Cheney, Bush Torture Outrage Growing

Despite the administrations reluctance to prosecute the Bush administration for it's encouraging of torture, the calls for justice are growing. It's everywhere. The bloggers and other anti-Bush news outlets are increasing the pressure for action. President Obama might be forced into going along with the prosecution of those involved in the shocking cases of torture under the Bush/Cheney reign of terror.

A Senate report revealed that former President George Bush and top-ranking officials in his administration approved harsh interrogation techniques that were later used in prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski claims soldiers convicted in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal were victims of scapegoating and had been merely obeying orders.

"In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse - such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan - to low-ranking soldiers," said Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann stated on Wednesday's edition of Countdown, "When the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison came to light, Rumsfeld blamed it on a few bad apples. He was right. What we know is that the few bad apples were Rumsfeld himself and Mr. Bush, Cheney and more. They were the bad apples. And as happens with bad apples, they corrupted others around them."

Karpinski called out former Vice President Dick Cheney on his defense of torture interrogation techniques when he refused to defend those involved in torture at Abu Ghraib. "Mr. former Vice President, if you're saying that this was necessary today and that it produced good intelligence, where were you five years ago, stepping up to the plate and saying, hold on, we can't discuss this because this is classified information, but these soldiers did not design these techniques," said Karpinski with a raised voice.

And then there are the calls for the impeachment of the person responsible for writing legal language used to justify torture:

But American intelligence officials also learned something from the Soviets about manipulating language to conceal reality. When our enemies use methods like this, they amount to torture. When we do, they don't. A newly released 2002 memo from a Bush administration official authorized keeping prisoners awake because "we are not aware of any evidence that sleep deprivation results in severe physical pain or suffering."

That document, signed by then-Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay Bybee, also deprecates the unpleasantness of waterboarding, which makes the victim feel he is literally drowning. "The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict 'severe pain or suffering,' " he announced. "The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." Did I mention that it leaves no marks?

The Bush administration and its defenders have long ridiculed anyone protesting the abuse of detainees. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey, writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, lamented that under President Barack Obama, "the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens." The message is simple: It's not really torture, and it works.

The former is obviously untrue as well as dishonest: Solzhenitsyn makes that clear. So do numerous U.S. government reports accusing various regimes of violating human rights through such forms of torture as sleep deprivation. Likewise, the U.S. government used to take a negative view of waterboarding. But apparently we only object when we're not the ones doing it.

That doesn't change the nature of the practice. In a confidential 2007 report that recently was leaked, the International Committee of the Red Cross outlined the harsh methods used on CIA detainees and reached the blunt conclusion that they "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

And what's to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future? The Constitution must be upheld.

Washington’s war criminals are finally nervous.

The newly released torture memos, in their brutal detail, have demolished the core argument of the Beltway’s torture defenders.

Everyone from President Barack Obama to former Vice President Dick Cheney has said the torture issue is about “the past.” But that makes no sense. Just read the memos. They clearly raise huge security questions about which rules govern our future counterterrorism efforts.

Can executive branch opinions simply override any federal statute or constitutional precedent? What is the duty of government officials who receive “legal” guidance that flatly contradicts the law? Can presidents use secret memos to run a two-branch government, squashing court oversight by declaring programs are for “national security” or “state secrets”?

And the big one: Are there any measures or consequences to prevent these abuses?

It is now incumbent on all three branches of government to address those questions with investigations, oversight and accountability. That is the only way to deter future crimes and provide future officials with guidance on their duties. So far, however, few in government are providing strong leadership.

The president deserves credit for ending torture and releasing the memos. His repeated suggestions that enforcing the law is less important than “unity” or “looking forward,” however, are unacceptable. And this week, he floated a mixed message by saying he did not want to look “backwards,” while also welcoming an independent “further accounting” of torture by Congress or an independent commission.

Over in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) says he supports an independent commission to investigate government misconduct. The idea drew endorsements from The Washington Post, former military and diplomatic officials from both parties and bipartisan legal organizations such as the Constitution Project. The group’s policy counsel, Becky Monroe, told me that “in order to truly move forward, we need a commission to fully investigate all of our practices regarding the detention, treatment and transfer of detainees.”

Leahy has given several speeches about the commission idea. He held a hearing on it last month. He issued another statement on it this week. He launched an online petition at BushTruthCommission.com. His reelection committee has even raised money off the proposal, telling supporters that a “meaningful way” to support a commission is to donate to Leahy’s campaign. “It’s safe to say Sen. Leahy will not let the idea of a truth commission slip through the cracks,” reads one fundraising e-mail, promising that Leahy “will not rest until we have fully investigated the Bush-Cheney administration’s eight-year assault on the rule of law.”

Another Republican Politician Kisses Limbaugh's Ring

Politicians are such whores that they will grovel to whomever gets them elected or re-elected. They would sell their souls to the devil if served their purposes. Such is the case with Congressman Tiahrt.

Just last week, I wrote that Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt had been asked at a Kansas City Star Editorial Board meeting whether Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

"No, no, he's just an entertainer," replied Tiahrt, who's running for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Whoah. Those are fighting words for dittoheads and other supporters of Limbaugh.

The radio talk-show host already has gone after people who have refused to crown him king of the GOP -- or, to be fairer, at least as a powerful spokesman for the ultra-conservative cause.

My post zinged around blog land, and eventually this appeared on the Wichita Eagle blog.

The money quote from Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett to the newspaper's editorial board: "The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America — not a party leader responsible for election losses. Nothing the congressman said diminished the role Rush has played and continues to play in the conservative movement."

Ah, but the story doesn't end there.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic National Campaign Committee released a statement, which began with this headline and first paragraph:

Tiahrt to Leader Limbaugh: I’m sorry!

Add Congressman Todd Tiahrt to the list of spineless Republicans who can’t stand up to their party’s leader – Rush Limbaugh. Just days after claiming Rush is “just an entertainer,” Congressman Tiahrt is now singing a different tune. Fearful of Leader Limbaugh’s retribution, Congressman Tiahrt’s office quickly issued an apology praising Limbaugh stating 'The Congressman believes Rush is a great leader.'

Just like the Republicans that have come before him to grovel for Rush Limbaugh’s forgiveness, Congressman Tiahrt proved once again that Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” said Gabby Adler, the Midwestern Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead of standing up for the people of Kansas to fight for them during this economic crisis, Congressman Tiahrt has made it clear that he would prefer to take his orders from Rush Limbaugh.

There are some in Republican party that will stand up to Limbaugh. At least at first:

Yesterday, Rep. John Shadegg became the sixth prominent Republican official to challenge Rush Limbaugh's control over the party.

Shadegg disagrees with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has said he hopes Obama and his liberal policies fail.
"I sincerely hope he creates the strongest recovery possible," Shadegg said. "It is petty to worry about who gets the credit when people are losing their jobs and their homes."

As for Limbaugh, Shadegg said, "I think he is an entertainment personality who is an interesting factor in American politics. I agree with much of what he says on some issues, but not on other issues."


Shadegg is known as a staunch conservative. After rising in the leadership earlier in his career, he has been an also-ran in races for majority leader and minority whip in the last two congresses. This year he went so far as to announce and then retract retirement plans. And now he's called out Limbaugh! If you're not keeping track at home -- and why not? -- Chris Orr has been on the case, following five previous officials who have made similar comments about the King of Conservative Talk Radio (Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt, Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and NY House candidate Jim Tedisco) and been forced to apologize after an uproar in the conservative base.

Jane Harman Wiretap Proves Pro-Israel Lobby Controls Congress

The pro-Israel lobby has such power over members of Congress that they just about get them to commit treason. Congresswoman Harman is the typical corrupt member of Congress that doesn't mind selling out their country for self-interest. They don't think twice about undermining American national security, especially if it's on behalf of AIPAC.

Rep. Jane Harman is asking the Justice Department to release its transcripts of wiretapped telephone conversations she reportedly had with a suspected Israeli agent in 2005 or 2006, according to the Wall Street Journal.

It had been reported several years ago that federal investigators looked into the California Democrat's discussions with the suspected Israeli agent. But yesterday, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein published significant new details, including the allegation that the conversations secretly captured by NSA wiretaps were "directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington."

Stein's account, and follow-up articles today, raised questions about the conversations' links to at least two ongoing Washington scandals: the espionage case against two officials of the main Israel lobbying group and the NSA's secret domestic surveillance wiretap program.

