Wall Street Despises Troops

I am increasingly upset that Wall Street's bull rally continues to set new records, while US military deaths in Iraq continue to set new records. Does Wall Street know we are fighting a war and losing? Do stocks keep going up because the war is irrelevant? Because they are confident that we will soon be leaving Iraq? Because they think we are going to win? I don't get it. Losing a war is bad for a country, but apparently not bad for Wall Street.

The odd thing is that according to George Bush, the boys and girls in Iraq are fighting for them. Bush says this war is in response to Saddam Hussein's attacking the World Trade Center in the New York City financial district. These soldiers are dying to get revenge for the deaths of New Yorkers, and New Yorkers don't give a damn. Of course, neither does Bush, the US Congress, or the American people in general. The soldiers and their families care, but in general the soldiers need the money and don't have other options, or they would probably be out of there, too.

Maybe those rich Wall Streeters could do something about providing jobs for soldiers leaving the military. They they wouldn't have to keep fighting in Iraq until they die.

Hooray for Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter's criticism of President Bush was completely justified, even if he toned down some of it later, as the Washington Post reports. Maybe it's debatable whether Bush is the worst president ever, but he is certainly one of the worst ones.

With all his talk about fighting the war in Iraq or the war on terror, Bush is a coward. He dodged the draft during Vietnam, and when the US was attacked on 9/11 he went missing. He quit reading My Pet Goat and started flying around the country, to Louisana, Nebraska, and who knows where else. A real man would have returned to Washington, stepped before the TV cameras and said "I'm in charge; I will protect you." He showed up in New York several days later and did the PR thing long after the all clear had sounded.

His position on the Iraq war was, "I'm right, and everybody else (the UN, old Europe, etc.) is wrong." It turned out that Bush was wrong. There were no WMD; we were not greeted as liberators. What really irks me is that Bush did not attempt to be polite or work with other countries. He basically stuck his finger in the eye of anybody who didn't agree with him. So, he and Tony Blair went to war together with a few token troops from some little countries trying to curry favor with the US for whatever reason, in most cases having nothing to do with the war on terror.

In the process, Bush turned his back on US (and British) legal protections like habeas corpus, and instituted torture as an instrument of the US government. He turned the US into one of those outlaw states that we had criticized for the last 50 years. Why? Because he was scared. Many bullies are cowards, and Bush seems to belong to that group. He's a bad, bad man.

Diego Garcia Cigar

The BBC is reporting that US occupation of the island of Diego Garcia is being challenged in British courts. I remember when the US was planning to set up a base on Diego Garcia and sent a cable to all embassies around the world asking what their host governments thought of Diego Garcia. In a classic cable, one of the embassies replied that its government thought Diego Garcia was a cigar.

Lt. Col. Accuses Generals of Failure in Iraq

The Washington Post reports that a scathing attack on military leadership in Iraq will be published in the Armed Forces Journal. This is what happens when you have a war started by two cowardly Vietnam War draft dodgers, Bush and Cheney, who pick yes-men as their generals. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs Myers and Pace were picked by Rumsfeld because they did as they were told and did not talk back. And look what they got us into! The one general who was brave enough to speak his mind, Shinseki, got fired for his efforts.

Ironically, the author of the article, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, got a masters degree from the University of Chicago, the home of the neo-cons.

Russia, Neo-Cons and Jews

Chrystia Freeland writes in the Financial Times today that Russia needs the neo-cons, because it needs someone to help fight for its liberty, but that the neo-cons have been reigned in by their failures in Iraq. Then she goes on to say, "Most damaging [in Russia] was the creation of the oligarchs - an act based partly on an extreme, Chicago-school-inspired faith in the power of private ownership, no matter who the owner was or how the property was acquired." What she doesn't say is that most of the neo-cons were Jews, and that most of the Russian oligarchs were Jews. Furthermore, many of the neo-cons came out of the University of Chicago, where they studied politics under Leo Strauss, rather than economics under Milton Friedman. I think it's a good thing for the US and Russia that the neo-cons' wings have been clipped. Democracy is in much better shape in Europe than in America, where George Bush is following some sort of Stalinist model embracing torture, restrictions on civil liberties, and other un-American attacks on the Constitution; let Europe help the Russians.

Greedy Bush

I've had it with Bush. I now believe that Bush and Cheney were put into the job by the "powers that be" to reduce taxes and otherwise make it easy on the rich. I don't really know who the "powers that be" are, but they are rich. There is a columnist in the Denver Post, Ed Quillen, who writes humorously about the "Committee that Really Runs America," which is I'm sure connected to the "powers that be."

