Archive for the ‘USA’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Amnesty accuses Spain of allowing CIA flights to Guantanamo

October 12, 2008

RINF.COM, Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Madrid – The human rights group Amnesty International (AI) on Wednesday accused the Spanish government of not having tried to prevent US flights transporting terrorist suspects to illegal detention centres across Spanish airspace.

At least 90 flights linked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made stopovers at 15 Spanish airports, mainly on the Canary Islands, between 2002 and 2007, the Spanish section of AI said in a report.

About 200 people were taken to the US prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, on flights that took off from US military bases in Spain or crossed the Spanish airspace, AI charged.

The group urged the government to cooperate with an ongoing judicial investigation into the flights.

Other European countries allowed similar flights, AI conceded.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Human rights, USA | Leave a Comment »

America Must Plumb Olmert’s “Depths of Reality”

October 11, 2008

Robert Weitzel, Oct 10, 2008

“I was the first who wanted to impose Israeli sovereignty . . . I admit it . . . I was not ready to look into all the depths of reality.”
– Incumbent Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert –

In a September 30 article in the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronot, Israel’s incumbent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a former member of the right-wing Likud party, said that Israel must withdraw “from almost all of the territories, if not from all the territories. We shall keep in our hands a percentage of these territories, but we shall be compelled to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”

He went on to say, “We can perhaps take an historic step in our relations with the Palestinians . . . the decision we must make is the decision we have refused to face with open eyes for 40 years . . . What I am telling you was never said by any previous Israeli leader, it’s time to lay everything on the table.”

The reality that Olmert was willing to lay before the Israeli people, “which exposed him to criticism from all quarters,” according to Yedioth Ahronot interviewers Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, is one that no Democratic or Republican politician who aspires to national office has the chutzpa to tell the American electorate.

This lack of chutzpah has been nowhere more evident than in the presidential and vice-presidential “debates.” These prime-time events, which are really nothing more than 90 minutes of vacuous one-upmanship, could serve as a reality check for the 70 million-plus viewers if the moderators were willing to challenge the candidates’ evasions, half truths, exaggerations and outright lies . . . or if Ralph Nader were allowed to participate.

During the vice-presidential debate, both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin professed their undying love and support for Israel, “our strongest and best ally in the Middle East (Palin).”

“No one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel . . . (Biden).”

“I’m so encouraged to know that we both love Israel (Palin).”

One-upping Palin, Biden boldly claimed, “I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion [for Israel].” Obviously, Obama does.

Moderator Gwen Ifill might have taken this opportunity to inquire as to the source of Palin’s “love” and Biden’s “passion” for Israel. Ifill might have pointed out to the 70 million-plus viewers that a candidate does not make it to a national “debate” without first being pronounced kosher by Israel’s shadow government on K Street.

Both Ifill and Tom Brokaw, the moderator of the recent town hall presidential “debate,” might have challenged the candidates’ assertions that Israel is a hairs’ breath away from annihilation by its Arab neighbors.

“An armed, nuclear armed . . . Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy . . . (Palin).”

“We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon . . . it [would] threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world . . . (Obama).”

Keep in mind that U.S. intelligence estimates that Iran is years away from developing even one nuclear device, while Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads targeted and minutes away from any Arab or Persian country foolish enough to attack it.

Keep in mind also what Olmert told Yedioth Ahronot, “Israel is the strongest country in the Middle East, it can win any war against any regional country, it can even win a war against all of them together.”

All four candidates took the opportunity during the “debates” to once again assure Israelis in the Holy Land and Jews on K Street that their administrations would continue the annual $6 billion in direct and indirect economic and military aid . . . even as Americans are losing their homes and jobs and retirement savings.

Ifill and Brokaw might have challenged the candidates’ promise of continued economic and military aid to Israel considering:

Israel is one of the most economically and industrially advanced countries in Southwest Asia.

Israel ranks second among foreign countries in the number of companies on U.S. stock exchanges.

Israel has the second largest number of startup companies in the world and the largest number of NASDAQ-listed companies outside North America.

Israel’s GDP per capita is $31,767

Israel’s economic growth in 2006 was the fastest of any Western nation.

Israel has the best armed and trained military in the region and is the fourth largest weapons exporter in the world ($2 billion annually)

And the United States’ taxpayers are expected to finance Israel?