CQ's sources, and sources cited today in the New York Times, say that Harman was caught on the wiretap telling the suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby Bush administration officials to reduce the charges against the two members of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) accused of spying. In exchange, the sources said, the suspected agent promised to help her get appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

CQ said that, according to its sources, Harman told the caller she would "waddle in" to the espionage case "if you think it would make a difference." She also said, "This conversation doesn't exist."

Bailed-Out Firms Using Our Money to Lobby Washington

The more we learn about the Wall St. bailouts the more we learn that it's nothing but a ripoff of the American people. The joke is on us. The politicians are merely puppets doing the bidding of powerful financial interests.

The top 10 recipients of the government's $700 billion financial bailout spent about $9.5 million on federal lobbying during the first three months of the year.

The biggest spender was bailed-out automaker General Motors Corp., which devoted $2.8 million to lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. It has received $13.4 billion in government loans and could get $5 billion more, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Failed insurance giant American International Group Inc. and banks Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each reported spending more than $1 million to influence the government as they lived off federal money this year. AIG has gotten some $70 billion from the bailout fund _ including a fresh $30 billion infusion the government reported on Tuesday _ while Citigroup has received $45 billion and JPMorgan $25 billion.

The lobbying activity was revealed publicly in reports required to be filed with Congress. This year's first quarterly report was due Monday.

Other major recipients of money from the so-called Troubled Assets Relief Program also had substantial lobbying costs in the first three months of this year, including:

_Bank of America Corp., which reported spending $660,000 lobbying while receiving its $45 billion in help;

_Wells Fargo & Company, with $700,000 in lobbying costs and $25 billion in bailout money;

_Goldman Sachs, which spent $670,000 while receiving its $10 billion;

_Morgan Stanley, which spent $540,000 while also getting $10 billion in assistance;

_PNC Financial Services Group, spent $135,000 _ nearly double what it did at the end of last year _ on lobbying while receiving a $7.8 billion lifeline;

_U.S. Bancorp spent $170,000 on lobbying and got $6.6 billion in government aid.

"They say they're not using public money for these purposes, but in effect these companies are steering taxpayer funds to lobbying and campaign contributions," said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen. "It's completely unjustifiable."

The reports suggest that most of the bailed-out companies have beefed up their lobbying at least marginally since last year. Seven spent more to influence the government than they did in the last quarter of 2008.

The largest increases apart from PNC were by Goldman, which spent 34 percent more on lobbying than it did at the end of last year; Wells Fargo, which spent about 21 percent more, and JPMorgan, which lobbied 19 percent more. AIG also devoted some 16 percent more money to interacting with the government, despite the "no-lobbying" policy it adopted late last year after receiving repeated bailouts.

Miss USA Controversy Proof of Pro-Gay Marriage Crowd's Intolerance

The pro-gay marriage movement continually demonstrates the hypocrisy of their thinking. Sunday's Miss USA was a stark example of the intolerance directed against those who do not follow the party line. This blogger personally knew instantly that Carrie Prejean's answer would cost the Miss USA crown. Political correctness permeates the entertainment industry. And anyone deviates from the pro-gay marriage orthodoxy is punished. Never mind that the majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, believe marriage should be between a man and woman. They obviously don't understand what democracy is about. And this intolerance will backfire.

First runner-up Carrie Prejean (Miss California) was asked about legalizing same-sex marriage from judge Perez Hilton, the Internet blogger behind perezhilton.com.

"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be," Prejean said during Sunday night's live telecast.

Hilton was visibly upset, and there was a mixed reaction from the live audience. Prejean ultimately came up short, losing the title to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.

On Monday, Keith Lewis, the executive director for Miss California USA/Teen USA, said he was saddened by Prejean's response.

Prejean, who has been romantically linked to Olympian Michael Phelps, spoke on Monday, too: "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do," she said to pageant host Billy Bush on "The Billy Bush Show," noting that she had 1,000 new messages on Facebook and 2,000 friend requests.

•PHOTOS: Metromix's photo gallery from the Miss USA pageant

Prejean added that her answer "did cost me my crown," but said: "I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself, and that's all I can do."

We are headed for a cultural war in this country because of this issue. This event could be the first shot.

It was supposed to be all smiles and tiaras, but Sunday night's Miss USA beauty pageant took an ugly turn after Miss California's comments on same-sex marriage. North Carolina may have won, but she's not the one getting all the attention.

Who knew the question-and-answer portion of the pageant would become the latest touchstone in a debate that's raging across the country. News 3's Gerard Ramalho is the only reporter with that post-pageant confrontation.

Our own Alicia Jacobs was a judge and we had several staffers who witnessed the event. The "Miss California question," as it's now being called, and her response to the legalization of gay marriage sparked an angry debate after the show. People on both sides were fuming.

The beauty of the Miss USA pageant quickly turned ugly with supporters of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and gay rights opponents pointing fingers and loudly voicing opinions.

"We have a right to give an alternate viewpoint. She had a mic, we had to speak loudly."

Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay man, is the one who posed the question about whether all states should legalize gay marriage.

Miss California's response: I think it's great we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised. Thank you very much.

The reaction from Hilton was obvious; the audience was a mix of boos and cheers.

"You know we're not asking for special rights, we're asking for equal rights," says Hilton.

Candice Nichols, the Director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada says she was not offended; she just disagrees.

"In my country and in my family, we feel differently and we feel that it's equal rights for all. But she's definitely entitled to her opinion."

In the end, it was Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, who was crowned the winner; Miss California was runner-up.

But in terms of publicity, the outcome may turn out a little differently. On YouTube at this point, the crowning of the winner has reached nearly 21,000 views, while the Miss California question clip has surpassed 500,000.

There's been a lot of reaction, including from the co-director of the pageant, who says he was saddened by her response. Prejean is also receiving praise and kudos, however, from Christians and others who share her opinion.

Prejean is a soldier in that war:

[...]Miss California says her phone has been ringing off the hook with people offering her support after she took on a question about gay marriage on Sunday night's Miss USA telecast.

"I have no regrets about answering [judge Perez Hilton] honestly," she said in one of her first interviews following the show, where she answered that she was against gay marriage becoming legal in California. "He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer."

Obama News Conference Transcript (4-19-09)

The President gave a news conference in Trinidad & Tobago while attending the Western Hemisphere Summit. Read the transcript. View an unusually scenic video here. Excerpt below:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. The spotlight on your visit here was on the handshake and smiles with Hugo Chavez, but we didn't see much interaction with some of the other leaders of the region like Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa, or Evo Morales, who yesterday accused the United States of still interfering in its affairs and, even though it's too soon, he says, of not seeing much of change. Did you have any private meetings with any of these leaders, and if so, can you tell us what was discussed?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I had meetings with all the leaders involved, including Daniel Ortega, who was the chairperson of the Central American meeting. I had very cordial conversations with President Morales and President Correa. And I think it's just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras.

And in all these conversations, here's what I emphasized: that we're not going to agree on every issue, but that as long as we are respectful of democratic processes, as long as we're respectful of principles of sovereignty for all nations, that we can find areas where we can work in common. And my sense is, if you talk to any of those leaders, that they would say that they feel encouraged about the possibility of a more constructive relationship.

Now, specifically on the Bolivia issue, I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves. And so I want to be as clear as possible on that.

But one of the things that I mentioned in both public remarks as well as private remarks is that the United States obviously has a history in this region that's not always appreciated from the perspective of some, but that what we need to do is try to move forward, and that I am responsible for how this administration acts and we will be respectful to those democratically elected governments, even when we disagree with them.

Scott Wilson, Washington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said during the summit that you were here not to debate the past. You also said we must learn from our history. You just referred to this history. What have you learned over two days of listening to leaders here about how U.S. policy is perceived in the region? And can you name a specific policy that you will change as a result of what you've heard?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that what was reemphasized in all the discussions that I had was a sense, on the one hand, that the United States is critical to the economic growth and opportunities in the region. Even the most vociferous critics of the United States also want to make sure that the United States' economy is working and growing again, because there is extraordinary dependence on the United States for exports, for remittances.

And so in that sense people are rooting for America's success. I do think that there is a strain of thought in the region that, in the past, many of the problems surrounding economic growth and opportunity or the lack thereof resulted because of a too rigid application of a free market doctrine imposed by the IMF -- what is termed the "Washington consensus."

