September 30, 2008

POLITICS-US: Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11

By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks's request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book "Inside Centcom" that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that", because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin". The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theatre over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and Jul. 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book "Pretext for War".

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Prosecutor named to probe US attorneys' firings

The launching of a criminal inquiry follows the recommendation of internal Justice Department investigators who concluded that, despite denials of the administration, political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors.

In their 358-page report, investigators said the lack of cooperation by senior officials at the White House and in the Justice Department left gaps in their findings that should be investigated further.

"Serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved," the report said, listing lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud among the potential felony crimes.

Mukasey's appointment of Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry leaves open the possibility that it won't be finished before President Bush leaves office in January.

Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.

"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The report unsparingly criticized Bush administration officials, Republican members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which touched off a scandal that stripped the Justice Department of its leadership and sparked a historic showdown in court.

The report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Director Marshall Jarrett described Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, as "remarkably disengaged" from the process that led to the dismissal of the prosecutors.

Monday's report was the latest to criticize Gonzales' management of the Justice Department during his 31 months as attorney general. Gonzales quit under fire in September 2007.

In a statement issued by his attorney, Gonzales said: "My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges."

Gonzales' attorney, George Terwilliger, noted that the report found no unlawful conduct. "It seems rather odd," Terwilliger said, "that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor."

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper reasons.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico - one of the nine - as the most troubling. Iglesias's firing followed complaints from leading Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, the report said.

Iglesias, who now works as a paid speaker and practices law part-time, said he thinks criminal investigations should be pursued against Domenici and anyone else who may have broken federal criminal laws. He said he had not yet seen the report.

"I've said all along that these moves were improper and illegal and now it appears that they were criminal as well," he said in an interview. "Our complaints weren't just complaints of disgruntled former employees."

A spokesman for Domenici, who is leaving Congress at the end of the year, did not respond to requests for comment.

Wilson, who cooperated in the internal investigation of the firings, issued a statement in which she said the report's findings were incorrect. She acknowledged contacting Iglesias about possible indictments in a New Mexico case, but she denied complaining about him to anyone in the Bush administration.

Investigators said their inquiry of the firing of Iglesias and others was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Domenici, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling and other key witnesses.

The president's refusal to let Rove, Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten testify before Congress about the firings touched off a legal fight that is now before a federal appeals court. Most recently a judge ordered Miers to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

The report concluded that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was the person most responsible for developing the plan to fire the prosecutors and said that Sampson's comments to Congress, the White House and others were misleading.

Sampson and others claimed at first that the prosecutors' poor performance inspired their firings. But the report found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

It also said the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Bond did not immediately return a call for comment.

Investigators found no evidence that Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego were fired for prosecuting Republican members of Congress.

Similarly, the report says Justice Department officials had legitimate concerns about the work of two other prosecutors who were fired - Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.

---

On the Net:

Justice Department report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.




From George Washington to George Bush: Executive Privilege Through History Presidential Veto Primer
Latest White House Headlines
Bush implores Congress to act to rescue markets

Text of Bush's Tuesday statement

Bush disappointed by House vote, vows to press on

Text of President Bush's statement

Bush: Rescue needed to keep economy from breakdown

PHOTO GALLERY
AP Photo

President Bush


Interactives
The Fired Prosecutors: A Primer
Documents

Aug. 30, 2007: Inspector General's Letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on Investigating Gonzales

Aug. 27, 2007: Resignation Letter of Alberto Gonzales

List of Sampson Documents Withheld from Congress

Part I: Sampson-Miers e-mails

Part II: Sampson-Miers e-mails

Sampson-Rove e-mails

White House letter
Your Questions Answered
Ask AP: Hurricane reporters, property in Cuba

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a prosecutor Monday to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The launching of a criminal inquiry follows the recommendation of internal Justice Department investigators who concluded that, despite denials of the administration, political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors.

