on the ground.  It’s time for the President to take a realistic view towards Iran and its intentions.

By Bob L : NEWS AS I SEE IT!

What can I say?  Perception is everything. This is appalling.    via The Raw Story -

Senior official in Bush domestic propaganda program remains Obama’s Pentagon spokesman

A key senior figure in a Bush administration covert Pentagon program, which used retired military analysts to produce positive wartime news coverage, remains in the same position today as a chief Obama Defense Department spokesman and the agency’s head of all media operations.

…

Barstow’s Times expose revealed a comprehensive, covert Pentagon campaign — beginning during the lead-up to the Iraq War and continuing through 2008 — that shaped network military analysts into what internal documents referred to as “message force multipliers” and “surrogates” who could be trusted to parrot Bush administration talking points “in the form of their own opinions.” Barstow’s reporting also detailed how most of the military analysts, traditionally viewed as authoritative and independent, had ties to defense contractors with a stake in the same war policies they were interpreting daily to the American public.

(emphasis mine)

Read the full article here.

With the latest run of terrorists that were arrested this week, do you really feel that President Obama’s choice of Director of Homeland Security is keeping you safe?  Her relaxed attitudes toward our borders on both the northern and southern sides of our country is alarming.  Do you miss George W. Bush yet?  I do.

til later,

from the mind of…

By Bob L : NEWS AS I SEE IT!

=======================================================

By Jed Babbin
09/21/2009

Mutadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi who threw his shoe at George Bush gave this speech on his recent release.

In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act.

But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him.

And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression.

Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The

occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents.

And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night’s sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance. By MUTADHAR al-ZAIDI

The opportunity came, and I took it.

I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn’t he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush.

And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won’t get into here.

But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies — the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them — will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally.

And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn’t sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials in the government and in the army.

I didn’t do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history — especially in America — will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the

occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never.

Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any political party, something that was said during torture — one time that I’m far-right, another that I’m a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.

My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, ‘Muntadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers’ — I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him — ‘remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant’s word.’

They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried.

They’ve only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons.

And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what’s happening inside the prisons. The injustice that’s caused by the delay in the judicial system.