I think in some cases, those issues have been addressed. At the G20 summit, for example, we talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries. In some cases, it may be just a carryover of knee-jerk anti-American sentiment, or simply differing -- differences in terms of economic theories and how the economies should grow.

One thing that I thought was interesting -- and I knew this in a more abstract way but it was interesting in very specific terms -- hearing from these leaders who when they spoke about Cuba talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend. And it's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region.

And I think that's why it's so important that in our interactions not just here in the hemisphere but around the world, that we recognize that our military power is just one arm of our power, and that we have to use our diplomatic and development aid in more intelligent ways so that people can see very practical, concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.

Chuck Todd.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building a little bit, actually, on the answer that you had there, you've been to three continents now in the last three weeks, 40-odd world leaders that you've been in the same room with --

THE PRESIDENT: Time to get home. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to Iowa next week. (Laughter.)

NRA's LaPierre Dismisses Cop Killings as "Phony Issue"

Wayne LaPierre, NRA head, appeared on CBS' Face The Nation. He had a hard time trying to defend his organizations views on the easy access to guns in America. Read the Transcript. Excerpt below:

Since the assault ban has been lifted, Harry, 40 American police officers have either been killed or seriously wounded with assault weapons.

SMITH: All right. Wayne LaPierre, are the cops wrong?

LAPIERRE: The rank-and-file cops know this is a totally phony issue. And that’s why Congress doesn’t want to deal with it again.

You know, the governor sits up there in Philadelphia. Let me tell you the reality of the crime problem in this country. The former U.S. attorney said there’s simply no risk of a felon in Philadelphia putting a gun in his pocket and walking out in the street. The former -- the head of the FOP up there said the problem in Philadelphia is the revolving door criminal justice system. It lets the most prolific and violent criminals back on the street again and again. The chief of detectives of the Philadelphia Police Department has recently said there’s no reason to talk about gun control; they don’t enforce any of the gun laws they already have. He talks about no consequences.

SMITH: So you think that the assault weapons ban is just a bogeyman?

LAPIERRE: I think it is a totally phony issue. It was enacted -- and the governor is doing it again today -- on the basis of saying these were machine guns. That’s a lie. They were rapid fire. That’s a lie. They made bigger holes. That’s a lie. They were more powerful. That’s a lie. It was lie after lie after lie.

Congress found it out. That’s why they let it expire, and lies that are found out don’t get reenacted.

SMITH: The majority of Americans support the assault weapons ban. And here’s what a lot of people think, and one of the members of your own board has said, well, this whole thing about going to assault -- after assault weapons is just a way for them to take away our rights to carry shotguns. That’s what people --is that what people in the NRA really believe?

LAPIERRE: Harry, let me tell you, there is no functional difference at all between any of these so-called assault weapons the media talks about. Assault weapons are machine guns. They’re fully automatic. They spray fire. They’re rapid fire. That’s what our soldiers use. These guns we’re talking about, that the governor wants to ban, are functionally no different than any other gun. The performance characteristics are exactly the same. There’s no difference.

SMITH: OK. Governor. RENDELL: That’s just unbelievably untrue. That’s unbelievably untrue. The assault weapons that are used that are sold in sporting goods stores now because the ban has been lifted, they put out a tremendously high amount of fire. And remember, the ban not only banned these assault weapons. It banned large capacity ammunition clips.

Now I’d like Wayne to explain to the American people why anybody should have the right to have an ammunition clip that has more than 10 bullets in it at one time. What use is that made for, Wayne? Who uses that?

LAPIERRE: Governor, you know there is absolutely no difference between two 10-round magazines and three of another. I mean, and you just said something...

RENDELL: There’s a big difference -- it’s a big difference because someone...

LAPIERRE: ... you just said something plainly untrue.

RENDELL: It’s a big difference because someone has to change...

LAPIERRE: I want you to go to the range with me, and let’s get ballistics experts.

LAPIERRE: And CNN has footage on this, where they went to the range with police officers and they showed there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns...

RENDELL: See, and that’s the excuse all the time...

LAPIERRE: And it’s the truth, and you know it.

RENDELL: Harry, they use this excuse all the time, and everybody knows, everybody knows that every one of our amendments have limitations to it.

LAPIERRE: That’s...

RENDELL: You can’t you can’t cry “Fire” in a crowded movie theater...

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Governor, hang on one second.

Mr. LaPierre, let me ask you this. Do the people in the NRA -- do the rank-and-file really believe the president of the United States is interested in basically overturning the Second Amendment?

LAPIERRE: You know what they’re trying to do right now? They’re trying to piggyback this whole phony issue of -- on the back of the tragedy in Mexico. I challenge the president of the United States and the media to prove that 90 percent of the guns used by the drug cartels are being smuggled.

SMITH: It may not be 90 percent. That certainly has been put in question. But there’s certainly plenty of these guns that are coming across the border.

LAPIERRE: You know, the only people that have ever put up their hand in the air and testified under oath on this is BATF, two weeks ago in Congress.

And let me tell you what they said. “I’m not sure where those institutes get these numbers. The investigations that we have...

SMITH: The 90 percent number?

LAPIERRE: Exactly. And the 2,000 a day.

SMITH: Nobody’s claiming the 90 percent number.

LAPIERRE: “And we see, for firearms seizures flowing across the border, don’t show us showing individuals taking thousands of guns a day flowing into Mexico.”

But the other thing, if there’s one gun, it’s already illegal. ICE, the customs people, enforcement people were asking Congress, do you need more laws? They said, no, we just need to enforce what we have.

SMITH: Let me go back to the governor. Because the thing that the NRA has said repeatedly, and was just said again this morning, is, why aren’t the laws that are on books enforced already, and that would alleviate most of the problem?

RENDELL: Well, first of all, number one, I agree with Wayne that we need to enforce existing laws better. But in Pennsylvania, we’ve gone -- in over a decade, we’ve increased our prison population on our state prisons by over 15,000 people.

We are enforcing the laws. We’re putting bad and difficult and dangerous people who use firearms to commit crimes in jail.

When I was district attorney, we enacted the first mandatory minimum sentence for people who use guns to commit crimes. We just enacted, in Pennsylvania, a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for anybody who fires a gun at a police officer.

But that is -- and I agree, we should enforce our existing laws better. And in fact, as Wayne will admit, he and I and Charlton Heston -- we combined on a tougher procedure in Philadelphia.

But having said that -- having said that...

SMITH: Quickly?

RENDELL: ... let’s go back to the original point. What blessed use is there for one of these assault weapons?

What American needs an assault weapon to protect themselves?

SMITH: Go ahead...

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: Go ahead.

LAPIERRE: It’s not an assault weapon. It’s no different than any other...

RENDELL: It’s an assault weapon.

LAPIERRE: But you know what happened in Philadelphia, Governor? When the cameras went away, you went away. But I’ll tell you what we ought to do this morning. Let’s agree on this. Every American city -- let’s put Project Exile. Every time a violent felon, drug dealer, gang member touches a gun, let’s prosecute.

Boehner Dismisses Global Warming as Cow Flatulence

Top Republican in the House, John Boehner, appearing on ABC's This Week, downplayed global warming while attributing it to cows letting out gas. Read the transcript. Excerpt below:

STEPHANOPOULOS: We turn now to Congressman Boehner. And let me get you right on there, Congressman Boehner. What is your response to the president's decision this week? And also, we just heard from Mr. Emanuel that the president wants to move forward, no prosecution for officials who devised the policy.

BOEHNER: Well, I think that's one area -- area that I can agree with the president on. But I think the release of these memos is dangerous, and I agree with what Leon Panetta had to say, when he made it clear that he thought that this would hamper our ability to get information from terrorists and get other countries to work with us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And let's look at this more broadly, then, Congressman Boehner. You heard what Mr. Emanuel had to say about the president's approach towards this next set of challenges facing the Congress, especially healthcare and education. And he says the president's willing to work with Republicans, but Republicans have to come to the table with ideas. Let's take each issue in turn.

Are you prepared to come forward with a plan to cover all Americans and control healthcare costs?

BOEHNER: I think we believe, along what Democrats believe, that all Americans should have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. We're working on a plan that preserves the doctor/patient relationship, rewards quality and rewards innovation. We're not for a plan that puts the government in charge of our healthcare, decides what doctors ought to be paid, or what treatments ought to be prescribed.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means -- so that's a no to the president's plan?