In their 358-page report, investigators said the lack of cooperation by senior officials at the White House and in the Justice Department left gaps in their findings that should be investigated further.

"Serious allegations involving potential criminal conduct have not been fully investigated or resolved," the report said, listing lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and wire fraud among the potential felony crimes.

Mukasey's appointment of Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to continue the inquiry leaves open the possibility that it won't be finished before President Bush leaves office in January.

Senators of both parties who led a congressional probe of the firings praised Mukasey's decision and cautioned Bush against pardoning anyone as he leaves the White House.

"The American people will see any misuse of the pardon power or any grant of clemency or immunity to those from his administration involved in the U.S. attorney firing scandal as an admission of wrongdoing," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

The report unsparingly criticized Bush administration officials, Republican members of Congress and their aides for the ousters, which touched off a scandal that stripped the Justice Department of its leadership and sparked a historic showdown in court.

The report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Director Marshall Jarrett described Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, as "remarkably disengaged" from the process that led to the dismissal of the prosecutors.

Monday's report was the latest to criticize Gonzales' management of the Justice Department during his 31 months as attorney general. Gonzales quit under fire in September 2007.

In a statement issued by his attorney, Gonzales said: "My family and I are glad to have the investigation of my conduct in this matter behind us and we look forward to moving on to new challenges."

Gonzales' attorney, George Terwilliger, noted that the report found no unlawful conduct. "It seems rather odd," Terwilliger said, "that rather than bring the investigation to a close, the department would escalate the matter to the attention of a prosecutor."

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but cannot be fired for improper reasons.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico - one of the nine - as the most troubling. Iglesias's firing followed complaints from leading Republican political figures in New Mexico, including Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, about Iglesias' handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases, the report said.

Iglesias, who now works as a paid speaker and practices law part-time, said he thinks criminal investigations should be pursued against Domenici and anyone else who may have broken federal criminal laws. He said he had not yet seen the report.

"I've said all along that these moves were improper and illegal and now it appears that they were criminal as well," he said in an interview. "Our complaints weren't just complaints of disgruntled former employees."

A spokesman for Domenici, who is leaving Congress at the end of the year, did not respond to requests for comment.

Wilson, who cooperated in the internal investigation of the firings, issued a statement in which she said the report's findings were incorrect. She acknowledged contacting Iglesias about possible indictments in a New Mexico case, but she denied complaining about him to anyone in the Bush administration.

Investigators said their inquiry of the firing of Iglesias and others was hampered by the lack of cooperation from Domenici, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department official Monica Goodling and other key witnesses.

The president's refusal to let Rove, Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten testify before Congress about the firings touched off a legal fight that is now before a federal appeals court. Most recently a judge ordered Miers to answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

The report concluded that Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was the person most responsible for developing the plan to fire the prosecutors and said that Sampson's comments to Congress, the White House and others were misleading.

Sampson and others claimed at first that the prosecutors' poor performance inspired their firings. But the report found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

It also said the dismissal of Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, probably resulted from pressure from the office of Republican Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Bond was upset that Graves did not intervene in a dispute between the staffs of Bond and Republican Rep. Sam Graves, the prosecutor's brother, the report said.

A spokeswoman for Bond did not immediately return a call for comment.

Investigators found no evidence that Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego were fired for prosecuting Republican members of Congress.

Similarly, the report says Justice Department officials had legitimate concerns about the work of two other prosecutors who were fired - Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.

---

On the Net:

Justice Department report: http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.


September 29, 2008

ACTIVISM: Over the bank bailout !!


They said it couldn't be done, but it HAS been done,

by you

and

other TrueMajority members.

At 2:05 pm today, the House voted down the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The stock market predictably dropped on the news that investment companies won't be getting our money, and the pundits will be getting all exercised about it. Here's what you should do about that:

Take a deep breath.

And then send a message to Congress to start focusing on the real fixes we need.