But the “depth of reality” check of utmost salience to the 70 million-plus “debate” viewers is why the candidates and most members of Congress consider Israel our “strongest ally in the world.”

In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, igniting a civil war. America’s support for Israel cost the lives of 241 servicemen who were blown apart as they slept in their Beirut barracks.

Israel did not fight in the first Gulf War, neither did its soldiers die in Afghanistan or Iraq—a war its cooked intelligence helped to bring about. This year our “strongest ally” pushed the Bush administration to the brink of war with Iran—a war whose catastrophic reverberations would have been on a par with the current global economic meltdown.

Israel’s regional aggression and its repressive—often brutal— domestic policies regarding the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank inflames its Arab neighbors and cinches tight the explosive vest to the chests of Arab youths.

Predictably, the United States’ irrational and unconditional support of Israel makes it equally culpable and equally target-worthy in the eyes of Arabs and Persians in the Middle East and Muslims worldwide. An ally that causes more insecurity than succor can hardly be considered the strongest ally in the world—unless that ally is also the only way to the White House.

Gwen Ifill and Tom Brokaw might have challenged the candidates in a way that exposed him or her to criticism from the Israeli quarter. Unfortunately for the 70 million-plus viewers Israel is a “depth of reality” the American political system and mainstream media are unwilling to plumb.

But as a right-wing Israeli Prime Minister says, “it’s time to lay everything on the table.”

Robert Weitzel is a contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, Palestine, USA, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

JOEL BRINKLEY: Evidence grows that Israel, with U.S. aid, is preparing to attack Iran

October 11, 2008
McClatchy-Tribune News Service | bnd.com, Oct 9, 2008

Month after month, the nation’s attention seems to ping-pong back and forth between the world’s two egregious nuclear malefactors, North Korea and Iran.

For the last few weeks, all eyes have been on North Korea, as the nation’s idiosyncratic leadership began reopening a plant that manufactures weapons-grade plutonium. Christopher Hill, an assistant secretary of state, met, to no effect, with North Korea’s leaders in Pyongyang last week – a visit that would have been inconceivable while hawks still dominated the Bush administration.

But, as anyone might guess, the problems in Iran did not suddenly freeze while everyone looked east. In fact several recent developments leave the strong suggestion that Israel is preparing to attack Iran – with significant help from the United States.

The likelihood of an American attack has diminished. American commanders “think it would complicate the situation in Iraq and the region,” John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador, told me. He favors an attack but says “the Bush administration was much more inclined to do it a few years ago.” Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, at State and Defense – relative moderates within the Bush administration – now dominate discussion of issues like this.

Would Washington support an Israeli attack? Recently, the administration has given clear signals that it would not. But then, why did the Pentagon announce last month that it planned to sell Israel 1,000 new GBU-39 bunker-busting bombs? They are small weapons that can be dropped from the wings of the fighter jets in Israel’s air force. Each can penetrate 6 feet of reinforced concrete. If several aircraft hit the same target the total penetration could be much deeper.

Why does Israel need those bombs? Israeli military analysts have been saying they are for attacking underground weapons depots in Gaza or southern Lebanon. Perhaps.

But then, why about the same time did the Pentagon agree to sell Israel sophisticated upgrades for the country’s Patriot anti-missile missiles – and send more than 100 technicians to install them? If Israel attacked, Iran has warned that it would fire volleys of ballistic missiles in response.

And there’s more: Just last week came the news that the United States has deployed an advanced early-warning radar system in Israel for detecting incoming missiles. It is so sophisticated that, for now, U.S. Army crews will be stationed there to operate it.

Bolton and others advised against “reading all of that into this,” as he put it. The United States continually sells military equipment to Israel. Most years the United States gives Israel about $2 billion in military aid, and it must be spent on American arms.

What is more, Abbas Milani, an expert on Iran at Stanford University, told me that the Iranian press of late has been saying “the time is past” when the United States might attack. And while there is some concern about Israel, the Iranian papers correctly note that the country is locked in negotiations to form a new government that aren’t likely to be settled for several weeks. Israel would not attack before a new government forms.

At the same time, though, Israelis certainly saw Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian president, telling the United Nations last month that “the Zionist regime is on a definite slide toward collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of this cesspool.”

Still, all of this may be a hall of mirrors. The United States may be arming Israel purely for defensive reasons. Israel’s military exercises and blustery threats may simply be the state’s way of warning Iran. On the other hand, the Bush administration’s statements cautioning Israel may simply be an attempt to prevent Iran from blaming Washington if Israel does attack.