Bush's job was to reduce taxes and give government subsidies to the rich who elected him. He got thrown off his agenda, however, when the terrorists attacked the US. As a cowardly draft dodger, responding to terrorists was not in his nature. So, he and Cheney, on the advice of a bunch of Jews at the upper levels of the administration, decided to invade Iraq to show how brave and resolute they were. The problem was that they were neither brave nor resolute and walked into a giant tar pit that threatens to keep America mired in combat for years.

Meanwhile, though, they have continued to carry out the task for which they were elected (or almost elected and then selected by the Supreme Court, which also usually answers to the "powers that be"). So, there is no sacrifice called for to support the war in Iraq, because Bush was elected to reduce sacrifice, not increase it. He has betrayed America for money. I think a lot of it is Jew money, but who knows. Certainly a lot of it is gentile money -- the Wal-Mart and Mars candy people, who want to get rid of the estate tax, for example. A lot of the gentile money, however, does not support this effort -- Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and a lot of old money, like the Rockefellers, for example. Some Jews don't either, like George Soros and some of the other big Jewish contributors to the Democratic party.

But George Bush has stuck to his guns, giving tax cuts despite the terrorist attacks, and America is the worse for it. I'm sure that Bush expects in return to be cared for by these fat cats for the rest of his life, but it seems like you don't really have to sell your soul for money after being President. Clinton and Bush I have made plenty of money from speaking engagements, and Bush II could, too. Maybe he is worried that he is so stupid that even the fat cats wouldn't pay to hear him speak. Basically, as President he only speaks to people in uniform who are ordered to go listen to him, and they don't make much money.

Bush's Hypocrisy

Bush is going to call up more National Guard troops and send them back to Iraq. The hypocrisy in doing this is so gross that it's almost unbearable.

Bush, in theory, was in the National Guard. For him, during the Vietnam War, it was his hiding hole, like the one he found Saddam Hussein in. It kept him out of combat. Now he, as commander in chief, takes people in the same position he was and instead of exempting them, sends them into combat. It's so unfair that it boggles the mind.

It really rankles me as a Vietnam veteran who was in effect drafted, although not actually, because once I became 1-A under the draft, I volunteered, rather than wait to be drafted.

Bush's partner in crime is Dick Cheney, who also avoided the draft. And what about most of the Republican candidates. Except for John McCain, did they serve? Particularly what about Rudy Giuliani, who is running on his heroism on 9/11? Was he heroic during the Vietnam War? And what about the veteran who ran last time? John Kerry may not have been the best candidate, but he did not deserve to be Swift-boated and dragged through the mud because he actually served in Vietnam.

This country hates its veterans. The current Iraq veterans will find this out in a few years, after this war is over one way or another. John McCain has not experienced this because he came back as a POW under extraordinary circumstances, and gets a lot of bowing and scraping now because he is a Senator. Chuck Hagel seems more like a real veteran, a fact that will probably be used against him if he ever really gets into the public spotlight.

Impact of Paliament Blast in Iraq

The blast in the Iraqi Parliament building inside the Green Zone in Baghdad was intended to be a propaganda blow against the US, and it was. So much for George Bush's surge, and for John McCain's run for President. I'm also surprised that the stock market went up after the blast. Clearly New Yorkers have forgotten about 9/11 and don't care about the American troops threatened daily in Iraq, much less about the poor Iraqis who have suffered many more casualties than New Yorkers did on 9/11 or since. They don't care! New Yorkers got their millions from the government after 9/11, unlike the Oklahoma City victims. And what about the Iraqis? They can't even get visas for the US when they are threatened with death because they helped Americans in some way.

Holocaust Survivor Favors Starving Children

A story in the New York Times about the US slowing delivery of food aid, reverses the usual cast of characters. Republican President Bush wants to liberalize laws regarding food aid to allow purchasing food overseas near where it would be delivered. Democratic Holocaust survivor Congressman Tom Lantos opposes the idea. He wants to retain the current system in which all food aid comes from the US and is delivered by US carriers. If we continue to use Lantos' old, slow way, the Times article says tens or hundreds of thousands of children in Africa may die.

Wolfowitz Problems at World Bank

According to the Financial Times, Paul Wolfowitz is being criticized by World Bank officials for his handling of his "partner's" job at the World Bank. It's not explained, but apparently Shaha Riza is living with him, but not married to him. When he took over the World Bank, she could not work under his supervision and thus was seconded to the State Department, where she works for Dick Cheney's daughter. Reports are that Wolfowitz influenced her getting a promotion and raise at the World Bank.

Maybe he'll get canned, but it's unlikely until Bush gets the boot in the next US election. Scandal couldn't happen to a more deserving person -- the failed architect of the Iraq war, the butcher of Baghdad!