Wall Street has actually convinced a lot of us that what's good for the Dow Jones Average is good for us real people. But for eight years while bankers raked in billions, ordinary Americans have seen their real wages drop, jobs sent overseas, health insurance rates skyrocket, and now thousands are losing their homes.

We need our government to actively work for US in fixing this mess, so let's tell Congress it's time to start over and pass a New Deal for Main Street.

That means:

  • Putting real regulations back on runaway financial corporations, and taking an ownership stake in exchange for any taxpayer support
  • Providing mortgage relief so ordinary Americans stop losing their homes
  • Putting millions to work by investing in new green jobs and infrastructure
  • Investing in a health care plan to cover everyone

This debate is not over, so jump into it now. At long last it's become obvious what kind of country de-regulation and taxbreaks for corporations creates. People are re-considering our priorities as a nation. Speak up for yours.

Thanks,

-Matt

Matt Holland

House votes against $700 billion rescue package: Marketwatch

By Ruth Mantell & Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
Last update: 2:37 p.m. EDT Sept. 29, 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- House lawmakers voted Monday to reject the historic $700 billion financial rescue plan, a sharp blow to the administration and bipartisan leaders in Congress who warn that the country is on the brink of an economic precipice.

With elections approaching, some lawmakers -- both Democrats and Republicans -- may feel nervous about voting for a plan that risks so much taxpayer money and can't promise success. But the president has lobbied hard to approve the plan, and U.S. officials also have stressed the dire consequences of taking no action.

There were 205 in favor of the legislation and 228 against. Among Democrats, 140 voted in favor and 95 against. Among Republicans, 65 voted in favor and 133 against.

Critics say the plan does not adequately address problems such as job losses and a distressed housing market that underlie current economic weakness. U.S. officials had hoped the plan would ease the credit crunch and restore confidence in the markets, even as markets plunged around the world. Those in favor of the rescue plan may have been trying to treat the most manageable symptom -- a frozen credit market -- if not the actual disease.

A vote in the Senate was expected Wednesday, and the president would have followed with a speedy signature.
'I didn't come here to vote for bills like this. Let me tell you this: I believe Congress has to act and that means each and everyone of us.'

— John Boehner, R-Ohio
Earlier Monday, doubt emerged over whether enough representatives would vote in favor of the plan and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to colleagues in the early afternoon, stressing that representatives will continue to monitor financial issues and pursue additional strategies. She said it's imperative that the measure on the floor receives bipartisan support.

"That is the only message that will send a message of confidence to the markets," Pelosi said.

Colleagues applauded after appeals for bipartisan agreement on the rescue plan from Rep. John Boehner, House minority leader, and Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the financial-services committee.

The risk of not acting is much higher than the risk of acting, according to Boehner.
"I didn't come here to vote for bills like this. Let me tell you this: I believe Congress has to act and that means each and everyone of us," he said.

Video: Deal draws criticism

After a tentative agreement was set over the weekend, a $700 million Wall Street rescue plan could become law. But there are still holdouts and plenty of public anger. Fox's Doug Luzader reports. (Sept. 29)

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have said the plan is necessary to avert serious consequences for markets and the economy.

There's evidence that voters may be warming to the plan: A new national survey shows that 33% of likely voters now favor the plan, up from 24% on Friday, according to Rasmussen Reports. The survey, conducted Sunday, also found that 32% of voters are opposed to the plan, compared with one-half of those surveyed Friday. Still, 35% of voters are not sure about the plan.

"Those who understand that taxpayers will eventually get much of the money back support the bailout by a 2-to-1 margin,"
Rasmussen Reports said. "Those who incorrectly believe the government will not be getting money back oppose the bailout by a 62% to 18% margin."