In any case, Bolton said, “Israel’s decision will not be based on what the Pentagon wants.” And if Israel does attack, Iran will consider Washington responsible, no matter what the administration has said.

“So if the U.S. is going to be blamed anyway,” Bolton offered, “we ought to go ahead and assist them.”


Joel Brinkley is a former Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for The New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford University. Readers may send him e-mail at: brinkley@foreign-matters.com

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, USA, Zionist Israel | Leave a Comment »

US probe says Palin abused power

October 11, 2008
Al Jazeera, Oct 11, 2008

Palin supporters have claimed that the investigation was politically motivated [AFP]

Sarah Palin, the US Republican vice-presidential candidate, abused her power as Alaska’s governor when she fired the state’s public safety commissioner, a legislative committee has found.

A report to the committee concluded late on Friday that a family grudge was not the sole reason for her firing of Walter Monegan, but said that it likely was a contributing factor.

Palin supporters have called the investigation politically motivated.

The inquiry looked into Palin’s dismissal of Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor’s sister.

Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.

“I feel vindicated,” Monegan said. “It sounds like they’ve validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I’m not totally out in left field.”

Stephen Branchflower, who led the investigation, told the bipartisan committee that Palin had violated a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

Polls ‘down’

Supporters of Palin and John McCain, the Republican party’s presidential nominee, had hoped results from the investigation would not be released until after November’s election.

The investigation began before Palin was selected as the vice-presidential nominee for her party and McCain said he was aware of the controversy when making the choice.

Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said: “There were concerted efforts by John McCain’s campaign to dissuade this investigation from going forward.

Jordan said the report could prove a disastrous blow for Palin, “especially when you consider polling in the last couple weeks”.

“Her poll rating has gone down … this is not the sort of thing you want coming out just 25 days until the election,” Jordan said.

Republicans, however, cautioned against making too much of the report.

Gary Stevens, a state senator on the investigating committee, said: “I think there are some problems in this report. I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye.”

The almost 300-page report did not recommend sanctions against Palin, nor a criminal investigation.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in USA | Leave a Comment »

Nader’s Message Brings Maine Voters To Their Feet

October 8, 2008

The presidential candidate blasts the powers in Washington for the recent financial crisis.

Portland Press Herald (Maine),  Oct 7 2008

October 7, 2008

Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
enlarge Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
Ralph Nader gave little relief to the major players in the current Wall Street financial crisis during a speech in Portland on Monday. “If you’re not indignant, you’re not a citizen,” Nader said.
Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
enlarge Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer
Ralph Nader speaks to about 250 people gathered at First Parish Church of Portland on Monday night. He is on the ballot as an independent candidate for president.

Ralph Nader brought a Portland audience to its feet Monday night with his signature call to fight Wall Street greed, corporate crime and the military industrial complex.

“If you’re not indignant, you’re not a citizen,” Nader said to about 250 people gathered at First Parish Church in Portland.

Nader, who’s on the Nov. 4 ballot as an independent presidential candidate, skewered last week’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

He said Congress approved the unprecedented taxpayer-backed rescue even though many Americans believe it will benefit executives who caused the mortgage-related financial crisis without holding them accountable.

“That means your representatives in Congress shut you down,” Nader said. “Wall Street stuffed Washington into a barrel and rolled it.”

Nader said he’s running for president again because the United States is drowning in debt and Americans have surrendered control of their lives to corporations that are running the country.

Regarding corporate influence in government, Nader said the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is “the speed at which their knees hit the floor” when corporations knock on the door.

He said he wants to reform the tax system, in part because the government has reverted to the days of taxation without representation that led to the Revolution. “We’re back to 1775,” he said.

Nader noted that about half of the nation’s annual operating budget is spent on defense and corporations that make up the so-called military industrial complex.

He said the true sign of courage in leadership is having the ability to wage peace and diplomacy.

Nader said he wants to improve workplace health and safety, continue fighting for consumer rights and provide universal health care for Americans.

Nader criticized the energy policies of the presidential candidates representing the major political parties, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain and Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

He said both support a banquet of fuel options, including oil, coal and nuclear power, that aren’t good for consumers or the environment.

Nader supports clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and wants to put a stop to oil, nuclear, electric and coal subsidies.