Jews Profit from Holocaust

The NYT reports that Israel Singer, the head of the World Jewish Congress, which got billions for Holocaust victims, improperly used money from the fund for his personal benefit. The Jews tell everybody else that they have to fall down and worship the Holocaust and speak of it only in hushed whispers, but for the Jews themselves its just a big moneymaker, a way to shake down the gentiles. While what Singer did was apparently illegal, or improper if not illegal, many Jews have benefited in less questionable ways. As I've said before, Jewish lawyers for Holocaust reparations have taken huge fees, Jewish big shots who headed up these groups (Former Secretary of State Eagleburger) have taken huge fees, etc.

I can't find anything on the Internet that says Eagleburger is Jewish, either ethnically or religiously, but he certainly seems to be with his close connections to Kissinger, his appointment as one of the chief Holocaust restitution bosses, etc.

Is There a Correction in Our Future?

The New York Times and the Financial Times have both warned recently of a possible stock market (and economic?) correction in our future.

The NYT said on March 24, "Investors who fail to take a hard look at the vulnerability of the American economy are courting tremendous risk. The fact that after years of profligacy the federal government is fiscally ill prepared to respond to a destabilizing downturn only increases those risks."

William Rhodes, CEO of Citibank, wrote in the Financial Times on March 29:

The low spreads, the tremendous build-up of liquidity, the reach for yield and the lack of differentiation among borrowers have stimulated both dynamic growth and some real concerns....

As lenders and investors inevitably become more discriminating, liquidity will recede and a number of problems will surface....

I believe that over the next 12 months a market correction will occur and this time it will be a real correction....

Today, hedge funds, private equity and those involved in credit derivatives play important, and as yet largely untested, roles. The primary worry of many who make or regulate the market is not inflation or growth or interest rates, but instead the coming adjustment and the possible destabilising effect these new players could have on the functioning of international markets as liquidity recedes. It is also possible that they could provide relief for markets that face shortages of liquidity.

Either way, this clearly is the time to exercise greater prudence in lending and in investing and to resist any temptation to relax standards.

My own view of what's going on is that interest rates price both inflation and risk. When inflation was higher and interest rates were higher, they more or less incorporated the risk factor, i.e., it was relatively small in comparison to the inflation factor. As inflation fell and interest rates fell with it, the risk portion shrank in tandem. However, if anything the risk has been going up, not down, as hedge funds, private equity, and derivatives have played a more and more important role. In addition, the entry into the world economy of new major players such as China and India, who have kept inflation artificially low by depressing wage costs, has also kept the risk factor artificially low while actually increasing risk.

As Rhodes said, someday investors will begin to notice this underpricing of risk, maybe not until something happens to highlight the risk factor. The sub-prime mortgage sector is probably not big enough in itself to do this, but if some other bump comes along while sub-primes are still a problem, that might do it.

Politically, it should be noted that while interest rates have fallen for big investors, they have risen for small consumers. In addition to the sub-prime mortgage scandal, which came to light because the interest rates on these mortgages increased dramatically, credit card issuers are raising rates far above the prime rates they charge wealthy individuals, as well as adding all kinds of fees and penalties. This doesn't represent risk pricing so much as it does hucksterism and usury. Lenders are taking advantage of people who have gotten themselves in trouble by borrowing too much. This is illustrated by the fact that people in credit trouble often get more offers from lenders ("loan sharks," even if they are big, fancy banks) than people with good credit histories.

George Soros on AIPAC

George Soros has written an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC." He calls on Israel and the US to deal with Hamas. He says:

AIPAC's mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It became closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel's existence, has endangered it.

He takes on the American Jewish Committee's attacks on critics of Israel, which were praised by Bill Clinton, as I noted earlier. On behalf of the AJC, Alvin Rosenfeld attacks as anti-Semites Jews such as Tony Judt and Richard Cohen, and gentiles as well. Soros says:

Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.

The opposite is the case. One of the myths propagated by the enemies of Israel is that there is an all-powerful Zionist conspiracy. That is a false accusation. Nevertheless, that AIPAC has been so successful in suppressing criticism has lent some credence to such false beliefs. Demolishing the wall of silence that has protected AIPAC would help lay them to rest. A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it.

Hooray for Soros! I don't know that it will have much effect. It's interesting that Bill Clinton is already undermining Soros, who has been one of the main benefactors of the Democratic Party through Move-On.org and other contributions. So, Soros' concern about whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC is well founded.

AIPAC supporters are already returning fire, see for example this article in Forward.