Need for Speed

Investors voiced concern about the legislation's ultimate impact, as four European financial institutions were bailed out and Wachovia Corp.'s (WB:
Wachovia Corp
Last: 10.00+490.00-102.08%
12:22pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote data
Last: 19.70-0.45-2.23%
2:23pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote data

Stocks opened sharply lower on Wall Street and then fell hard. See Market Snapshot.
At the White House, Bush urged passage of the financial-rescue package, in a move to shore up the country's ailing lending system.
Also Monday, Bernanke said he's looking forward to "swift passage" of the legislation. Bernanke has been urging lawmakers to move quickly on a rescue plan, warning that the economic and financial consequences of a delay would be dire.
"This legislation should help to restore the flow of credit to households and businesses that is essential for economic growth and job creation, while at the same time affording strong and necessary protections for taxpayers," Bernanke said in a statement.
The giant plan is needed to avert a deeper crisis that could hamper the flow of money throughout the financial system, President Bush said. He added that the credit crisis and the housing slowdown will remain facts of life for Americans for the time being.
'This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a systemwide breakdown.'
— President Bush
Under the measure, the federal government will purchase assets from banks in order to free up lending in the system, and strong oversight is included, Bush said before U.S. financial markets opened Monday.

Elsewhere, regulators announced Monday that Wachovia's banking operations were being bought by Citigroup. See full story.

Paulson said he supports the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s actions to facilitate the sale to Citigroup (C:
Citigroup, Inc
Last: 19.70-0.45-2.23%
2:23pm 09/29/2008
Delayed quote da

Bernanke also said he supports the FDIC action. See full story.

The Treasury Department also said its temporary guarantee program for U.S. money-market funds in now open. For the next year, the Treasury will insure holdings of any publicly offered money-market mutual fund, retail and institutional, that pays a fee to participate. The temporary guarantee program provides coverage to shareholders for amounts that they held in participating funds as of Sept. 19.

Progress made on rescue

On Sunday, Democratic congressional leaders announced their agreement on details of the rescue plan, releasing a draft text trumpeting taxpayer guarantees and caps on executive compensation.

The draft bill, titled the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," follows days of legislative wrangling as U.S. financial markets teetered on the edge of a collapse triggered by the U.S. mortgage crisis.

"This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street; it's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a press conference announcing the agreement.
The draft legislation would authorize $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion upon presidential certification. A further $350 billion would also be available subject to congressional approval.
"I appreciate the leadership shown by members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill,"
Bush said in a statement.
"This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a systemwide breakdown."

Under the proposed bill, the Treasury Department can use a combination of tactics to buy bad loans, focusing on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities but also including other types of loans under certain conditions. Treasury could purchase the bad debt through an auction process as well as by buying loans directly, a Treasury official said in a conference call with reporters.
The proposed legislation also allows companies to participate in an insurance program, whereby Treasury would guarantee troubled assets, charging companies a premium "sufficient to cover anticipated claims."

"This bill provides the necessary tools to deploy up to $700 billion to address the urgent needs in our financial system, whether that be by purchasing troubled assets broadly, insuring troubled assets, or averting the potential systemic risk from the disorderly failure of a large financial institution,"
the Treasury secretary said.

The government would get a stake in companies receiving bailout funds so that taxpayer money could be recovered if those companies grow in the future, according to the bill.
The proposed legislation also requires that in five years, the president submit a proposal to Congress "that recoups from the financial industry any projected losses to the taxpayer."

Existing executive-pay contracts will stay in place

In some cases, the bill would require companies limit executive pay, but those limits vary depending on the method by which Treasury purchases a firm's troubled assets, and how much Treasury antes up.

"When Treasury buys assets at auction, an institution that has sold more than $300 million in assets is subject to additional taxes, including a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments triggered by events other than retirement, and tax deduction limits for compensation limits above $500,000,"
according to a synopsis of the text of the bill.

While the proposed bill prevents companies from signing new golden-parachute deals with top executives after Treasury gets involved, it does not change the terms of already existing contracts, apparently in an effort to encourage companies to participate in the bailout program.