BOEHNER: We haven't seen the president's plan as yet. I can tell you what our plan is beginning to look like and the types of things that we will oppose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you then about energy. We showed your statement on the president's decision through the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Also, you've come out against the president's proposal to cap-and-trade carbon emissions.

So what is the Republican answer to climate change? Is it a problem? Do you have a plan to address it?

BOEHNER: George, we believe that our -- all of the above energy strategy from last year continues to be the right approach on energy. That we ought to make sure that we have new sources of energy, green energy, but we need nuclear energy, we need other types of alternatives, and, yes, we need American-made oil and gas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that doesn't do anything when it comes to emissions, sir.

BOEHNER: When it comes to the issue of climate change, George, it's pretty clear that if we don't work with other industrialized nations around the world, what's going to happen is that we're going to ship millions of American jobs overseas. We have to deal with this in a responsible way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what is the responsible way? That's my question. What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change?

BOEHNER: George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide. And so I think it's clear...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't believe that greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

BOEHNER: ... we've had climate change over the last 100 years -- listen, it's clear we've had change in our climate. The question is how much does man have to do with it, and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it sounds like from what you're saying that you don't believe that Republicans need to come up with a plan to control carbon emissions? You're suggesting it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific consensus is that it has contributed to the climate change.

BOEHNER: I think it is -- I think it is an issue. The question is, what is the proper answer and the responsible answer?

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what is the answer? That's what I'm trying to get at.

BOEHNER: George, I think everyone in America is looking for the proper answer. We don't want to raise taxes, $1.5 to $2 trillion like the administration is proposing, and we don't want to ship millions of American jobs overseas. And so we've got to find ways to work toward this solution to this problem without risking the future for our kids and grandkids.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you are committed to coming up with a plan?

BOEHNER: I think you'll see a plan from us. Just like you've seen a plan from us on the stimulus bill and a better plan on the budget.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, also this week, we saw these TEA party tax day protests coming out across the country. Yet, one of the organizers of the protests, one of your predecessors, Dick Armey, former Republican leader in the House, said even as he was going forward with the protests, that the taxes of the United States are now at a good level. Do you agree?

BOEHNER: I think the taxes in America continue to be too high, and if you talk to the people I talk to at the taxpayer protests out in Bakersfield, California, they didn't believe their taxes were too low or about right. They thought they were too high.

George, when I talk to people at these rallies, it was pretty clear people are scared to death. And they're scared to death about the future for their kids and their grandkids, and the facts that the American dream may not be alive for their kids and grandkids. That's what really scares them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But on the issue...

BOEHNER: They understand that you can't borrow and spend your way to prosperity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But on the issue of taxes, I think it's 43 percent of people who file taxes pay no income tax at all. For the middle fifth of taxpayers, they're paying just about 3 percent in federal income tax this year.

BOEHNER: Well, you want to go out and explain that to the hundreds of thousands of people around America that showed up for these rallies. They understand that they're paying too much in taxes. But they're really concerned about the amount of spending that's going on in Washington and the amount of debt that's being piled up. They know that you can't have trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see without imprisoning the future for our kids and theirs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Congressman Boehner, thank you very much for your time this morning.

George Soros: We Need More and Better Regulation

Wall St. guru George Soros gave his solution for the current financial crisis during an interview Maria Bartiromo. Read the full transcript:

BARTIROMO: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MONEY FOR THE IMF. IT COULD RISE TO $750 BILLION. IS THAT ENOUGH? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHO SHOULD GET THE MONEY?

SOROS: WELL, THEY MANAGED TO PUT TOGETHER A BIGGER PACKAGE THAN ANYBODY EXPECTED. AND VERY IMPORTANT IS THE ISSUE OF SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS. $250 BILLION. THAT IS EFFECTIVELY CREATING - INTERNATIONALLY CREATING - NEW MONEY. AND THAT WILL HELP TO ALLOW THE COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO PRINT THEIR OWN MONEY THE WAY WE CAN, ACTUALLY TO STIMULATE THEIR ECONOMIES. AND I THINK THE WAY FOR THE RICH COUNTRIES TO TRANSFER THE ALLOCATIONS TO THE MOST NEEDY COUNTRIES CAN BE WORKED OUT.

BARTIROMO: SO ARE YOU SAYING THE EFFORTS AS FAR AS THE IMF AND THE COMMUNIQUÉ OVERALL HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED YOUR MIND? A WEEK AND A HALF AGO YOU WERE OUT VERY VOCAL SAYING LOOK, THE IMF IS GOING TO HAVE TO BASICALLY BAIL OUT THE UK, HERE WE ARE SITTING IN ONE OF THE GREATEST CITIES IN THE WORLD -

SOROS: NO. THAT WAS A MISLEADING HEADLINE GIVEN TO AN INTERVIEW WHERE I SAID IT'S MOST UNLIKELY THAT BRITAIN WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE IMF. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT WE CREATED SUCH AN OUTCRY SHOWS WHAT A STIGMA THERE IS ATTACHED TO HAVING TO GO TO THE IMF.

BARTIROMO: A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE UK AND THE NEED FOR HELP AND REALLY A BAILOUT, PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WELL, WAIT A SECOND, GEORGE SOROS YEARS AGO SHORTED THE POUND AND MADE MONEY ON THIS AND MAYBE HE'S PLAYING HIS BOOK. IN FACT, LORD MANDELSON SAID THAT. ARE YOU SHORTING THE POUND RIGHT NOW?

SOROS: NO, I'M NOT. FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, I'VE WITHDRAWN NOW FROM ACTUALLY RUNNING THE FUND. I DID IT LAST YEAR. WE CAME THROUGH IT. NOW I'VE HANDED IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN DO IT. SO I'M OUT OF THE MARKETS, AS I WAS BEFORE I CAME OUT OF RETIREMENT. SO I'M BACK IN RETIREMENT.

BARTIROMO: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN RETIREMENT VERY LONG, FRANKLY. BUT LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE OPERATIONS IN TERMS OF HEDGE FUNDS OVERSIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IS ANOTHER THING THE GROUP SAID, THAT THEY WANT MORE REGULATION ON HEDGE FUNDS. DID YOU AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAID AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING IN TERMS OF MORE OVERSIGHT?

SOROS: WELL, I THINK YOU ABSOLUTELY WILL NEED MORE REGULATION. BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE BETTER REGULATION. AND YES, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MARKETS A FREE HAND, AND OF COURSE THAT WAS VERY UNSOUND. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GO OVERBOARD NOW WITH REGULATIONS BECAUSE THE FACT THAT MARKETS ARE IMPERFECT, THAT THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE THE FUTURE CORRECTLY, REGULATORS ARE JUST AS IMPERFECT.

BARTIROMO: CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE THE SITUATION FOR US IN EASTERN EUROPE RIGHT NOW?

SOROS: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE WESTERN EUROPE AND AMERICA GUARANTEED THE BANKING SYSTEM THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN EASTERN EUROPE COULDN'T PROVIDE SIMILARLY CONVINCING GUARANTEES, AND THE BANKS IN THE WEST STARTED PULLING THEIR CAPITAL OUT OF THERE AND PULLING THEM BACK. AND THE NATIONAL REGULATORS ALSO ENCOURAGED THE BANKS TO LEND AT HOME AND NOT ABROAD. AND SO THAT CREATED A CRISIS FOR EASTERN EUROPE.

BARTIROMO: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING MARK TO MARKET? FASBY COMING OUT AND SAYING THAT THEY DO WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER, A LITTLE MORE LAX IN TERMS OF THE REGULATION FOR MARK TO MARKET. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

SOROS: THERE I REMAIN REALLY CRITICAL BECAUSE I THINK MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RECAPITALIZE THE BANKS. AND BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE WAY THE TARP MONEY WAS SPENT, IT WAS REALLY VERY MESSY AND VERY BADLY DONE. AND BECAUSE OF THAT THERE'S INCREASING RELUCTANCE BY CONGRESS TO MAKE NEW MONEY AVAILABLE. AND YET IT WOULD BE MUCH MUCH BETTER TO CREATE CLEAN BANKS. BANKS THAT ARE ABLE TO LEND. AND I THINK WE MISSED THE BOAT ON THAT. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE WILL BE SPENDING A LONG TIME ALLOWING THE BANKS TO DIG THEMSELVES OUT OF A HOLE. AND WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, THEY WILL NOT BE REALLY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT CREDIT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS. THEY WILL BE CHARGING A LOT AND GENERALLY IT'S GOING TO WEIGH ON OUR ECONOMY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

BARTIROMO: I KNOW YOU SAW THE STORY ABOUT SOME HEDGE FUNDS SAYING, "LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE LONDON. THE TAX SITUATION IS NOT FAVORABLE. WE DON'T LIKE THE BUSINESS CONDITIONS HERE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

SOROS: WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? ANOTHER PLANET? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS - THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE NOW WITH THE TAX HAVENS BEING BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL I THINK HEDGE FUNDS WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO BEING REGULATED.