Bill Clinton Attacks Jimmy Carter for Jew Money

The following is from an email from the AJC:

President Clinton Thanks AJC for Efforts on New Carter Book

Former President Bill Clinton, in a handwritten letter to AJC Executive Director David Harris, voiced appreciation for his efforts to expose the inaccuracies in President Jimmy Carter’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Thanks so much for your articles about President Carter’s book. I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from …” said Clinton. “I’m grateful.”

Normally, one ex-President does not attack another, but apparently Bill and Hillary need money, and Jews have a lot of it. Bill is a smart guy, but he has the morals of a snake. His successor is stupid and has no morals at all. Poor America!

Jimmy Carter was intelligent and had morals. He would not negotiate for hostages. His undoing was that Ronald Reagan, unlike Carter, was willing to deal with Iran to get the hostages back and win the election. (Remember Iran-Contra?) Carter chose principle over being re-elected. And although he negotiated the Camp David accords, the Jews hate him because he is even-handed. Just like they hate Franklin Roosevelt, who liberated the surviving Jews from the concentration camps, because he was not willing to kill more Christians to save the Jews earlier. No one is likely to call Clinton or Bush even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Jews. Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of a felony for Iran-Contra, is one of Bush's senior national security advisers on the NSC.

Israel's Answer to Kristof

The Jerusalem Post has an op-ed replying to Nicholas Kristof's column on Israel. The bottom line is that Israel wants peace, but nobody else does. Sure, Israel wants peace if you call "peace" unconditional surrender by everybody else in the region. Israel wants peace about as much as Osama bin Laden does. Call a spade a spade! Israel hates all of its neighbors. It's not interested in peace.

Reagan's Courage Or Lack Thereof

Reading over VP Cheney's speech to AIPAC, I noticed that he mentioned the terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. As he said, the US under Reagan withdrew from Beirut -- pulled out immediately; it did not "stay the course." That certainly qualifies as cowardice under today's definition by the Republicans of what Iraq withdrawal means. Yet, today Reagan is praised as a courageous leader who defeated Communism. Which is it? Is Reagan a courageous leader (in Europe) or a coward (in the Middle East)?

The Economist on AIPAC

The Economist magazine reports on the recent AIPAC meeting. AIPAC got every politician who counts to come kiss its feet. Cheney was particularly prominent in paying obeisance. Its violently right wing attitudes opposing Middle East peace on any basis expect complete surrender to Israel are its most identifiable characteristic, but The Economist points out that many American Jews are considerably less hawkish. And as I've mentioned earlier, many Israelis are less hawkish. Nevertheless, it says this is the best of times and the worst of times for AIPAC. Because of AIPAC's predominant position in Washington, it appears to be the spokesman for all American Jews. The article says that George Soros is considering starting up a liberal counterpoint organization to AIPAC, but so far he hasn't done so. He has written an excellent article in the Financial Times calling on the US and Israel to deal with Hamas. The Economist says:

The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the “soundest” on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.

Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in....

But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.

An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as “acting increasingly on behalf of Israel”. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could “be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state”. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a “sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed”.

Cowardice on Israel

Nicholas Kristof's column in yesterday's NYT was right. American politicians avoid criticism of Israel, no matter what Israel does. He correctly touts Jordanian King Abdullah's speech to the US Congress. And he correctly points out that there is much more criticism of Israeli policies in Israel than there is in the US. Kristof said:

One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an “even-handed role” for the U.S. — and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A second reason may be that American politicians just don’t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.” Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.

He points out that last year while Palestinians killed 17 Israelis, of whom one was a child, the Israelis killed 660 Palestinians, of whom 141 were children.

It's ironic that Americans, especially American politicians who fear AIPAC, are so much more conservative in their support for oppresive Israeli policies than Israelis are themselves.

Too Bad Kahlid Sheik Mohammed Didn't Confess with Constitutional Protections

It's too bad that Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed under the undemocratic conditions in Guantanamo. It makes the confession less believable and deniable by those who don't want to believe it, although it probably is true, at least part of it. The fact that he confessed to almost everything bad that's happened in the last 10 years are so, seems questionable, but he probably did at least some of them. The confessions to the ones he didn't do are probably due to torture, which makes you confess to almost anything whether you did it or not, or due to the fact that he wants to take the heat off of those who actually planned the other attacks.

In any case, the administration would have greatly aided its case in the court of world opinion by adhering to the rule of law in the treatment of its prisoners.

Listen to King Abdullah

King Abdullah of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress and appeared on the PBS Newshour. He made an eloquent plea for peace in the Middle East, which he said should start with the Israel-Palestine issue. Here's the comment by James Zogby on the Huffington Post; not surprisingly Zogby liked the speech.