Keeping an eye on progress

The bill would put oversight provisions in place, including creating the position of an inspector general as well as a congressional oversight panel to monitor the program, plus a requirement that the Treasury secretary regularly report to Congress the details of all loan purchases.
Also, "all of the transactions related to this legislation will be on the Internet within 48 hours," Pelosi said. "That transparency, that oversight, will be very important to our economy."
The bill also contains some provisions that seek to help families in financial distress avoid foreclosures, in part by creating a plan to "encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans" and allowing the Treasury to use loan guarantees to avoid foreclosures.

While critics have noted that government encouragement won't necessarily impel servicers to work with borrowers, the Treasury official said that buying large groups of loans will help push that process forward. "Treasury will be buying many of the securities in volume. We will have a lot of influence on the servicers and we will work aggressively to ... prevent foreclosures," the official said.

Candidates weigh in

Before the release of the draft text, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama said Sunday morning that they would be willing to sign off on the massive financial rescue plan but would need to first consider the details.

When asked if he supported the plan, McCain told ABC's This Week:
"I'd like to see the details, but hopefully yes. ... This is something we'll all swallow hard and go forward with."

Obama told CBS's Face the Nation:
"We have to get something done. ... My inclination would be to vote for it, understanding that I'm not happy about it -- we should have never gotten to this place."


Ruth Mantell is a MarketWatch reporter based in Washington.
Steve Gelsi is a reporter for MarketWatch in New York.

Devasting videos on the banking crisis



Who Screwed Up the Housing Market and Caused the World Wide Credit Crunch ??










How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - (RePUGlican View)

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.



WAKE UP KURDISTAN !! : Axin Arbili in OpEd News

KurdishMedia.com - By Axin Arbili

There is no change for the better; there is no turning point in our history: The anti-Kurdish forces of the past are the anti-Kurdish forces of today. Despite the end of Saddam’s dictatorship five years ago, there is still no freedom for the Kurds, no free Kurdistan even in so-called liberated Iraq. Our enemies are busy, as ever, with maintaining the status quo in the Middle East, and they are successful. In return for Kurdish efforts of reconciliation and goodwill, Arabs, with the help of the Turks, have stopped the referendum in Kerkuk and are now doing everything to abolish that constitutional requirement and right. The Kurdish city and especially the oil there are still regarded “Arab patrimony”, and under Saddam this meant Anfal: large-scale ethnic cleansing, deportations, displacement, genocide.

The Kurdish genocide; the murder of more than 350,000 people, the displacement of millions; the depopulation and destructions of the Kurdish landscape seems to have quietly disappeared from collective conscious, from the collective memory and public political discourse; it has almost become irrelevant to our leaders. Nobody remembers the referendum in which the Kurdish people in the south declared their will for self-determination and independence; today we do not see the implementation of the only legitimate will, but we see the instructions and will of Washington, Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Ankara being implemented. The Kurdish leaders in Iraq have become collaborators and clients of US global empire.

The question to be asked and answered is thus: What did the Peshmerga actually fight for in “Operation Iraqi Freedom”? Did they really fight for Kurdish freedom or did they risk their lives so that instead of Sunni Arabs their Shiite kin get the opportunity to rule Baghdad and thus Kurdistan? The answer is quite clear. We missed a unique opportunity to tell our enemies and the world that we don't want to be part of that criminal and hated creation of British imperialism called Iraq; that we want the sanctity of our homelands recognized under international law, that we want a free and sovereign Kurdish society, protected by a Kurdish state and army; that the insults, intimidations, threats, aggressions, crimes against us must end for once and all. Instead of doing the right thing, the Kurdish leaders decided to become presidents and foreign ministers of that terror state of Iraq; we see how they listen to our enemies and follow imperial instructions; we see that there is no progress and peace for our nation. In the political and cultural realities of the world, we do not even exist. We are called Iraqis; south Kurdistan is just northern Iraq in the eyes of the “international community” and others.