Mexican Drug Wars Landing on U.S. Soil

Something needs to be done about the violence in Mexico before we return to the bad old days in America, when the drug gangs terrorized communities in the U.S.

The five dead men lay scattered about a living room. Some showed signs of torture: Burns seared into their earlobes revealed where modified jumper cables had been clamped as an improvised electrocution device. Adhesive from duct tape used to bind the victims still clung to wrists and faces.

As a final touch, throats were slashed, post-mortem.

It didn't take long for Curry and federal agents to piece together clues: A murder scene, clean save for the crimson-turned-brown stains now spotting the carpet. Just a couple of mattresses tossed on the floor. It was a typical stash house.

But the cut throats? Some sort of ghastly warning.

Curry would soon find this was a retaliation hit over drug money with ties to Mexico's notorious Gulf cartel.

Curry also found out firsthand what narcotics agents have long understood. The drug war, with the savagery it brings, knows no bounds. It had landed in his back yard, in the foothills of the Appalachians, around the corner from The Home Depot.

One thousand, twenty-four miles from the Mexico border.

Drug cartels fighting each other
Forget for a moment the phrase itself — "War on Drugs" — much-derided since President Richard Nixon coined it. Wars eventually end, after all. And many Americans wonder today, nearly four decades later, will this one ever be won?

In Mexico, the fight has become a real war. Some 45,000 Mexican army troops now patrol territories long ruled by narcotraffickers. Places like Tijuana in Baja California. Reynosa, across the Rio Grande from Texas. But also resort cities like Acapulco, an hour south of the place where, months ago, the decapitated bodies of 12 soldiers were discovered with a sign that read: "For every one of mine that you kill, I will kill 10."

More than 10,560 people have been killed since 2006, when Mexican President Felipe Calderon took office and launched his campaign against the organized crime gangs that move cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana and heroin to a vast U.S. market.

Ironically, the guns used to help the drug cartels are purchased in America. So we have the self-destructive practice of supplying Latin-American drug cartels with weapons that are then used to terrorize Americans on U.S. soil. Not to mention the drugs that are brought into this country that are then consumed by us:

Mexico has a point: Americans have contributed mightily to the creation of the violent drug cartels now wreaking havoc on the border. We are major consumers of their illegal products. In addition, we supply many of the weapons they use against rivals, law enforcement officials and innocents caught in the crossfire. Federal agents estimate that 90 percent of the pistols and rifles confiscated from Mexican drug traffickers last year and subjected to traces were traced back to gun dealers in the U.S., according to The New York Times.

Before his meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week, President Barack Obama made a number of moves designed to placate our southern neighbors, who are struggling with an out-and-out drug war. Obama appointed a “border czar” to crack down on the smuggling of guns and drugs, he imposed financial sanctions on three of the most notorious cartels, he threatened to prosecute any American who does business with drug kingpins.

Noticeably absent from Obama’s list of corrective measures was any pledge to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. Bullied by the gun lobby, Obama and fellow Democrats are afraid to press a common-sense measure that would take weapons of war off the streets here and out of the hands of drug thugs in Mexico.

Given that cowardice, it’s probably futile to suggest that Obama do something visionary, if radical, about the market for illegal drugs in this country:

Walk away from the failed and costly “war on drugs”; significantly reduce the amount of money spent on enforcement against penny-ante dealers and users, abandon draconian laws that give stiff prison sentences to nonviolent drug offenders, spend the money instead on rehabilitation for addicts.

Some of that money could also be redirected to cracking down on the cartels, as Obama has proposed. They are vicious criminal enterprises that, left unchecked, can infiltrate the law enforcement and judicial establishments of entire countries. As Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) recently noted, “the Mexican drug cartels are capable of a very sophisticated level of quasi-military violence.” The Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI should concentrate resources on those kingpins, not on street-level dealers or addicted users doing more harm to themselves than anyone else.

This is a case in point:

A U.S. judge sentenced a top player in a Texas gun-smuggling ring to eight years in prison on Friday for illegally shipping an "arsenal" of high-powered weapons across the border including some that were later used in gang murders.

John Phillip Hernandez is directly responsible for shipping 103 guns -- many of them military-style assault rifles -- across the U.S.-Mexico border, court documents say.

The U.S. citizen was central to a drug-smuggling ring that funneled more than 300 guns worth some $350,000 to Mexico, U.S. officials said.

Warring drug traffickers killed 6,300 people in Mexico last year, and stemming the flow of U.S. arms to Mexico is a crucial part of U.S. policy to curb border violence.

In Mexico on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama stood alongside Mexico's Felipe Calderon and promised to help his fight against drug cartels waging bloody turf wars along the joint border.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner sentenced Hernandez to 97 months in prison, more than the 63-month maximum set by federal guidelines.

Hittner said the sentence was warranted by the "arsenal of weapons" Hernandez trafficked in, as well as their use in at least eight murders by drug gangs, though Hernandez was not directly accountable for the deaths.

Report: Israel Preparing Assault on Iran's Nuclear Sites

We've known this from some time. They wanted the subservient Bush administration to attack. But George W. was not willing to go that far. Now the Israelis are willing to go alone. President Obama better have a response. The repercussions will be great. Will he allow the Israeli lobby to soften him up to just an attack.

The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government, the Times of London reported.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defense official told the Times.

Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tons of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

And, of course, you can forget about peace in the Middle East:

Palestinian leaders asked the American envoy to the Middle East on Friday to press Israel’s new government to accept the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and other Palestinian officials met with the envoy, George J. Mitchell, at the Palestinian Authority’s headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah a day after Mr. Mitchell held talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s conservative-leaning prime minister, and other Israeli leaders.

Mr. Netanyahu, who took office last month, has refused to explicitly support Palestinian statehood, and says that the new government is still formulating its policies. He told Mr. Mitchell that it was time for “new approaches and fresh ideas,” and said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a condition Palestinian negotiators have long refused to meet.

But Mr. Mitchell said after the meeting in Ramallah that “a two-state solution is the only solution,” and that a comprehensive peace in the Middle East was “in the national interest of the United States,” as well as in the interests of Palestinians and Israelis.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide and veteran Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement on Friday that the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state before negotiations was “an admission by Netanyahu that he cannot deliver on peace” and a stalling tactic. He noted that the Palestine Liberation Organization had already recognized the state of Israel while Mr. Netanyahu “refuses to even mention a Palestinian state.”

Palestinians contend that recognition of Israel’s Jewish character would negate Palestinian refugees’ demand for the right of return and would be detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up a fifth of the population.

In Gaza, two top leaders of Hamas, the Islamic group that holds power there, made their first public appearances since Israel’s military offensive that ended in mid-January. Ismail Haniya, who leads the Hamas government in Gaza, and Mahmoud Zahar, a senior official, preached at separate mosques.

Apparently in a challenge to the rival Palestinian Authority leaders as they met with Mr. Mitchell in the West Bank, Mr. Zahar said in his sermon, “We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form,” Reuters reported.

Is it lip service or is the President really interested in Palestinian-Israel peace. That will be the test for him. Can he or will he stand up to the powerful Israel lobby in Washington:

The U.S. Middle East envoy says the Obama administration will exert "great energy" in pursuit of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Envoy George Mitchell says a comprehensive Middle East peace is not only in the interests of Israel, the Palestinians and other countries in the region, but is also important to the United States and people around the world.

He spoke after meeting Saturday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, the latest stop on his Middle East tour.

An Egyptian state-run news agency (MENA) quotes Mr. Mubarak as saying there is no alternative to the two-state solution.

While the United States has been promoting the two-state solution, Israel's new government has expressed concerns about the idea of Palestinian statehood.

Obama Betrays Supporters in Torture/War Crimes Cases

President Obama has shown himself different than the typical politician on many issues. But he is no different when it comes to important matters like holding those who break our laws and subvert our constitution responsible. Many of his biggest supporters are appalled that the President would refuse to bring the Bush gang responsible for their shocking violations of U.S. and International law.