“Some forms of energy are better than others,” said Nader.

Nader, who’s on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia, also complained that third-party candidates are excluded from the presidential debates.

“I looked at that stage the other night,” Nader said. “It really had a lot of space, didn’t it?”

The audience at the Congress Street church included people of all ages and political persuasion.

Nader is “a Connecticut Yankee with a very high order of intellect,” said Tom Little, an independent voter from Connecticut who is working as an apple picker at a local orchard. “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he represents a legal, law-enforcement response to a criminal government.”

“I’ve voted for Ralph every time he’s been on the ballot,” said Claudine Grange, a Democrat who is a nurse practitioner and lives in Portland.

Grange disputed the notion that she’s throwing away her vote in what is basically a two-way race.

“I vote my conscience,” she said. “Whether he wins or not isn’t important. He’s educating the public and he’s telling the truth and that’s what matters.”

Staff Writer Kelley Bouchard can be contacted at 791-6328 or at:

kbouchard@pressherald.com

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized, USA | Leave a Comment »

Time to quit Afghanistan

October 7, 2008

Eric Margolis | Edmonton Sun, Oct 5, 2008

At last, a faint glimmer of light at the end of the Afghan tunnel.

Last week, the U.S.-installed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, revealed he had asked Saudi Arabia to broker peace talks with the alliance of tribal and political groups resisting western occupation collectively known as the Taliban.

Taliban leader Mullah Omar quickly rejected Karzai’s offer and claimed the U.S. was headed toward the same kind of catastrophic defeat in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union met. The ongoing financial panic in North America lent a certain credence to his words.

Meanwhile, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, urgently called for at least 10,000 more troops but, significantly, also proposed political talks with the Taliban. U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are increasingly on the defensive, hard pressed to defend vulnerable supply lines in spite of massive fire power and total control of the air.

I recently asked Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former senior adviser, how this seemingly impossible war could be won. His eyes dancing with imperial hubris, Rove replied, “More Predators (missile armed drones) and helicopters!” Which reminded me of poet Hilaire Belloc’s wonderful line about British imperialism, “Whatever happens/we have got/the Maxim gun (machine gun)/and they have not.”

Though Karzai’s olive branch was rejected, the fact he made it public is very important. By doing so, he broke the simple-minded western taboo against negotiations with the Taliban and its allies.

DRUG FIGHTERS

The Taliban was founded as an Islamic religious movement dedicated to fighting communism and the drug trade. It received U.S. funding until May 2001. But western war propaganda has so demonized the Taliban that few politicians have the courage to propose the obvious and inevitable: A negotiated settlement to this pointless seven-year war. Even NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said the war could only be ended by negotiations, not military means.

The Taliban and its allies are mostly Pashtuns (or Pathans), who comprise half of Afghanistan’s population. They have been largely excluded from political power by the U.S.-backed Kabul regime, which relies on Tajik and Uzbek ethnic minorities, chiefs of the old Afghan Communist Party, and the nation’s leading drug lords.

Canada, which lacks funds for modern medical care, has spent a staggering $22 billion to support its little war against the Pashtun tribes. It’s a war which Canada’s defence minister actually claimed is necessary so that Canadian delegates would be “taken seriously” at international meetings. A better path to credibility might be to not plagiarize from other right wing leader’s speeches.

Ottawa and Washington should listen to Karzai who, despite being a U.S.-installed “asset,” is also a decent man who cares about his nation. In fact, Ottawa should remember Canada’s venerable position as an international peacemaker, a role that has made it one of the world’s most respected nations.

Mr. Harper’s role model, George W. Bush, is probably the most disliked man on earth and certainly America’s worst president in history, who has led his nation from disaster to calamity. Only 22% of Americans support Bush. Half of them believe Elvis is still alive.

The Taliban are not “terrorists.” The movement had nothing to do with 9/11 though it did shelter Osama bin Laden, a national hero of the war against the Soviets. Only a handful of al-Qaida are left in Afghanistan.

The current war is not really about al-Qaida and “terrorism,” but about opening a secure corridor through Pashtun tribal territory to export the oil and gas riches of the Caspian Basin to the West. Canada and the rest of NATO have no business being pipeline protection troops. Canada’s military intervention in Afghanistan has jeopardized its national security by putting it on the map as an anti-Muslim nation joined at the hip with Bush and his ruinous policies.