The scale of racial hatred against any form of Kurdish independence or even a Kurdish city administration is unimaginably deep and egregious when we compare that the Arabs already have 22 (twenty-two) independent sovereign countries with tens of thousands of rich cities and a population of 350 to 400 million; that there are 7 (seven) independent sovereign Turkic states, 16 (sixteen) Autonomous Turkic republics, with a Turkish/Turkic population of more than 200 million; that the combined Arab und Turkish land masses represent a vast area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to Central Asia and beyond; that Turks and Arabs fully enjoy all human and ethnic rights monitored under international law. Despite all of their territorial and material wealth (including the largest oil reserves), despite their numerous states, and despite calling themselves compassionate Muslims, Turks and Arabs are not willing to allow the Kurds, who have no other allies or kin, let alone friends, to exercise the same human and ethnic rights, to have their historical, moral, legal rights for self-determination and for their own sovereign country realised.

The “international community” couldn’t care less. Arab oil and Nato-membership of Turkey are too precious for the West to jeopardize by supporting the despised, poor and powerless Kurds. Consequently and historically the USA/EU/NATO have supported their client states rather than supporting democracy and justice in the region. Outside the western spheres, there is no such thing anyway. There are only vital strategic and material interests. There is no right or wrong, moral or immoral for the West when it comes to its vital interests; there is only the will and force to achieve the objectives by all means, at any costs, including genocides. In the Middle East, these are access and control of the energy reserves and expansion of control to yet uncontrolled regions (Iran, Caucasus, Central Asia, etc.). In the new strategy paper of the US military for the 21st century, it is now explicitly and officially stated what has been US foreign policy practice for decades and centuries: continuous warfare for depleting energy, food and water resources together with their European kin and local puppets. Since these resources are in other countries and belong to other peoples/races, the US military officially declares to continue targeting the indigenous populations whenever necessary; it other words, there is no distinction between civilian and military; the other culture as a whole is an enemy of the US if it’s in the way. Freedom? Democracy? Only the most naïve and manipulated can still believe in a benevolent Uncle Sam.

So while the Arabs are attacking us in “legal” ways and/or by using terror to prevent Kerkuk becoming part of Kurdish administration; all of the Kurdish territories are under constant attack by the Turkish air force to kill as many “Kurdish terrorists” (= free Kurds) as possible. The Turks are assisted by the Iranian army, and the actions of both the Turkish and Iranian military are approved and supported by the USA/West! On the one side Kemalists and Mullahs are conducting warfare against a defenseless people in open violation of all rules and conventions; on the other there is the “international community” deliberately looking away and allowing crimes against humanity. The UN general meeting demonstrated this once again openly and directly when representatives, including Ahmadinejad, delivered their speeches. He was talking about God, justice, beauty, harmony, brotherhood of man, while at the same time the Iranian army is carrying out its war against the Kurdish population; and the “international community” is wondering whether or not Iran has peaceful intentions toward the West. These are satanic double standards and they show unambiguously that the West is not bothered about the Kurdish situation and fate. The barbarism of the Turkish/Iranian military is matched by the selfish brutality of the West. While some delegations were absent; the foreign minister of Iraq, who is a Kurd, was present and listening. And not only was he present and listening, he actually applauded when this prophet of evil finished his deceitful speech. It was like a scene from a nightmare or directly from hell. I could only feel shame and anger as there can be no understanding let alone justification for such disgraceful behaviour. How can you, as a Kurd, applaud him when this man only has murderous contempt for you and your people. He is the head of a state which is determined to crush Kurdish rights, which imprisons, tortures and kills Kurdish intellectuals and human rights activists; which has been cooperating with the Turks for centuries in occupying and exploiting Kurdish lands; which has always been anti-Kurdish in theory and practice. Knowing all of this, how can you just sit there comfortably, listen and applaud this false prophet when you could, in your position as foreign minister, inform the world public of Iranian and Turkish atrocities?