An Austrian newspaper quotes the U.N.'s top torture investigator as saying President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law.

Manfred Nowak is quoted in Der Standard as saying the United States has committed itself under the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture a crime and to prosecute those suspected of engaging in it.

Obama assured CIA operatives on Thursday they would not be prosecuted for their rough interrogation tactics of terror suspects under the former Bush administration.

Let it go:

Former U.S. president George W. Bush knew what he wanted from his pliant justice department officials – a green light to treat 9/11 terror suspects roughly – and they were eager to oblige. Government lawyers whose job it was to be the president's conscience "employed twisted and macabre legal reasoning to authorize the unspeakable," says David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and contributor to the New York Times.

Americans got a depressing eyeful of the fallout from that unholy alliance this week when President Barack Obama ordered the justice department to release an inch-thick set of memos from 2002 to 2005 that authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to use a range of brutal coercive techniques. The memos shed light on "a dark and painful chapter" in U.S. history, Obama said.

[...]Many Americans are convinced that Bush and his coterie winked at CIA torture. Now Obama is telling the public, essentially, to let it go. But in the end Obama may not have the last word.

Even supporters in the media, Like Keith Olbermann, are appalled at Obama's amorality. Read the complete transcript of the Countdown host's special comment:

...the president's revelation of the remainder of this nightmare of Bush Administration torture memos. This President has gone where few before him, dared. The dirty laundry — illegal, un-American, self-defeating, self-destroying — is out for all to see.

Mr. Obama deserves our praise and our thanks for that. And yet he has gone but half-way. And, in this case, in far too many respects, half the distance is worse than standing still. Today, Mr. President, in acknowledging these science-fiction-like documents, you said that:

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke."

"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history.

"But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.

Mr. President, you are wrong. What you describe would be not "spent energy" but catharsis.

This NY Times letter to the editor gets it right:

I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as Mr. Obama, who once taught constitutional law, would equate the pursuit of justice with retribution. It makes it appear as if his decision is one of political expediency.

If holding the C.I.A. operatives accountable for violating federal or international laws is retribution, then the prosecution of ordinary citizens for crimes is also retribution.

The president does not have the authority to be selective about who should or should not be charged with a crime, and he has made a grievous error by confusing the pursuit of justice with retribution or retaliation.

If the president reached his conclusion not to prosecute because the C.I.A. agents were merely following orders, I would remind him that that defense did not hold up at the Nuremberg trials. Those involved must be tried and held accountable regardless of the political consequences.

The Left that fought Bush's neo-Fascist policies are now outraged by Obama's seeming condoning of the abuses of the previous administration:

Amnesty International said the release of the documents was welcome, but condemned the decision to block prosecutions.

"The Department of Justice appears to be offering a get-out-of-jail-free card to individuals who, by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's own estimation, were involved in acts of torture," said executive director Larry Cox. "No civilized definition of 'reasonable' behavior can ever encompass acts of torture. Torture has long been recognized to be a violation of both national and international law, and no single legal opinion, no matter from what source, can change that."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit agency founded by attorneys who worked for the civil rights movement of the 1960s, also panned the decision not to prosecute.

"It is one of the deepest disappointments of this administration that it appears unwilling to uphold the law where crimes have been committed by former officials," the organization said.

The center is pushing for prosecutions of high-level officials in the Bush administration.

"Whether or not CIA operatives who conducted waterboarding are guaranteed immunity, it is the high-level officials who conceived, justified and ordered the torture program who bear the most responsibility for breaking domestic and international law, and it is they who must be prosecuted," the center said.

"Government officials broke very serious laws: For there to be no consequences not only calls our system of justice into question, it leaves the gate open for this to happen again."

Top G.O.P. Consultant Endorses Gay Marriage

Many Republicans mistakenly believe that their party is a principled alternative to the Democrats. Look Again. In fact, it's all a sham. Both parties are the tools of big business and could care less about the millions of true believers. It's all about power and politicians whom have sold their souls to get elected and re-elected:

If Steve Schmidt is for same-sex marriage, can Senate Republicans be far behind?

Well, yes. We don’t expect establishment Republicans in Washington — or establishment Democrats, for that matter — to suddenly endorse gay marriage. But in a possible sign of the momentum of the gay-marriage movement, Mr. Schmidt, who was a senior adviser to the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, last year, is promoting gay marriage this afternoon.

He endorsed same-sex marriage last month, in an interview with the Washington Blade.

Today, Mr. Schmidt, who also served as a top Bush aide, discusses the subject with the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that supports gay rights. According to CNN, he will call on conservative Republicans to drop their opposition at a lunchtime speech in Washington.

Mr. Schmidt, who has a sister who is a lesbian, plans to say that there is nothing about gay marriage that is un-American or that threatens the rights of others and that in fact it is in line with conservative principles.

“There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage,” Mr. Schmidt plans to say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. “I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage.’”

His remarks come in the midst of a flurry of legislative and judicial activity advancing gay marriage in various states. In the last two weeks, Iowa and Vermont have approved same-sex marriage, joining Connecticut and Massachusetts. The movement appears to be picking up steam in other states too, including New York, where Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill on Thursday to legalize gay marriage.

In his interview with The Blade, Mr. Schmidt said he voted against California’s Proposition 8, which ended same-sex marriage in that state. Mr. McCain supported the measure and has opposed gay marriage.

But Mr. Schmidt, who said he has never agreed “100 percent” with any candidate for whom he has worked, is undeterred.

“I’m personally supportive of equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time,” he told The Blade. “I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hard-working, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they’re troubled by it.”

The darling of the Conservatives and Republicans thought of aborting her unborn child:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin entered the lower 48 and disclosed in a speech that for a second, she considered whether she should have an abortion upon learning of abnormalities after her amniocentesis. Her description of a fleeting moment of doubt has snagged many headlines today, with some articles trying to suggest hypocrisy because the resulting birth of Trigg, her youngest who has Down syndrome, transformed her into a darling of anti-abortion advocates. (Notwithstanding her simpatico views with theirs.) But the whiparound also snarls that her supporters may now be riled by her latest remarks.

Hmmmm? It’s really unclear from her comments that her musings back then were serious, and even she seems to give those thoughts little weight. In her speech, Ms. Palin recalled shifting into a lament about having to give up her BlackBerry for a breast pump at age 44. (On the campaign trail last year, as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Ms. Palin sometimes talked about the hardship of confronting a troubled pregnancy and learning to care for the newborn.)

The pertinent remarks begin around 4:44 in this take and continue on this consecutive video segment of her speech before a Right-to-Life group in Indiana. And even if she wavered, as she says she did, Ms. Palin did decide to go forward with the pregnancy.

Look at the hypocrisy when it comes to the government stimulus program:

Last week, we reported that Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) had experienced an epiphany about the stimulative effects of government spending...when that spending is on weapons.

Over the weekend, Paul Krugman took a shot at Congressional Republicans who fit the Chambliss profile--i.e. the subset of Republicans who voted against the stimulus but are now coming forward to claim that a (fictional) reduction in defense spending will cost jobs.

Since only three of Capitol Hill's 219 Republicans--Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME)--voted for the stimulus bill, it's possible that many scores of them will ultimately fall afoul of this contradiction.

Until then, though, we've poked around a bit, and come up with the names of a few Republicans that have already fallen in to The Chambliss Hypocrisy.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) joined their fellow Peach Stater, warning that the demise of particular defense programs (paid for with federal funds) will eliminate jobs.

The administration's plans to cut the F-22 program "will...cost thousands of jobs at a critical time," said Price. Back in February, Price took a different view of federal spending, saying the stimulus bill "will not stimulate the economy. There is nothing stimulating about wasting historic amounts of taxpayer money.... I hope that all parties can finally come together to produce solutions that foster real economic growth instead of more reckless government spending."

Gingrey added that the "decision takes a short-sighted approach to maintaining American air dominance, while at the same time putting thousands of good manufacturing jobs at risk." When the stimulus bill passed, Gingrey said, "Republicans have a real plan to create twice as many jobs at half the cost of this 'spenduluous' [sic] through across the board tax cuts and cuts in government spending."

At least Glenn Beck correctly blames both parties for the obscene debt and deficits:

It's about spending — too much spending, to be specific. The idea that a business is too big to fail is anti-American; we've always been for the underdog.

It's about putting my family — my children — under $12.8 trillion in debt; all it took was two presidents and six months.

t's about the idea that we're all socialists now.

It's about the idea that the government can force companies, banks and states to take money and the strings that are attached to it, that they didn't want.

It's about power — too much power going to federal government.

It's about corruption — too much corruption, in both parties.

It's about the rule of law — that no one is above the law: if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful.

Republicans Have Gone Insane: Talk of Texas Secession?

The Republicans are so desperate and reckless they are talking crazy. The Governor of Texas actually suggested that Texas might secede because of the policies of Obama. Sounds a lot like the language of the segregationists during the 1960s.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn't ruling out the possibility his state may one day secede from the nation.

Speaking to an energetic and angry tea party crowd in Austin Wednesday evening, the Lone Star State governor suggested secession may happen in the future should the federal government not change its fiscal polices.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry told the rally, according to the Associated Press. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." (Video below: Tea party fires up debate)

Perry, who is beginning to gear up for what could be a challenging re-election race, rejected more than $500 million in federal stimulus funds earlier this year and has been highly critical of President Obama's stimulus package. (Related: Joe "The Plumber" speaks at Michigan tea party)

His comments come a week after endorsing a resolution in the Texas state House reasserting state sovereignty over federal mandates.

Specifically it states that "all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."

Texas, America's second biggest state in area and population, was its own nation for 10 years before joining the United States in 1845.

Should Texas one day secede, one man may already be vying to be its president. Actor Chuck Norris said last month he may be interested in the post.

“I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

The leader of this madness could be a sensationalistic talk show host. This from the Independent in March:

Many strange things have happened in America, in this young age of Obama. But none stranger, surely, than that the de facto leadership of the Republican Party has passed into the hands of a right-wing talk radio host.

The moment of that passage came on Saturday 28 February, when Rush Limbaugh was the closing speaker at CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference here in Washington, normally a festival for Republican true believers. As I wrote in this space last week, the arriving delegates looked like stragglers from Napoleon's army in the 1812 retreat from Moscow, shellshocked still by their crushing election defeat. But when they left they were walking on air – or rather, the reverberating echoes of Limbaugh's address, in which he reaffirmed conservative values and stated that he wanted the new President to fail.

For many, it was an unsettling moment: not because of the black shirt he was wearing (Limbaugh's bloviating has always had a whiff of Il Duce), or because John McCain, the party's defeated White House candidate, had chosen not to attend. What made it unsettling was that politics had not merely fused with entertainment. It had surrendered to entertainment.

In some ways, this new hour of Rush is no surprise. Ever since 1987, when federal regulators dropped the "fairness doctrine" that required stations to balance competing points of view, conservative talk radio has been the trumpet section of the Republican orchestra. And for almost as long, its acknowledged leader has been Limbaugh, heard on 600 radio stations and commanding a daily audience of 20 million or more.

In these 20-odd years, conservative radio has come a long way. By coincidence, on the very same day as Limbaugh was propelling the genre to new fame or infamy at CPAC, Paul Harvey died in Arizona at the age of 90. In many respects, Harvey was Limbaugh's forerunner. His show ran a mere 15 minutes, compared with Limbaugh's three-hour blast every weekday. But he offered his own mix of news and and conservative comment, with similar stratospheric ratings. In his heyday, in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties, Harvey had 20 million listeners. But he was cheerleading not so much for Republicans as for the American way, at the zenith of the American century. Never, one suspects, would he have lent himself to something like CPAC.

They've become a joke:

Papers filed by political humorists in Federal Court accuse The Republican Party, its elected officials, conservative bloggers, Fox News, and CNBC of "crossing the line in self parody" and "creating a situation that is difficult to satire" by acting "so effing weird." The comics, some of them funny, are seeking damages in the hundreds of dollars to make up for lost revenue.

A visibly legendary Mort Sahl addressed reporters in a threadbare sweater, his hands flopping nervously in the breeze since the newspaper he planned to carry had gone bankrupt. "This is a career for many of us," said Sahl shyly. "Politicians and talk show hosts holding up tea bags day after day has taken it's toll and jokes are becoming increasingly difficult to write. For example, the KKK protested at Republican headquarters and burned uh ah a giant tea bag on the front lawn. See? No place to go. I give up."

A noticeably muscular Carrot Top whispered to Sahl that the Klan had, in fact, burned a giant bag on the lawn of the Republican party. Sahl's head exploded. Shocked reported recoiled in horror then high-fived because was sort of cool looking, really.

In a separate suit, Richard and Sal from the Howard Stern show claimed that Republicans had ruined the humorous value of tea bagging.

Lawyers for the class action suit showed tapes of recent episodes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the House Republican caucus. After the crowd stopped laughing they pointed out that these were actual video tapes, not way out parodies. That seemed to confuse people. Lawyers played the tapes again and then people got very quiet and sad and most of them walked away from the TV and didn't say anything for a very long time but they told themselves that they would never vote for a Republican again, ever. Later they forgot all about the scary tapes but wondered why they didn't see Republicans any more like they used to in the old days.

The teabagging event organized by Limbaugh and FOX News was a farce:

Those messages might explain why Fox News, though actively promoting the "tea party" protests for tax day, tried to argue that it was not behind yesterday's coast-to-coast events. But Fox News analyst Tobin Smith, who took the stage in Lafayette Square yesterday, evidently didn't get the memo. "On behalf of Fox News Channel," he told more than 500 mud-spattered demonstrators, "I want to say: Welcome to the Comedy Channel of America, Washington, D.C."

After a few preliminaries, he went into a Fox News commercial for anchor Glenn Beck. "Anybody watching Glenn?" he asked to cheers. "That was a shameless plug, wasn't it? Glenn says hello as well. He's out at another tea party." Indeed he was, as were Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto.

A small group of counterdemonstrators, wearing ballgowns, tuxedoes and pig snouts, interrupted and were stripped of their signs. Smith seized the display as an opportunity to highlight the Fox News slogan. "You know what 'Fair and Balanced' means?" he asked. " 'Fair and Balanced' means we take our message and try to overcompensate for their lack of message." Smith left with instructions: "Keep watching Fox, will you?"

The theme was echoed in some of the homemade signs the demonstrators carried, including "Watch Fox News," "Thank You Fox News," and even a recommendation: "Move Glenn Beck to 7 PM."

Without the spectacle of a 1773-style tea-bag dump in the square, the handmade signs became the focus of the event. Though ostensibly an anti-tax protest, it was more of an anti-Obama festival. Among the messages: "The Audacity of the Dope," "O Crap" and Obama as an acronym for "One Big Awful Mistake America." Some messages were ugly ("Napolitano -- Obama's Gestapo Queen," "Hang 'Em High Traitors," and a sign held by a young girl saying "Victim of Child Tax Abuse"). Others were funny ("Don't Talk to Me! I Forgot My Teleprompter"). Certain ones had sinister overtones ("Tax Slavery Sucks," and "Obama bin Lyin"). Then there was the guy holding a Cabbage Patch doll by its hair with the message: "My kid's growth stunted by your stimulus."

Obama Speech on Taxes: Transcript (4-15-09)

Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

I know that April 15th is not exactly everyone's favorite date on the calendar. But it is an important opportunity for those of us in Washington to consider our responsibilities to the people who sent us here and who pay the bills. And I've brought some friends of mine who sent me here and pay the bills.

Across America, families like the people who've joined me have had tough choices forced upon them because of this economic downturn. Many have lost a job. Many are fighting to keep their businesses open. Many more are struggling to make payments, to stay in their home or to pursue a college education.

And these Americans are the backbone of our economy, the backbone of our middle class. They're the workers, the innovators, the students who are going to be powering our recovery. And so, their dreams have to be our own. They need a government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth automatically trickles down.

And that's why my administration has taken far-reaching action to give tax cuts to the Americans who need them, while jumpstarting growth and job creation in the process.

We start from the simple premise that we should reduce the tax burden on working people, while helping Americans go to college, own a home, raise a family, start a business and save for retirement. Those goals are the foundation of the American dream, and they are the focus of my tax policy.

OBAMA: First, we passed a broad and sweeping tax cut for 95 percent of American workers. This tax cut was a core focus of my campaign, it was a core component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and it is the most progressive tax cut in American history. And starting April 1st, Americans saw this tax cut in the extra money that they took home with each paycheck.

Make no mistake: This tax cut will reach 120 million families and put $120 billion directly into their pockets, and it includes the most American workers ever to get a tax cut. This is going to boost demand and it will save or create over half a million jobs.

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: A Threat to Obama's Safety?

If Barack Obama is assassinated it will be the fault of the Republicans and Conservative activists. They are fomenting hate directly primarily against the President. We have not seen this kind of Right Wing frenzy since the days of JFK. And we know how that ended? There have already been attempts against the President (albeit in the early stages). The Right is actively preaching hatred of Barack Obama. That is a green light for any individual to try and kill the President. Could it be their plan. Could fiction become reality. The pro-Republican FOX has a TV series in where a black President is assassinated as a result of a Right Wing plot.

Homeland Security officials are warning that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members to their cause.

In an intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week, Homeland Security officials said there was no specific information about an attack in the works by right-wing extremists.

The agency warns that an extended economic downturn with real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit could foster an environment for extremists to recruit members who may not have been supportive of these causes in the past.

Homeland Security spokesman Sean Smith said the report is one in a series of assessments issued by the agency's intelligence and analysis unit. The agency describes these assessments as part of a series published "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

In February, the department issued a report to law enforcement that said left-wing extremist groups were likely to use cyber attacks more often in the next 10 years to further their cause. And in September, the agency issued a report that highlighted how right-wing extremists over the past five years have used the immigration debate as a recruiting tool.

The latest assessment started making its way into the mainstream press after conservative blogs got wind of the analysis. In this report, the agency warns that imposing new restrictions on firearms and returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their communities could lead to terror groups or individuals attempting to carry out attacks. The returning war veterans have skills and experience that are appealing to right-wing groups looking to carry out an attack, according to the report.

The agency cites the April 4 killings of three Pittsburgh police officers as an example of a the type of violence spurred by right-wing rhetoric.

"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.

In the 1990s, the report said, a resurgence in right-wing extremism was brought on by the poor economy and the outsourcing of jobs, with extremist groups targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers and banks.

The growth was slowed after intense government scrutiny of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, according to the report, but the Internet now gives extremists more access to information about making bombs and weapons training. The new technologies also make it easier for extremists to communicate, the report said, and make it more difficult for law enforcement to detect or prevent an attack.

In November, after Barack Obama's election, law enforcement officials were seeing more threats and unusual interest against a president-elect than ever before.

Here's more on the media/Republican connection to the anti-Obama hysteria:

SHUSTER: For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It‘s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they‘re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.

They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending—spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama‘s tax rates—which will be lower for most of them—and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That‘s teabagging in a nut shell.

Taking its inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax in it had not been voted on by their own duly-elected representatives—that‘s exactly the opposite, of course, of today‘s taxes, known in some quarters as taxation with representation.

But as “New York Times” columnist, Paul Krugman, points out today, this time, the tea bagging is not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, both of whom have firm support from right-wing financiers and lobbyists. As well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter, who has issued statements in support of teabagging but is publicly tight-lipped.

Then there was the media, specifically the FOX News Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an up close and personal taste of teabagging themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network‘s executive committee. Neil‘s online bio says he joined the network in July of 1996, three months before the FOX News Channel went on the air.

[...]This is an orchestrated attempt by Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, people who are trying to repair the Republican Party. They know that the Republican Party is in shambles. They know that Eric Cantor is a disaster as a new leadership member. They know that Boehner is doing a terrible job in the leadership.

They‘ve been in the leadership in the House of Representatives. They don‘t have a great deal of faith in this strategy and that‘s why it‘s been delegated somewhat at arm‘s length. That‘s why they‘re pretending that this is a grassroots movement.

FOX News is in the same position. What they‘re trying to do is create gigantic television events for their shows on that day. They have to pretend that they are covering a news event rather than trying to create one, which they‘ve very clearly done when you look at the history in the last month of the FOX News discussion of this and how they‘ve built it up.

And so, this is an attempt to try to see if the taxation spot is the place where you can get at Barack Obama, because nothing else has worked. Now, the problem is—on this April 15th, the taxation rates that they will all be protesting are the George W. Bush Republican Congress taxation rates. That‘s how we got these tax rates.

Sean Hannity, in the approach of this April 15th protest, has talked about the skyrocketing tax rates. The tax rates have not increased in this country in 16 years, and they did under Bill Clinton in 1993. He increased one tax rate, the top tax rate, and President Bush then immediately cut it as his first order of business.

[...]SHUSTER: Is this a Faustian sort of thing for GOP leaders? I mean, meaning that maybe they know all of this has the effect of marginalizing the Republican Party, but in return, they can point to the publicity and say to their moneymen, “Hey, look, at least we‘re doing something”?

O‘DONNELL: That‘s what this is. This is a—this is truly desperate. And it‘s so desperate that people don‘t really want to formally attach their names to it. They don‘t really want to be seen as the leaders of it.

It‘s a—it‘s a one-day protest aimed at nothing Barack Obama has actually done. It is aimed at the tax code that has been imposed on this country by a Republican Congress and a Republican president, who was previously the champion of exactly these protesters.

And so, it is a completely wrong-headed approach to what‘s going on. They‘ve picked April 15th as rage day for taxpayers. And there‘s not a single taxpayer out there who is paying a new Barack Obama tax rate. That doesn‘t exist.

Does The Taliban Control Pakistan?

They already do. Or at least some provinces in Pakistan? And it's only a matter of time before they control Afghanistan--again. If the militants gain full control of Pakistan, and their nukes, it will be a complete nightmare for the U.S. It is this situation that will probably destroy Barack Obama's presidency. Just as Vietnam undermined Johnson and Nixon.

Obama Speech on the Economy: Transcript (4-14-09)

This was an excellent speech from a politician who has a clue. Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

You know, it's been 12 weeks now since my administration began. And I think that even our critics would agree that at the very least, we've been busy. (Laughter.) In just under three months, we've responded to an extraordinary set of economic challenges with extraordinary action -- action that's been unprecedented both in terms of its scale and its speed.


And I know that some have accused us of taking on too much at once. Others believe we haven't done enough. And many Americans are simply wondering how all of our different programs and policies fit together in a single, overarching strategy that will move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.


So today, I want to step back for a moment and explain our strategy as clearly as I can. This is going to be prose, and not poetry. I want to talk about what we've done, why we've done it, and what we have left to do. I want to update you on the progress we've made, but I also want to be honest about the pitfalls that may still lie ahead.


Most of all, I want every American to know that each action we take and each policy we pursue is driven by a larger vision of America's future -- a future where sustained economic growth creates good jobs and rising incomes; a future where prosperity is fueled not by excessive debt, or reckless speculation, or fleeting profits, but is instead built by skilled, productive workers, by sound investments that will spread opportunity at home and allow this nation to lead the world in the technologies and the innovation and discoveries that will shape the 21st century. That's the America I see. That's the America that Georgetown is preparing so many of you for. That is the future that I know that we can have.


Now, to understand how we get there, we first need to understand how we got here.


Recessions are not uncommon. Markets and economies naturally ebb and flow, as we've seen many times in our history. But this recession is different. This recession was not caused by a normal downturn in the business cycle. It was caused by a perfect storm of irresponsibility and poor decision-making that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.


As has been widely reported, it started in the housing market. During the course of the decade, the formula for buying a house changed: Instead of saving their pennies to buy their dream house, many Americans found that suddenly they could take out loans that by traditional standards their incomes just could not support. Others were tricked into signing these subprime loans by lenders who were trying to make a quick profit. The reason these loans were so readily available was that Wall Street saw big profits to be made. Investment banks would buy and package together these questionable mortgages into securities, arguing that by pooling the mortgages the risks had somehow been reduced. And credit agencies that are supposed to help investors determine the soundness of various investments stamped the securities with their safest rating when they should have been labeled "Buyer Beware."


No one really knew what the actual value of these securities were, no one fully understood what the risks were. But since the housing market was booming and prices were rising, banks and investors just kept buying and selling them, always passing off the risk to someone else for a greater profit without having to take any of the ultimate responsibility. Banks took on more debt than they could handle.


The government-chartered companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose traditional mandate was to help support traditional mortgages, decided to get in on the action by buying and holding billions of dollars of these securities. AIG, the biggest insurer in the world that had a very traditional insurance business that was very profitable, decided to make profits suddenly by selling billions of dollars of complicated financial instruments that supposedly insured these securities. Everybody was making record profits -- except the wealth created was real only on paper. And as the bubble grew, there was almost no accountability or oversight from anyone in Washington.