As the great Benjamin Franklin said, “there is no good war, and no bad peace.”

I hope Ottawa will have the courage to admit it was wrong about Afghanistan and bring its troops home — now.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, imperialism, USA | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan insists no deal made with US on strikes

October 7, 2008

Pakistan says no deal on US strikes in its northwest, downplays president’s reported comments

NAHAL TOOSI | AP News, Oct 06, 2008

Pakistan insisted Monday it had no deal allowing the U.S. to fire missiles at militant hideouts after an American newspaper quoted the new president as suggesting otherwise.

President Asif Ali Zardari reportedly told The Wall Street Journal that “India has never been a threat” to his country, while calling Islamist militant groups in the disputed Kashmir region “terrorists.”

The reported comments could undermine Zardari just a month into his presidency, especially with Pakistan’s powerful military. The army’s top brass have traditionally viewed India as its top enemy and has denied any agreement with the U.S. on crossborder operations.

In the interview with the Journal reported on Saturday, Zardari is paraphrased as saying that the U.S. is carrying out missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government’s consent.

“We have an understanding, in the sense that we’re going after an enemy together,” he is then quoted as saying.

Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Zardari, said the Journal writer had read too much into Zardari’s quote, and that the president was talking in generalities about fighting terrorism.

“The official position is that we do not allow foreign incursions into Pakistani territory,” Babar said.

The U.S. has long carried out missile strikes against suspected al-Qaida and Taliban hideouts in the northwest, but a recent surge in attacks has prompted official Pakistani condemnation. Washington complains that Pakistan is unwilling or unable to take strong action against the extremists.

At least 24 people, many of them alleged foreign militants, were killed in the latest suspected U.S. strike Friday in North Waziristan province, officials said.

Suspected militants also fired rockets at the home of the top provincial official in northwestern Pakistan, the latest in a surge of attacks that have rocked the lawless region bordering Afghanistan.

Three houses were damaged but no one was injured in the strikes in Mardan late Sunday on the home of North West Frontier Province’s chief minister, Amir Haider Khan Hoti.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Pakistan, Uncategorized, USA | Leave a Comment »

Haiti: In Solidarity with its Five Freedoms

October 5, 2008

By James Petras | Information Clearing House, Oct 5, 2008

Today the acid test for all democrats in North and South America is the issue of the military occupation of Haiti, the economic pillage and denial of elementary political and human rights of the Haitian people.

In 2004 a US-led invasion force overthrew the democratically elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide and subsequently promoted and organized an occupation army. This colonial military force has repeatedly violently repressed popular demonstrations, violently raided the neighborhoods of the poor and killed, wounded and arrested Haitians who were affirming their rights of self-determination and an end to foreign occupation.

Since the United States bears major responsibility for the invasion, occupation and subsequent pillage and privatization of essential public services, we have a special responsibility to speak out clearly and forcefully to the United Nations (UN) in support of Haiti’s Five Freedoms:

1. The UN must end its military presence of Haiti through its occupation army (MINUSTAH), action contrary to the very founding principles of the organization. Haiti must recover the right of self-determination and the freedom to govern itself.

2. The Haitian people demand the end of the pillage of its national treasury by official and private banks extracting payments of $1 million USD a week for illegitimate debts contracted by past corrupt dictatorial regimes. Haitians demand freedom from illegitimate elite debts in order to finance basic life-sustaining programs for the 80% of the population living in extreme poverty.

3. Every country, which has suffered massive natural disasters, as the hurricanes that recently devastated Haiti, is entitled to large-scale, long-term humanitarian aid with no strings attached. Haitians demand the immediate fulfilling of aid pledged and its allocation according to needs without MINUSTAH manipulation to perpetuate its occupation.

4. The collapse of the free market model today highlights the disastrous consequences of the IMF-World Bank policies of privatization of public services in Haiti, where ‘private health and education’ effectively excludes the vast majority of Haitians. Haitians must regain the right to re-nationalize public services and all other strategic economic sectors necessary for their well-being.

5. Free elections means the return of deposed, exiled and persecuted political leaders and the end of foreign military occupation and repression of anti-colonial movements. Elections with occupation guns pointed at the heads of the electors and candidates have no legitimacy. We, the American people in North, South and Central America, have a responsibility to demand the end of MINUSTAH and the return national sovereignty to the Haitian people. No government no matter what its political claims and rhetoric can justify its democratic credentials when it acts as a colonial gendarme.