Our enemies will not take us serious with such figures, they can only laugh at us and do what they like. No wonder that the world has no clue about our tragedy, that the only thing they can relate Kurds to is either terrorism or that we are just plain stupid or masochistic.

The Turks have been demonstrating their contempt for centuries. While we are begging for some democracy; their “constitutional court” is considering the closure of the only Kurdish party in Turkey just because this party wants a free and democratic society with equal rights for every one and, above all, because it is a Kurdish party that represents the Kurds. For the military rulers in Ankara, Kurds representing Kurds and insisting on Kurdish right is just another form of terrorism that needs to be eradicated. As all the previous Kurdish parties were shut down, it is more than likely that this one will also have the same fate. Even if it is not shut down now, it will be reminded of the Turkish sword hanging over its head, ready to be used at any time the party/Kurds say anything different than Kemalist state slogans.

We need to wake up and understand: Democracy is not in the interest of the ruling elites as it would mean the end of Kemalism/Turkish supremacy. Consequently there is no real democracy, all these Turkish parties, the parliament, the courts, the government only a façade for the “international community”. Behind the scenes, the US-backed generals pull the strings and make these puppets move as they wish. If one of them dares to get out of line, there is always the threat and possibility of a military coup to re-arrange and re-install the Kemalist order even more brutally. But as the Turkish society has been thoroughly Kemalized by the Kemalofascist military, bureaucracy, and judiciary for almost a century, and as it has also been thoroughly Islamized by the their Muslim leaders, with their strong economic base; there is no danger of any form of subversion from the Turkish people against the status quo or any wish for real democracy. As long as there is Western support and financing of the Turkish fascist order, as long as the Kurds have no voice and are powerless slaves of Western and local forces; the Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Westerners are quite content and happy with the status quo called “Middle East”.

Given these global, geostrategic, socio-political realities, any talk of democratization of such societies becomes ridiculous, absurd if not pathological. And it is absolute and utter hubris to believe, let alone to suggest that Kurds, as freedom fighters or as political fighters, could democratize Arab or Turkish societies in any way. Not only that Kurds don’t have the means, but they also don’t have the right to attempt any such mad thing. If these societies or states prefer a Kemalist, Baathist, Islamist system or whatever system they want, it is their decision and choice. These are separate societies, separate peoples, separate states. Even Israel, the nuclear and industrial superpower of the region, makes no claim or has a plan of democratizing the Palestinian Arabs or any other Arabs for that matter; how can Kurds talk about democratizing others?! This form of thinking is purely idealistic, wishful, delusional and thus a total waste of time. It will not help our cause in any way, it has just hindered it and blocked real progress, and thus it only has played into the hands of our enemies.

But we have no more time to lose. We are dealing with hostile barbaric forces which only have contempt for us if we try to civilize them with democratic rhetorics and plans. They insult us, spit into our faces, torture and kill us in return to demonstrate that there is no such thing as Kurdish rights. Look around, animals even have more rights in Turkey, Iran, Syria and in the world than Kurds. They make it absolutely clear and act upon the understanding that it's in nobody’s interest that we exist.. The Turks, Arabs, Iranians have been carrying out physical and cultural genocides against the Kurdish nation without any action, even without any real protest from that “civilized international community”. Although on legal and moral basis, these states ought to be sanctioned, boycotted and punished; you see how they are officially recognized and welcomed at every international forum and in every organization.

Wake up and understand; begging for democracy will not bring us anywhere. Has it brought us the freedom of our language, the freedom of speech, freedom for education in our native language; are there any Kurdish institutions, universities? Where are the Kurdish names for our children, towns, landscapes? While we should be demanding our right for self-determination and independence, we don’t even dare to ask for some form of autonomy. The Kemalist and Islamist Turks will not accept even the basic human and ethnic rights; and the democratic Turks are only a few and totally powerless. What they are selling as democratic reforms is meaningless in practice or simply a show for the entertainment of the EU.

Wake up and understand: The Turks are afraid of real democracy. They instinctively know that it would mean losing more or even all of their conquered lands. They are not the indigenous people of this region and thus feel insecure in foreign territory. 500 years of occupation of Anatolia has not changed this fundamental reality in the Turkish psyche. They are descendants of conquerors and occupiers and there is no way back. As the Ottoman Empire was created and maintained with the Turkish sword, so today physical force remains the only instrument to maintain what is left. With the end of their empire, there is only one remaining target: the Kurds. As long as there are Kurds, they will be reminded that they are illegal occupiers; that it is not their country; that they are intruders; thieves, murderers. Real democracy will necessarily lead to acknowledgement of these facts, recognition of the Assyrian, Greek, Armenian, Kurdish genocides, and to compensation. Therefore, real democracy is not in the interest of the Turkish people as a principle, and it will never happen under such conditions.

Wake up and understand: A peaceful, equal, democratic co-existence between the Turkish and Kurdish peoples within the same borders is impossible as the Turks don’t accept the Kurdish nation. Therefore, it is wrong to think and irresponsible to suggest that as Kurds we do not need our own protective state when history clearly demonstrates and teaches that peoples and populations were massacred and genocided precisely because they did not have their own protective states, precisely because they did not have borders to protect them from genocidal assault.

Has mankind changed meantime? Do we now live in a world of brotherhood and justice? Have we overcome our barbaric instincts of attacking and destroying other cultures, of conquering other countries and enslaving native populations? Do warfare and ethnic cleansing belong to the past? Do cultures and countries fully and harmoniously cooperate to overcome their problems? Has the fighting and murdering for resources stopped, has the desire for imperial world dominion ended, are conflicts now being finally settled peacefully?

No, nothing has changed and the US and their “allies” are making sure that nothing will change and business continues as usual.

Democracy is not their language, so it should not be the one to use when confronted by them. This is a life or death confrontation, it is literally about survival or total annihilation. There is no time for illusions and self-delusions, we finally need to wake up and do what is possible and necessary. Let’s be clear and remember: In the Turkish and world media, in the propaganda of Western real-politics, we are terrorists whatever we do or say; the Turks and others make sure that our legitimate demands are officially regarded as terrorism and fought.

We need to focus on the task ahead: It is to fight for the liberation of Kurdistan, for the creation of a united Kurdish state. This is our right and obligation – and it is justified historically, morally, legally! This must be our only goal and it must be the goal of all Kurds under foreign occupation. An independent sovereign state is not a theoretical concept, it is essential to the life and culture of a people; it is the home, shelter, protector of the people. It is the only guarantor of its future! How can one deprecate the importance of a state? How can one suggest that it is an ideological entity; that it is a bourgeois invention or plot? That is absolutely irresponsible and the propaganda of the enemy. Our only chance is a clear understanding of our situation and determined implementation of a strategy leading to the declaration of the state of Kurdistan. Otherwise there will be no freedom, no security, and above all, there will be no dignity, no honour for the Kurdish nation. Without our own state; the Kurdish people will continue being in slavery, will remain at the mercy of hostile, aggressive powers, and will be constantly at risk of total physical annihilation by these powers at any time.

There is no other way but absolute liberation. The West has and will not help. On the contrary, with the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, running through ancient Armenian and Kurdish territories, the American-Turkish-Israeli-Georgian alliance has been cemented for good. We must now seek for some kind of cooperation based on the principle that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. In our case, our enemies’ enemies are Russia and China. The US and Nato have plotted new strategies to harm these countries and keep them out of the central Asian oil and gas markets. Two new power blocks are forming now, the NATO plus local clients led by the USA/EU on the aggressive-imperial side and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) led by Russia and China on the defensive side. We are right in the middle of this confrontation, which seems to be inevitable and could lead to global wars. It will be impossible to remain neutral and if we don’t want to be crushed by both, we need to decide now where we will stand to achieve our goal of a free recognized Kurdistan.


ShareThis