James Petras latest book , Zionism,Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power – Clarity Press :Atlanta Ga.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Commentary, USA | Leave a Comment »

Why Paulson’s Plan is a Fraud

October 5, 2008

Bail Out the Homeowners!

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | Counterpunch, Oct 3-5, 2008

Is the Paulson bailout itself as big a fraud as the leveraged subprime mortgages?

Yesterday, here on CounterPunch,  I discussed the bailout as proposed and noted that the proposal cannot succeed if it impairs the US Treasury’s credit standing and/or the combination of mark-to-market and short-selling permits short-sellers to prosper by driving more financial institutions into bankruptcy.

A reader’s comment and an article by Yale professors Jonathan Kopell and William Goetzmann raise precisely this question of the fraudulence of the Paulson package.

As one reader put it,“We have debt at three different levels: personal household debt, financial sector debt and public debt.  The first has swamped the second and now the second is being made to swamp the third.  The attitude of our leaders is to do nothing about the first level of debt and to pretend that the third level of debt doesn’t matter at all.”

The argument for the bailout is that the banks will be free of the troubled instruments and can resume lending and that the US Treasury will recover most of the bailout costs, because only a small percentage of the underlying mortgages are bad.  Let’s examine this argument.

In actual fact, the Paulson bailout does not address the core problem.  It only addresses the problem for the financial institutions that hold the troubled assets. Under the bailout plan, the troubled assets move from the banks’ books to the Treasury’s.  But the underlying problem–the continuing diminishment of mortgage and home values–remains and continues to worsen.

The origin of the crisis is at the homeowner level.  Homeowners are defaulting on mortgages.  Moving the financial instruments onto the Treasury’s books does not stop the rising default rate.

The bailout is focused on the wrong end of the problem.  The bailout should be focused on the origin of the problem, the defaulting homeowners.  The bailout should indemnify defaulting homeowners and pay off the delinquent mortgages.  As Koppell and Goetzmann point out,  the financial instruments are troubled because of mortgage defaults.  Stopping the problem at its origin would restore the value of the mortgage-based derivatives and put an end to the crisis.

This approach has the further advantage of stopping the slide in housing prices and ending the erosion of local tax bases that result from foreclosures and houses being dumped on the market. What about the moral hazard of bailing out homeowners who over-leveraged themselves?  Ask yourself: How does it differ from the moral hazard of bailing out the financial institutions that securitized questionable loans, insured them, and sold them as investment grade securities? Congress should focus the bailout on refinancing the troubled mortgages as the Home Owners’ Loan Corp. did in the 1930s, not on the troubled institutions holding the troubled instruments linked to the mortgages. Congress needs to back off, hold hearings, and talk with Koppell and Goetzmann.Congress must know the facts prior to taking action.  The last thing Congress needs to do is to be panicked again into agreeing to a disastrous course.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Commentary, USA | Leave a Comment »

US cross-border attacks a form of terrorism – PM Gilani

October 3, 2008

By Shahid Hussain, Correspondent | Gulfnews.com
Published: October 02, 2008, 00:07

Islamabad: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani yesterday said that attacks by US drones on targets inside Pakistan’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan amounted to “terrorism”.

Talking to reporters at his official residence on the first day of Eid, Gilani rebuffed suggestions that the government had not condemned the incursions as forcefully as it should have.

“These attacks are a form of terrorism,” the prime minister said, adding that such actions encourage and strengthen militancy and were thus counter-productive.

Gilani said the US leadership had assured respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and he hoped that the promise would be kept.

The prime minister said the Pakistani security forces were successfully carrying out operations against militants in Bajur tribal area and tribesmen were supporting them in the campaign to rid their area of militants.

The comments came as a suspected US missile strike within Pakistan killed six people, indicating Washington is pressing ahead with cross-border raids on militant targets despite protests from the new government.

The suspected US missile strike was the first since President Asif Ali Zardari visited New York, where he warned that Pakistan cannot allow its territory to “be violated by our friends”.

Two intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the missiles struck the home of a local Taliban commander before midnight Tuesday near Mir Ali. That’s in the North Waziristan region that borders Afghanistan.

The officials cite reports from their field agents in saying six people were killed in the attack. They say a US drone aircraft fired the missiles.

– With inputs from AP

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Pakistan, USA | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »