Britain Complicit in Bush-Cheney Torture Conspiracy

It makes sense. Bush-Cheney could not have pulled off their rendition campaigns without the complicity of foreign governments in Europe. It is an international scandal.

The attorney general is to be asked to investigate two more cases of alleged MI5 complicity in torture of men detained in Pakistan. Lawyers representing Rangzieb Ahmed and Salahuddin Amin are to ask Lady Scotland to consider possible criminal wrongdoing.

The move comes after Scotland called in the Metropolitan police to investigate allegations that MI5 colluded in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, who was held for almost seven years in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, and finally Guantánamo.

There are also reports that MI5 and MI6 have admitted there are other cases in which their officers raised concerns about the possible torture of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan during the conflict that followed the 9/11 attacks.

Citing "security sources", today's Daily Telegraph reports that "senior officials in both MI5 and MI6 have reviewed their files and fear that 15 similar cases could also lead to police investigations".

However, lawyers for British citizens held in Pakistan and Egypt, and allegedly tortured, say the official policy, known to have been devised to allow UK intelligence officers to interrogate detainees shortly after 9/11, was later employed to facilitate the torture of people held during British-led counter-terrorism operations.

President Obama Internet Townhall Transcript: 3-26-09

Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

DR. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. President. Our first question comes from Boston, Massachusetts, on the topic of education: "The Founding Fathers believe that there is no difference between a free society and an educated society. Our educational system, however, is woefully inadequate. How do you plan to restore education as a right and core cultural value in America?"

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a great question, and -- let me see if this mic works so that I'm not stuck at this podium. I'm here only because of the education I received. I wasn't born into wealth, I wasn't born into fame, but I had parents who cared about education and grandparents who cared about education, and I was lucky enough, through scholarships and sacrifice on the part of my family, to get the best education that America has to offer.

Too many of our children aren't getting that kind of education. It's not because their parents don't believe in the value of education; it's not because these young people are less talented. It's because of two reasons: One, in many cases, our schools are under-resourced. There aren't enough teachers; the teachers aren't getting enough of the training they need for the classroom; there's a shortage of supplies. Some of the schools that I visited during the course of traveling around the country just shock the conscience. There are schools that I've seen that were built in the 1850s that are still being used but haven't been upgraded the way they need to.

Now, there's a second problem, though, and it's one that money alone cannot solve, and that is that we have a school system that was designed for the agricultural era -- there's a reason why we've got three months off during the summer. That's supposed to be when everybody is working on -- out on the farm and bringing in harvest. And it's not just the amount of time our kids are spending, it's how our classrooms are designed, how curriculums are structured, how things like teacher promotion and training happen.

So a lot of times in Washington we get an argument about money versus reform. And the key thing to understand about our education system is we need more resources and we need reform. If we just put more money into a system that's designed for the 19th century and we're in the 21st, we're not going to get the educational outcomes we need. On the other hand, if we talk a lot about reform but we're not willing to put more resources in, that's not going to work.

So let me give you just a couple examples of what we need to do. Early childhood education we know works. Let's invest in that. That's what my budget calls for -- substantial investment; every dollar we invest in early childhood education, we get potentially $10 back in improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates and so forth.

Number two, let's focus on the most important ingredient in the school, and that's the teacher. Let's pay our teachers more money. Let's give them more support. Let's give them more training. Let's make sure that schools of education that are training our teachers are up to date with the best methods to teach our kids. And let's work with teachers so that we are providing them measures of whether they're effective or not, and let's hold them accountable for being effective.

Now that doesn't mean just a single high-stakes standardized test. It also means that we're working with teachers to determine, what's the best way to discipline -- maintain discipline in a classroom? What's the best way to get kids excited about science? Giving them the time and the resources to improve, but also having high standards of expectation in terms of their performance.

If we do early childhood education, if we focus on teacher training, if we invest in math and science education, which is vital -- and we're falling behind other countries on that front -- then I actually feel pretty confident that we can out-compete any country in the world. But it's going to take more money and it's going to take more reform and it's going to take, by the way, openness to innovation on things like charter schools or performance pay. There are a whole range of things that may work, in some cases may not work, but we've got to try some new things because right now too many of our kids are stuck, and we can't afford to lose them.

DR. BERNSTEIN: The next question is on homeownership, from Heather from Ohio: "President Obama, what benefits from the stimulus plan are there to those of us who are paying our mortgages but living paycheck to paycheck?"

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mentioned this in the opening remarks. This is something that I really want everybody to understand. Our housing plan -- and we're devoting $50 billion to it -- has a number of different components. One component is setting up a mechanism where people who just can't afford their mortgage right now are able to renegotiate with banks, and the banks lower their interest, and the homeowner assures that they're going to make a commitment to pay a certain amount every month, and the government helps to step in to bridge the gap. But the point is, it's going to be cheaper, not only for that family but also potentially for the entire community, if they stay in their home.

And so that's -- that part of the housing plan is targeted for folks who are really in distress. They're getting close to the point where they might be losing their home.

But there are a whole bunch of folks out there who are not about to walk away from their home, but are getting killed right now because their home values have dropped drastically; they're still making payments, but they're in trouble. And for that huge set of responsible homeowners out there, I want people to understand what we've done is created mechanisms in the credit markets that have lowered mortgage rates down to historic levels, and what we've done is we've opened it up so that FHA loans that used to be only for people with a certain mortgage level, that we are using FHA and other mechanisms to open up refinancings to a whole bunch of homeowners who previously weren't qualified.

So now what you've got is a situation where 40 percent of the people sitting here, 40 percent of the people who are participating in this virtual town hall, could potentially refinance their mortgage. And they've got to take advantage of that. We are providing additional support from the government in order to facilitate those refinancings. We're starting to see refinancings go up significantly.

So you have the potential to cut your monthly payments, but you've got to take advantage of it. And if you need more information, you can go on our web site, whitehouse.gov, or you can contact your local bank and find out whether you qualify to participate in this refinancing.

U.S., Mexico to Intensify Fight Against Violent Drug Gangs

Nothing will work unless the supply of guns going into Mexico from the U.S. and the supply of drugs coming into the U.S. are reduced dramatically. Hillary is right. It is the U.S. craving of drugs that fuels the cartels.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that Mexico and the United States had agreed to develop a "checklist" of tasks for both sides to intensify the fight against Mexican drug gangs engaged in a bloody turf war.

Speaking near the end of a two-day visit, Clinton said the list would include timelines committing the United States to speed up delivery of drug-fighting aid and getting Mexico to move faster on reforming its judicial and law enforcement institutions.

[...]More than 7,000 people have been killed since January 2008 in attacks by traffickers on their competitors and security forces.

Clinton called on Mexicans to support their government's fight against the gangs and urged students to use the Internet to send tips on illegal activity to authorities.

Geithner, Bernanke Congressional Testimony: Transcript (3-24-09)

The Treasury Secretary Geithner, and Fed Chairman, Bernanke, were grilled during Congressional testimony Tuesday. Also includes comments by CNN pundits and reporters. Read the transcript. Excerpt below:

GEITHNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As we've seen with AIG, the stress at large complex financial institutions can pose risks as dangerous as those that led the United States to establish a full framework of tools for dealing with banks.

We need to extend those protections and authorities to cover the risks posed by our more diverse and complicated financial system today. And we are proposing legislation the provide those tools and look forward to working with this committee and the Congress to pass such legislation as quickly as possible.

The proposed resolution authority would allow the government to provide financial assistance to make loans to an institution, to purchase its obligations or assets, to assume or guarantee its liabilities, and purchase an equity interest.

U.S. government as conservator or receiver would have additional powers to sell or transfer the assets or liabilities of the institution in question, to renegotiate or repudiate the institution's contracts, and prevent certain financial contracts with the institution from being terminated on account of conservatorship or receivership.

This proposed legislation would fill a significant void in the current financial services regulatory restructure in respect to these large complex institutions, and implementation would be modeled on the resolution authority that the FDIC has under current law with respect to banks.

This is an extraordinary time for our country, and your government has been forced to take extraordinary measures. We will do what is necessary to stabilize our financial system and, with the help of the Congress, develop the tools we need to make our economy more resistant -- more resilient and our financial system more stable and more just.

We need to work together to create an environment where it's safe to save and invest and where all Americans can trust the rules governing their financial decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

FRANK: Mr. Bernanke?

BEN BERNANKE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Thank you.

Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus and other members of the committee, I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss the Federal Reserve's involvement with AIG.

In my testimony, I will describe why supporting AIG was a difficult but necessary step to protect our economy and stabilize our financial system. I will also discuss issues related to compensation. I know of two matters raised by this experience that merit congressional attention.

We at the Federal Reserve, working closely with the Treasury, made our decision to lend to AIG on September 16th of last year. It was an extraordinary time. Global financial markets were experiencing unprecedented strains and a worldwide loss of confidence.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been placed into conservatorship only two weeks earlier, and Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy the day before. We were very concerned about a number of other major firms that were under intense stress.

AIG's financial condition had been deteriorating for some time, caused by actual and expected losses on subprime mortgage-backed securities and on credit default swaps that AIG's financial products unit, AIG-FP had written on mortgage-related securities.

As confidence in the firm declined and with efforts to find a private sector solution unsuccessful, AIG faced severe liquidity pressures that threatened to force it imminently into bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury agreed that AIG's failure under the conditions set for failing...

FRANK: Please, with all -- no, you understood. You had the sign up. The next one that holds a sign -- it is distracting to people. I understand that there are some people for whom rational discussion is not an appropriate means of expressing themselves.

You are entitled to do that in general, but not in a way that interrupts those of us who are trying to have rational discussions. So the next one that holds a sign will be ejected.

I do not know how you think you advance any cause to which you might be attached by this kind of silliness.

Mr. Bernanke, please proceed.

BERNANKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury agreed that AIG's failure under the conditions then prevailing would have posed unacceptable risks for the global financial system and for our economy.

Some of AIG's insurance subsidiaries, which are among the largest in the United States and in the world, would have likely been put rehabilitation by their regulators, leaving policy holders facing considerable uncertainty about the status of their claims.

State and local government entities that had lent more than $10 billion to AIG would have suffered losses. Workers whose 401(k) plans had been purchased -- had purchased $40 billion of insurance from AIG against the risk that their stable value funds would decline in value would have seen that insurance disappear.

Global banks and investment banks would have suffered losses on loans and lines of credit to AIG and on derivatives with AIG-FP The banks' combined exposure exceeded $50 billion. Money market mutual funds and others that held AIG's roughly $20 billion of commercial paper would also have taken losses.

In addition, AIG's insurance subsidiaries had substantial derivatives exposure to AIG-FP that could have weakened them in the event of the parent company's failure.

Moreover, as the Lehman case clearly demonstrates, focusing on the direct effects of a default on AIG's counterparties understates the risk to the financial system as a whole. Once begun, a financial crisis can spread unpredictably.

For example, Lehman's default on its commercial paper caused a prominent money market mutual fund to break the buck and suspend withdrawals, which in turn ignited a general run on prime money market mutual funds with resulting severe stresses in the commercial paper market.

As I mentioned, AIG had about $20 billion in commercial paper outstanding, so its failure would have exacerbated the problems of the money market mutual funds.

Another worrisome possibility was that uncertainties about the safety of insurance products could have led to a run on the broader insurance industry by policy holders and creditors.

Moreover, it was well known in the market that many major financial institutions had large exposures to AIG. Its failure would likely have led financial market participants to pull back even more from commercial and investment banks and those institutions perceived as weaker would have faced escalating pressure.

Recall that these events took place before the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act which provided the funds that the Treasury used to help stem a global banking panic in October.

Consequently, it is unlikely that the failure of additional major firms could have been prevented in the wake of a failure of AIG. At best, the consequences of AIG's failure would have been a significant intensification of an already severe financial crisis and a further worsening of global economic conditions.

Conceivably, its failure could have resulted in a 1930-style global financial and economic meltdown with catastrophic implications for production, income and jobs.

The decision by the Federal Reserve on September 16th, 2008 with the full support of the Treasury to lend up to $85 billion to AIG should be viewed with this background in mind.

At that time, no federal entity could provide capital to stabilize AIG and no federal or state entity outside of a bankruptcy court could wind down AIG.

Unfortunately, federal bankruptcy laws do not sufficiently protect the public's strong interest in ensuring the orderly resolution of non-depository financial institutions when a failure could pose substantial systemic risks, which is why I have called on the Congress to develop new emergency resolution procedures.

However, the Federal Reserve did have the authority to lend on a fully secured basis, consistent with our emergency lending authority provided by the Congress and our responsibility as the central bank to maintain financial stability.

We took as collateral for our loan AIG's pledge of a substantial portion of its assets, including its ownership in its domestic and foreign insurance subsidiaries.

This decision bought time for subsequent actions by the Congress, the Treasury, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve that have avoided further failures of systemically important institutions and have supported improvements in key credit markets.

Having lent AIG money to avert the risk of a global financial meltdown, we found ourselves in the uncomfortable situation of overseeing both the preservation of its value and its dismantling, a role quite different from our usual activities.

We have devoted considerable resources to this effort and have engaged outside advisers.

Using our rights as creditor, we have worked with AIG's new management team to begin the difficult process of winding down AIG-FP and to oversee the company's restructuring and divestiture strategy.

Progress is being made on both fronts. However, financial turmoil and a worsening economy since September have contributed to large losses at the company, and the Federal Reserve has found it necessary to restructure and extend our support. In addition, under its troubled asset relief program, the Treasury injected capital into AIG in both November and March. Throughout this difficult period, our goals have remained unchanged -- to protect our economy and preserve financial stability and to position AIG to repay the Federal Reserve and return the Treasury's investment as quickly as possible.

In our role as creditor, we have made clear to AIG's management, beginning last fall, our deep concern surrounding compensation issues at AIG. We believe it is in the taxpayers' interest for AIG to retain qualified staff, to maintain the value of the businesses that must be sold to repay the government's assistance.

Root Cause of Financial Collapse: Maddow Transcript

The Maddow show for 3-25 describes what could be the root cause of the current financial crisis:

MADDOW: For a country pretty much unanimously focused on a single subject, it`s amazing that stuff we are forgetting, they were just not factoring into the equation about why we ended up with this chicken fried, petrified, run-and-hide economy. Apparently, we are supposed to think that nobody could have seen this coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD CHENEY, FMR. U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think some of the best financial minds in the country didn`t see it coming.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: No, we didn`t see it coming.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: But I don`t really know of hardly anybody who exceptionally had said, "Wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Who could have possibly seen this coming? Nobody could have seen it. It was totally unforeseeable force majeure.

(INAUDIBLE)

Join me now on a trip through the time machine, (INAUDIBLE), going back to 1999. All right, 10 years ago. The year the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was born. This bill was introduced by three Republicans: Gramm, Leach, Bliley, duh. And it removed a Great Depression era regulation that had said that banks, and investments banks and insurance companies all had to be separate.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley cleared the way for big financial companies to be all of those things wrapped into one. Big companies with huge internal incentives to take risks, companies that were so complicated they couldn`t really be regulated, and companies that were so big that the government felt that they could not be allowed to fail.

At the time, in 1999, when this was being debated, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota saw it coming, like he should have a psychic show in Vegas-level saw it coming. On May 6th, 1999, on the Senate floor, Mr. Dorgan said, quote, "This bill will, in my judgment, raise the likelihood of future massive taxpayer bailouts." $1 trillion is massive, right?

Well, to the "New York Times" on November 5th, 1999, Senator Dorgan said, quote "I think we will look back in 10 years` time and say, we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lesson of the past, and that which is true in the 1930s is also true in 2010."

So here it is 2009, and I`m thinking -- dude, at the time we worried about Y2K.

Joining us now Cassandra, I mean, Democratic senator from North Dakota, Byron Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan, thank you so much for joining us.

SEN. BYRON DORGAN, (D) NORTH DAKOTA: Hi, Rachel. How are you?

MADDOW: Great. Thank you.

You`ve been getting accolades in the blog world and now on this show, for having been right in 1999 when you rang alarm bells over the deregulation. At that time, when you were saying, we are going to look back at this in 10 years and say this was a big mess, did you really foresee there would be a crisis this big?

DORGAN: Well, I`m not -- I`m not necessarily sure I saw this big a crisis. But I said at the time, the banks -- I said, if you want to gamble go to Las Vegas. I mean, this was not about a crystal ball. It was just common sense at that time.

You know, in the 1930s, we saw banks merge with, you know, real estate and security risks and the whole thing collapsed, `20s and `30s, and -- so, we put in place, I wasn`t here, but they put in place laws like Glass- Steagall to prevent all of that. And then, 1999, we were told, that`s so old fashioned. Let`s strip that away and allow big financial holding companies, one stop financial shopping.

And I thought it was nuts. I mean, how on earth could we forget the lessons that were so important that we learned so well and with such pain about seven decades prior?

MADDOW: Ten years ago, when Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed and gutted that important -- that essentially gutted Glass-Steagall, an important law that just described, Lawrence Summers was treasury secretary at the time. And he said when that deregulation bill passed, that it was historic legislation that would enable American companies to compete in the new economy.

DORGAN: Yes, well .

MADDOW: I have to ask you, if it sort of freaks you out that he`s now one of the main guys trying to get us of out of the mess that this deregulation caused?

DORGAN: Well, I sat across the table from him at the White House two days ago. You know, there is a culture. And the culture is that Wall Street knows best. You know, there were only eight of us in the United States Senate that voted no. This was a huge deal to repeal the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression, a huge deal. Eight of us voted no.

This allowed these huge financial holding companies, allowed to bring significant risk into the banks, and, you know, they just ran hog wild. And now, we`re in a situation in 2009 where we`ve seen this financial crisis and collapse, massive taxpayer bailouts. You know, now, the question is: How do we put this back together and get out of this deep hole?

MADDOW: That`s exactly right. And what`s coming next is the discussion of not just how to rescue us but how to put the financial system back together in a way that it doesn`t happen again and that these lessons are learned.

I was struck in looking at the "New York Times" coverage of Gramm- Leach-Bliley passing in 1999, Phil Gramm of Texas who wrote that bill said, "We have a new century coming, we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall came at a time when the thinking was that government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer."

That was what he said in 1999 when this passed. We know what the disastrous results of that were. Who is going to lead the cause, I think, of convincing the American people and really convincing Congress that we sort of need to believe sometimes that government is the answer? There is a philosophical status of this legislation .

DORGAN: Yes.

MADDOW: . as well as just a strategic one.

DORGAN: Well, and the other thing, immediately after this legislation passed, it stripped away all those protections and allowed all the big banks to marry up and decide that they loved each other and want to get together and merge, immediately after that, George W. Bush came to town as a new president and he hired regulators who were willing to boast about being willfully blind. They didn`t want to regulate. They said, you know what, it`s a new day. There`s a new sheriff in town, the sheriff is not interested in watching what you do.

And the result is, we saw, you know, all of these credit default swaps and CDOs, all these exotic financial instruments, these derivatives -- you know, in 1996, I wrote the cover story for "Washington Monthly" magazine on the subject of derivatives and pointed out there were tens of trillions of dollars of derivatives out there. The title of my cover story for the "Washington Monthly" magazine was, "Very Risky Business."

And I had four different bills to try to regulate derivatives and hedge funds. I hope now, perhaps most people will understand in the Congress and, I think, the American people understand, we need regulation. It`s not a four-letter word. We need effective regulation.

MADDOW: I have this kooky idea that people who were right when everybody else was wrong and we did the wrong thing -- I have this kooky idea that the people who are right are the ones who should be allowed to decide what happens next time. So, could you like sort of being in charge of figuring out what regulations we need the next time around just when this comes up in the Senate a couple of times ?

DORGAN: I`d be happy to.

MADDOW: All right.

DORGAN: I`d be happy to. But let me tell you what else we need, we need a select committee in the United States Senate with subpoena power that gives us the narrative of what happens so that everybody understands what happened. We need a financial crimes prosecution task force down at the Justice Department right now, working on these issues, and we need to restore a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act to say to banks: You`re over here and the riskier things are over here and we are not going to bring you together again -- never again.

Obama News Conference Transcript (3-24-09)

Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Your Treasury secretary and the Fed chair have been -- were on Capitol Hill today, asking for this new authority that you want to regulate big, complex financial institutions. But given the problems that the financial bailout program has had so far -- banks not wanting to talk about how they’re spending the money, the AIG bonuses that you mentioned -- why do you think the public should sign on for another new, sweeping authority for the government to take over companies, essentially?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse. Now, understand that AIG’s not a bank, it’s an insurance company. If it were a bank and it had effectively collapsed, then the FDIC could step in, as it does with a whole host of banks -- as it did with IndyMac -- and in a structured way renegotiate contracts, get rid of bad assets, strengthen capital requirements, resell it on the private marketplace.

So we’ve got a regular mechanism whereby we deal with FDIC-insured banks. We don’t have that same capacity with an institution like AIG, and that’s part of the reason why it has proved so problematic. I think a lot of people understandably say: Well, if we’re putting all this money in there, and if it’s such a big systemic risk to allow AIG to liquidate, why is it that we can’t restructure some of these contracts? Why can’t we do some of the things that need to be done in a more orderly way? And the reason is -- is because we have not obtained this authority.

We should have obtained it much earlier, so that any institution that poses a systemic risk that could bring down the financial system we can handle, and we can do it in an orderly fashion that quarantines it from other institutions. We don’t have that power right now. That’s what Secretary Geithner was talking about.

And I think that there’s going to be strong support from the American people and from Congress to provide that authority so that we don’t find ourselves in a situation where we’ve got to choose between either allowing an enormous institution like AIG, which is not just insuring other banks but is also insuring pension funds and potentially putting people’s 401(k)s at risk if it goes under -- that’s one choice -- and then the other choice is just to allow them to take taxpayer money without the kind of conditions that we’d like to see on it. So that’s why I think the authority’s so important. QUESTION: But why should the public trust the government to handle that authority well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said before, if you look at how the FDIC has handled a situation like IndyBank, for example, it actually does these kinds of resolutions effectively when it’s got the tools to do it.

We don’t have the tools right now.

[...]QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Some have compared this financial crisis to a war, and in times of war, past presidents have called for some form of sacrifice. Some of your programs, whether for Main Street or Wall Street, have actually cushioned the blow for those that were irresponsible during this -- during this economic period of prosperity or supposed prosperity that you were talking about.

Why, given this new era of responsibility that you’re asking for, why haven’t you asked for something specific that the public should be sacrificing to participate in this economic recovery?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me -- let me take that question in a couple -- couple of phases. First of all, it’s not true that we have not asked sacrifice from people who are getting taxpayer money. We have imposed some very stiff conditions. The only problem that we’ve had so far are contracts that were put in place before we took over.

But moving forward, anybody -- any bank, for example, that is receiving capital from the taxpayers is going to have to have some very strict conditions in terms of how it pays out its executives, how it pays out dividend, how it’s reporting its lending practices. So we want to make sure that there’s some stiff conditions in place.

With respect to the American people, I think folks are sacrificing left and right. They -- you’ve got a lot of parents who are cutting back on everything to make sure that their kids can still go to college. You’ve got workers who are deciding to cut an entire day and entire day’s worth of pay so that their fellow co-workers aren’t laid off. I think that across the board people are making adjustments, large and small, to accommodate the fact that we’re in very difficult times right now.

What I’ve said here in Washington is that we’ve got to make some tough choices. We got to make some tough budgetary choices. What we can’t do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth investments that are critical to the future. And that’s why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education -- the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we’ve seen over the last several years. I mean, when you have an economy in which the majority of growth is coming from the financial sector -- when AIG selling a derivative is counted as an increase in the gross domestic -- domestic product, then that’s not a model for sustainable economic growth.

And what we have to do is invest in those things that will allow the American people’s capacity for ingenuity and innovation, their ability to take risks but make sure that those risks are grounded in good products and good services that they believe they can market to the rest of the country, that those models of economic growth are what we’re promoting, and that’s what I think our budget does.

Poll: 61% Approve of President Obama's Handling of the Economy

The Republicans must be in a panic. The economy is not tanking and the public still supports the President.

For the first time since he became president, a significant number of Americans are expressing disapproval of Barack Obama’s actions in a specific area: His handling of the AIG bonus situation.

Despite the middling reviews for his handling of the bonuses, however, the president continues to get high marks overall for his job performance and his handling of the economy.

Forty-two percent of those surveyed disapprove of the president’s handling of the AIG bonuses, while roughly the same percentage - 41 percent - approve. Another 17 percent don’t know or aren’t sure.

Yet President Obama’s overall job performance rating appears unaffected by the AIG fallout. Sixty-four percent approve of the president’s performance, roughly the same as last week.

And ratings for the president’s handling of the overall economy are actually up slightly: Sixty-one percent now approve, up from 56 percent last week.

The poll numbers can be explained in part by the fact that most Americans do not think there was much the Obama administration could have done about the bonuses. Only 12 percent think the administration had a lot of control over the payouts, while more than half say the administration had little or no control.

The public is right. President Obama could have done a better job dealing with the AIG mess:

Even so, 56 percent of Americans say the administration ought to have found some way to stop the bonuses from being paid out. Thirty-four percent said it should not have.

And we don't think that Geithner is the problem:

While Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been much-criticized in Washington for his handling of the bonus situation, that criticism is not shared by most Americans. About half express confidence in Geithner’s overall ability to deal with the nation’s economic crisis, though only 13 percent have a lot of confidence in him right now.

The President not spending enough time on the economy? It is the Congress that needs to spend more time on the crisis. And the media should stop hyping the AIG mess:

Nearly half of Americans say President Obama is spending the right amount of time dealing with the bonuses, and the rest are split on whether he is paying too much attention (24 percent) or too little attention (21 percent) to the issue.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans - 53 percent - think Congress is spending too little time trying to solve the nation’s broader economic problems. And 40 percent believe the media is too focused on AIG and that they should be spending more time focused on other issues.

More bad news for the Republicans:

U.S. home prices rose 1.7% in January compared with December, the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported Tuesday. It was the first monthly increase in a year.

Home prices are down 6.3% in the past year and are down 9.6% from the peak in April 2006, the agency said. In December, the year-over-year decline was 8.8%.

Falling home values have helped to plunge the global financial system into chaos because of mortgage-backed securities. Homeowners have lost trillions of dollars of wealth.
The "unexpected rise" in January was partially due to stronger sales in some markets, FHFA said. The FHFA index attempts to control for such changes in sales patterns, but the adjustment is not perfect, the agency said. The agency warned that its estimate was uncertain and subject to large revisions.
December's index, originally reported as a 0.1% increase, was revised down to a 0.2% decline.
"While this is certainly good news, in our view it is too soon to call a turnaround in the cycle," wrote Charmaine Buskas, a senior economist for TD Securities. "We will have to see several consecutive months of improved prices before a true turnaround can be called, and a significant inventory overhang remains."
Prices rose or were flat in eight of nine regions in January; only the Pacific states registered a decline, down 0.9%. Prices rose 3.9% in the East North Central region, which includes most of the Great Lakes states. Prices rose 3.6% in the South Atlantic region (from Delaware to Florida).

In the past year, prices are down in all nine regions, led by the Pacific with a 21.1% decline. The smallest price decline has been the 0.4% drop in the West South Central (which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana).

Rush must be dejected:

Sales of existing homes jumped 15.6 percent in the Northeast last month, according to a new report from the National Association of Realtors.

On a national level, existing home sales were up 5.1 percent in February, the report found.

Neocon Bill Kristol Calls Obama an "Embarassment"

Kristol is one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq. He pushed for war with Iran during the Bush administration. While appearing on FOX News Sunday Kristol insults the President. Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

WALLACE: That was a video message from President Obama in which he seemed to turn the page on President Bush’s policy in recognizing the government of Iran.

And we’re back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

So, Bill Kristol, you have an editorial in the new Weekly Standard in which I think it’s fair to say that you do not applaud the president’s message to Iran or his new policy. What’s wrong with it?

KRISTOL: You know, it’s an embarrassment. There’s no statement of solidarity with the people of Iran -- the word “liberty,” the word “freedom,” the word “democracy,” the words “human rights” nowhere in the message.

He speaks to the leaders of Iran who have imprisoned Americans in the last couple of months and American journalists who -- an Iranian blogger died in prison last week -- not a word about that. But he speaks to the leaders of Iran and promises them respect.

And it’s a gesture -- it’s weak, and I think the Iranians took it as a weak statement since they immediately showed contempt for it and said, “Well, that’s nice talk. Now follow up with some actions. Remove the sanctions.”

And I suppose now Obama will be under pressure -- he’ll feel that to really be nice to the Iranians, he’s now got to -- you know, he doesn’t mention the nuclear program, incidentally, in the statement. No, it’s a weak and embarrassing statement by a president of the United States. I hope it doesn’t actually have damaging effects.

WILLIAMS: Well, I couldn’t disagree more. I mean, it seems to me this is the start of a new year there, and this was a new year statement and an attempt to sort of set forth new diplomatic opportunities to say we are going to view you as a government. He didn’t use the term regime of President Bush’s vintage. Instead, he says, “We view you as a government, but at the same time, you can only gain credibility in the international community by peaceful means, not through use of terror.” And I think he speaks very clearly, if not, you know, powerfully, to the idea that there are alternatives here for the U.S., but we now choose to try to engage you, to speak to you.

And their decision to, you know, come back, you know, with -- sort of disrespectfully -- I think that speaks to them, but it says to the international community the United States is trying its best to work this out peacefully and, therefore, Russia and the European community might do something with the United States.

WALLACE: Brit, one of the things that the foreign policy people have noticed is that twice in his address, he talked specifically about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which President Bush never did -- and see that as him taking regime change of the Islamic fundamentalists government there off the table.

HUME: Well, perhaps he did. You know, Condoleezza Rice said something to me last year that when she -- when she said it, I was surprised. She said almost no governments in the world practice diplomacy the way the United States does. “Huh?” I said. She said that is that we practice diplomacy always backed up by the possibility or even the threat of some force -- forceful action, whether it be economic or whatever.

She said most governments in the world think diplomacy -- you don’t do that. You talk, and then when that doesn’t work, you talk some more, and then you keep talking, and eventually you hope through diplomacy of this kind to persuade regimes that you’re having trouble with to behave differently.

Well, it appears that Barack Obama , by this statement, has joined the rest of the world. She said -- Rice told me -- she said the United States does it that way, the Brits do to some extent, and the Australians do. Well, it appears that President Obama has joined the rest of the world in practicing the diplomacy of talk.

WALLACE: Mara, let me -- the White House officials make two arguments to explain what President Obama did. They say, one, it’s important to play the diplomatic card first, to show good faith, so that if it fails, then you can go back to the allies and ask for tougher sanctions.

And two, they say there are Iranian presidential elections coming up this summer. This kind of moderate talk perhaps undercuts the hardliners.

LIASSON: Well, I don’t know about the second part. The first part I agree with. I don’t think the damage by this videotape is going to be great, and I do think it gives Obama a firmer leg to stand on when he tells the Europeans, “I tried this, I got no response. Now I want you to join with me in these tougher sanctions.”

Now, the second one, whether this kind of a statement can actually influence the Iranian elections -- I don’t know. I think that, you know, the initial reaction from Iran was very hostile, and it came from the ayatollahs, but what -- you know, we’re told by experts in Iran that sometimes it takes a couple weeks for them to actually formulate their response to...

HUME: The worst thing that...

LIASSON: ... something, and this is the placeholder.

HUME: The worst thing that could happen would be for the Iranian government to respond favorably and positively and want to engage and have a discussion. And then we would be on a track like that which will lead nowhere in the end.

I mean, it’s not as if there’s not enough evidence to figure out what kind of government this is and what its intentions are. That’s been abundantly clear for many, many years.

And a -- and a -- and an endless round of talk -- first, there’d be talks about talks, and then there’d be talks, and then there’d be talking, and in the meanwhile the Iranian regime would continue to do what it’s been doing, but everybody in the world would sit by nodding affirmatively that this is the right approach. It’d go nowhere.

WALLACE: But, Bill Kristol -- Bill Kristol, the -- President Bush didn’t recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran. He didn’t engage in diplomacy without preconditions. Where did that get us?

KRISTOL: It got us three rounds of sanctions agreed to by the U.N. and by the Europeans. Why did the Europeans...

WALLACE: But did the sanctions have any effect on Iran?

KRISTOL: Well, if not, then we have to consider the use of force. But if you want more sanctions -- the reason the Europeans went with sanctions is because we were threatening. It’s because we deposed Saddam Hussein, and that’s when they got interested in sanctions suddenly, in late 2003, and because they were worried that the Bush administration might actually do something.

With Obama taking the threat of force basically off the table, the willingness of the Europeans and certainly of the Russians to be serious about sanctions is going to diminish. Appeasement begets appeasement. Appeasement does not -- appeasement does not lay the groundwork for toughness among your allies who already are weaker.

WALLACE: Juan?

WILLIAMS: Why do you think -- why do you think that he’s taken anything off the table? He simply offered...

KRISTOL: Here’s why.

WILLIAMS: ... an opportunity to have a discussion.

The second point to make is in terms of these elections that are scheduled, I think that you have to have some faith in the Iranian people that they are, in fact, hoping for some moderation and change and view this as an opportunity to isolate the hardliners.

WALLACE: All right.

KRISTOL: If they could vote for someone who wasn’t a hardliner, they might vote for people. But they’re...

WALLACE: That’s change.

KRISTOL: It’s not a free country.

Without Video Tibet Resistance Ignored

For a brief period of time the plight of the Tibetan people was in the minds of humanity. But without video they've been once again relegated to non-relevance. The media in the West only cares about an issue if there are pictures. So it doesn't matter how many people are slaughtered (witness Rwanda, Zimbabwe, the AIDS plague, Darfur, etc.,etc.):

Police arrested nearly 100 monks after hundreds of Tibetans attacked a police station and government officials in northwestern China, state media reported.

All but two of the 95 arrested Sunday were monks, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

The Tibetans were arrested for their involvement in a violent protest Saturday apparently triggered by the disappearance of a Tibetan who escaped from police custody in Qinghai province, Xinhua said.

A Tibetan exile said the protest involved as many as 2,000 people and was sparked by the apparent suicide of a monk under investigation for unfurling a Tibetan flag.

Barack Obama on 60 Minutes: Transcript (3-22-09)

Read the full transcript. Excerpt below:

"Were you surprised by the intensity of the reaction, and the hostility from the AIG bonus debacle?" 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked.

"I wasn't surprised by it. Our team wasn't surprised by it. The one thing that I've tried to emphasize, though, throughout this week, and will continue to try to emphasize during the course of the next several months as we dig ourselves out of this economic hole that we're in, we can't govern outta anger. We've got to try to make good decisions based on the facts in order to put people back to work, to get credit flowing again. And I'm not gonna be distracted by what's happening day to day. I've gotta stay focused on making sure that we're getting this economy moving again," President Obama replied.

The president ordered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to use every legal means to recover the bonus money from AIG. If it is not repaid, it will be deducted from the company's next bailout payment. The House decided to extract its own revenge by passing a bill that would impose a tax of up to 90 percent on the AIG bonuses and on the bonuses of anyone making more than $250,000 a year who works for a financial institution receiving more than $5 billion in bailout funds.

"I mean you're a constitutional law professor," Kroft remarked. "You think this bill's constitutional?"

"Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people," the president replied. "I think that you've got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."

"You've got a piece of legislation that could affect tens of thousands of people. Some of these people probably had nothing to do with the financial crisis. And some of them probably deserve the bonuses that they got," Kroft said. "I mean is that fair?"

"Well, that's why we're gonna have to take a look at this legislation carefully. Clearly, the AIG folks gettin' those bonuses didn't make sense. And one of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we're in, they can't expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened. You get a sense that, in some institutions, that has not sunk in; that you can't go back to the old way of doing business, certainly not on the taxpayers' dime," Obama said. "Now the flip side is that Main Street has to understand, unless we get these banks moving again, then we can't get this economy to recover. And we don't wanna cut off our nose to spite our face."

"Your Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been under a lot of pressure this week. And there have been people in Congress calling for his head. …Have there been discussions in the White House about replacing him?" Kroft asked.

"No," Obama said.

Asked if Geithner had volunteered or asked whether to step down, Obama told Kroft, "No. And he shouldn't. And if he were to come to me, I'd say, 'Sorry, Buddy. You've still got the job.' But look, he's got a lot of stuff on his plate. And he is doing a terrific job. And I take responsibility for not, I think, having given him as much help as he needs."

Obama says Geithner is not only responsible for the banks, the bailouts and the automobile industry, he also has to make sure the money is being spent wisely and report to Congress. Yet nearly a dozen high level Treasury department jobs remain unfilled and Geithner still has no deputy. Two people under consideration for the post withdrew their names after going through the vetting process.

"You know, this whole confirmation process, as I mentioned earlier has gotten pretty tough. It's been always tough. It's gotten tougher in the age of 24/7 news cycles. And a lot of people who we think are about to serve in the administration and Treasury suddenly say, 'Well, you know what? I don't wanna go through some of the scrutiny, embarrassment, in addition to taking huge cuts in pay,'" Obama explained.

"Have you offered some of these high level positions [in] the Treasury to people who would have turned them down?" Kroft asked.

"Absolutely. Yeah. And not because people didn't wanna serve. I think that people just felt that, you know, that the process has gotten very onerous," Obama said.

"Your Treasury secretary's plan, Geithner's plan, and your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response. A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your…," Kroft said.

"And Warren still does support me. But I think that understand Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part-owner of a bank. You've got members of Congress who've got a different perspective. Which is, 'We don't wanna spend any more taxpayer money.' You've got a whole host of players, all of whom may have a completely different solution. Right?" Obama said.

President Obama on the Tonight Show: Transcript, Video (3-19-09)

This is the transcript for the program as provided by the White House. Excerpt and video below:

MR. LENO: And that was it. Big change?

MR. OBAMA: You know, I was mentioning earlier, we landed yesterday and then –- this is an example of life in the bubble. We landed at the fairground down in Costa Mesa. And I see the fairground where I think we're having this town hall and I said, well, why don't we walk over there? Secret Service says, no, sir, it's 750 yards. (Laughter.)


So I was trying to calculate –- well, that's like a five-minute walk? "Yes, sir. Sorry." (Laughter.)

Now, they let me walk on the way back. But, you know, the doctor is behind me with the defibrillator. (Laughter.)

MR. LENO: Wow.

MR. OBAMA: Michelle jokes about how our motorcade –- you know, we've got the ambulance and then the caboose and then the dog sled. (Laughter.) The submarine. (Laughter.) There's a whole bunch of stuff going on.

MR. LENO: Now it's only, what, 59 days now, right?

MR. OBAMA: Yes, 59 days.

MR. LENO: And so much scrutiny. Is it fair to judge so quickly? I mean –-

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, we are going through a difficult time. I welcome the challenge. You know, I ran for President because I thought we needed big changes. I do think in Washington it's a little bit like "American Idol," except everybody is Simon Cowell. (Laughter.)

MR. LENO: Wow. Wow. That's rough. (Applause.)

MR. OBAMA: Everybody's got an opinion. But that's part of what makes for a democracy. You know, it's contentious and people are hitting back.

I do think, though, that the American people are all in a place where they understand it took us a while to get into this mess, it's going to take a while for us to get out of it. And if they have confidence that I'm making steps to deal with issues like health care and energy and education, that matter deeply to their daily lives, then I think they're going to give us some time. (Applause.)

MR. LENO: Let me ask you about this. I know you are angry –- because, you know, doing what I do, you kind of study body language a little bit. And you looked very angry about these bonuses. Actually, stunned.

MR. OBAMA: Stunned. "Stunned" is the word.

MR. LENO: Tell people what happened. I know people have been over it, just –-

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, here's what happened. You've got a company, AIG, which used to be just a regular, old insurance company. Then they insured a whole bunch of stuff and they were very profitable and it was a good, solid company.

Then they decided –- some smart person decided, let's put a hedge fund on top of the insurance company and let's sell these derivative products to banks all around the world –- which are basically guarantees or insurance policies on all these sub-prime mortgages.

And this smart person said, you know, none of these things are going to go bust; this sub-prime thing, it's a great deal, you can make a lot of profit. So they sold a whole bunch of them –- billions and billions of dollars. And what happened is, is that when people started going bust on sub-prime mortgages you had $30 worth of debt on every dollar worth of mortgage –- and the whole house of cards just started falling down.

So the problem with AIG was that it owed so much and was tangled up with so many banks and institutions that if you had allowed it to just liquidate, to go into bankruptcy, it could have brought the whole financial system down. So it was the right thing to do to intervene in AIG.

Now, the question is, who in their right mind, when your company is going bust, decides we're going to be paying a whole bunch of bonuses to people? And that, I think, speaks to a broader culture that existed on Wall Street, where I think people just had this general attitude of entitlement, where, we must be the best and the brightest, we deserve $10 million or $50 million or $100 million dollar payouts.

MR. LENO: Right.

MR. OBAMA: And, you know, the immediate bonuses that went to AIG are a problem. But the larger problem is we've got to get back to an attitude where people know enough is enough, and people have a sense of responsibility and they understand that their actions are going to have an impact on everybody. And if we can get back to those values that built America, then I think we're going to be okay.

Markos Moulitsas on 'Countdown': Transcript (3-17-09)

The star of Daily Kos appeared with Keith Olbermann on Countdown. Read the full transcript of the show. Entire interview below:

OLBERMANN: The problem with a good conspiracy theory is that inevitably somebody blabs. However, as we continue Know Your Top Five Bill-O and Goldie Left Wing Smear Merchants week with our guest Markos Moulitsas, number three, the Daily Kos, there is the surprise in our third story tonight, a left-wing conspiracy so well policed that it includes Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, the “New York Times” and me. And I only found about it this morning from a right-wing blog.

The reality of this, as reported at Politico.com, quote, “for the past two years, several hundred left leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off the record, online meeting space called JournoList. Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy? Not at all says Ezra Klein, the 24 year old ‘American Prospect‘ blogging wonder kind, who formed JournoList in February 2007. Basically, he says, it‘s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

Other so-called J-Listers also commented to Politico, characterizing their exchanges in a similar fashion. But from the right wing blog RedState.com and a man named Erick Erickson comes this, “Politico this morning shows the left has moved into a secret email list serve, where left wing bloggers, policy guys and journalists collaborate online to form news stories that inevitably skew to the left.”

Wait, it gets better than this. “I‘m told such luminaries as David Shuster at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, a host of “New York Times” magazine writers, Frank Rich and others all collaborate on this list.”

Your told? Your told by what, a voice in your own head? Checked with David and Rach. None of us are on the list. I had never even heard of it until somebody told me about the RedState not. Rachel had not heard about it until I asked her about this afternoon. Now that‘s a secret left-wing conspiracy. It‘s so secret the people who are in it don‘t even know they‘re in it.

Besides which, everybody knows I take my instructions from our next guest, the founder and publisher of DailyKos.com, Markos Moulitsas. Good evening, Markos. Congratulations on being number three on the list.

MARKOS MOULITSAS: Thanks so much. Glad to be here.

OLBERMANN: We‘ll get to that Bill-O list in a moment. First, something else from Red State. “I‘m told quite reliably, I might add, that left wing bloggers and policy guys use this site as an express train to get their ideas into the mainstream media. The questions now are, who all is on the list, what hit jobs have come through this list?”

So the JournoList thing gets magnified into a permanent record of some sort of what everybody on the left is doing when we all have this groupthink. Or should we be surprised that this is the interpretation of this by the right?

MOULITSAS: I don‘t think it‘s surprising at all, actually. You have a situation where the right has been completely discredited. And they‘re casting about it for reasons, because as we know, conservatism doesn‘t fail. It can only be failed. So if it‘s not them, then what could it be? Apparently, it‘s these conspiracy theories.

OLBERMANN: So is that the same sort of thinking that—that it must be failed? That there‘s some trickery involved if the conservatives don‘t win that got you number three on the O‘Reilly/Goldberg list? Or do you actually deserve to be there? And have you already in fact celebrated your success?

MOULITSAS: I always celebrate. I mean I looked for—I looked on as O‘Reilly attacked you for years and turned you into this ratings powerhouse on MSNBC, so I thought, I could use a little bit of O‘Reilly love. I‘m glad that he‘s actually delivered some of that.

But I think there is a conspiracy and it goes like this: I wake up in morning and I check out Youtube clips of Bill O‘Reilly screaming at his audience, and I see Glenn Beck crying on his show.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

MOULITSAS: And I think—and I go on my blog, and I write, did you catch these idiots last night? And then somebody else—this is very nefarious. Somebody else also sees those clips, and they also write about what a bunch of morons Fox News is featuring that night. And suddenly you have some kind of collusion. It‘s all very insidious.

OLBERMANN: At no point is the actual shock of the event, these, you know, perpetual repetitions of the Hindenburg disaster that we see. At no point are these credited as being part of this equation. But there is another possibility here, isn‘t it? That there‘s an assumption that there is a left-wing conspiracy, because there has, in fact, been a right-wing conspiracy, that there are talking points that used to come out of the White House, obviously not anymore.

But that entire news days were built around this little cheat sheet that a lot—several guys put out. One being John Moody at Fox News. And they all followed it like it was the tablets, with Moses coming down from the mountain.

MOULITSAS: Yes, absolutely. And I don‘t begrudge them for doing that. They‘ve been very effective for decades by pushing out this conservative message to the masses, by being on message and unified in pushing out that message, across various media, radio, television, the Internet, and so on.

So I totally see this as a case of projection. The fact of the matter is people like me get too much e-mail already. I‘m sure you get enough e-mails. Do you really need to be on another list of someone tell you what to think, when we can think for ourselves, thank you very much.

OLBERMANN: Plus, we don‘t have time to read all of these e-mails that we‘re getting. The bottom line, people think what, they‘re vampires, they never sleep. While we have you here, let me ask you about something of substance in the news that has not gotten the attention that it deserves nationally. The latest of the endless series of the Norm Coleman defenses in this litigation against the man who beat him for the Minnesota Senate seat, Al Franken. Jon Cornyn of Texas is now citing Bush v. Gore. What does Bush v. Gore have to do with Coleman v. reality?

MOULITSAS: Well, Bush v. Gore was obviously a partisan hack ruling that was so bad and so unconstitutional that the Supreme Court itself, the majority said, don‘t ever cite this decision ever again, because they knew it was very poor legal under-pinnings. But it was a hacked partisan decision designed to make sure that their favorite candidate, George Bush, won the presidency.

Now, of course, Republicans are very, very much desperate. They want to hold onto that Minnesota seat. This is going to be seat number 59 for the Democrats. They‘re doing everything they can. And they are praying for their own hacked partisan rule from the courts. They‘re not going to get it. It‘s only a matter of time before Al Franken is actually seated and is rightfully called Senator Al Franken.

OLBERMANN: Good thing too. Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of Daily Kos, number three on the list of the top three left wing smear merchants. Thank you and don‘t forget to send me my email full of marching orders in the morning.

MOULITSAS: Absolutely. Thanks so much.

Make AIG Pay it Back

The politicians are now posturing when they shouldn't have been giving out bailouts without strings attached in the first place. But the Senator is expressing the sentiment of the American people.

Sen. Charles Grassley is so angry over AIG bonuses that he says the executives should resign or kill themselves.

In a comment aired this afternoon on WMT, an Iowa radio station, Grassley (R-Iowa) said: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”


The radio clip was also aired on WTOP, a news radio station in Washington.

In response to a POLITICO inquiry, Grassley spokeswoman Jill Gerber clarified Grassley’s comments, saying “clearly he was speaking rhetorically – he meant there’s no culture of shame and acceptance of responsibility for driving a company into the dirt in this country. If you asked him whether he really wants AIG executives to commit suicide, he’d say of course not.”

“Point being, U.S. corporate executives are unapologetic about running their companies adrift, accepting billions of tax dollars to help, and then spending those tax dollars on travel, huge bonuses, etc,” Gerber said.

Grassley’s statement was the most over the top among the many expressions of outrage Monday, as the White House and Congress struggle to figure out how to recoup $165 million in bonuses from AIG, which has received more than $170 billion in federal bailout funds.

“With millions of Americans out of work, staying up nights trying to figure out how to make this week’s paycheck last until the next, wondering how they’ll make the next mortgage payment or pay the overdue tuition bill, these executive bonuses are beyond outrageous,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined the chorus, saying the bonuses were “appalling.”

Even FOX hosts are chiming in:

VAN SUSTEREN: [...]when Congress handed over this dough, they should have looked into it. You know, they do these things. They rush this stuff through, and they never take a look at it. I mean, they should have looked to see what the bonus payments were going to be.

WOLOSKY: Absolutely. You know, there are executive compensation limits and clawback provisions in the TARP bill that was passed, but we just don't see them being applied in this situation. And I think the president was right today to call for these payments to cease. You know, as you know, AIG is trying to get even more executive compensation, bonus compensation, from our client, Star (ph) International. It's really a situation, which as the president said and Larry Summers said, is outrageous.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, this wasn't -- this wasn't even done under President Obama's watch. This was done under Congress. And Congress was just plain stupid. They never -- or sloppy, one or the other. That's my term, not yours.

This Bloomberg columnist gets it right:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is unhappy that American International Group Inc. is paying tens of millions in bonus payments to some of its traders.

So why doesn’t he forbid them?

The company says it’s afraid of being sued. But contrary to what lawyers and legalistic bureaucrats will tell you, there are worse things than lawsuits. Stiffing taxpayers to pay gluttonous derivatives traders -- and in the midst of an economic crisis -- is among them. To judge by his recent comments, even President Barack Obama is looking for a way to cancel the bonuses. Besides, this is a lawsuit the government just might win.

AIG is doling out $165 million to traders in the very group that caused the company to fail. The payments are part of a $450 million bonus pool that AIG agreed to early last year, when it was beginning to take on water, and when it feared that high- flying traders would jump ship.

Since then, AIG has been bailed out four times by the federal government. The taxpayers have provided AIG with $173 billion in investment and loans. That’s enough money to run the entire state of New Jersey for six years.

Although other companies have gone on the federal dole, of all the government’s corporate stepchildren, AIG is making the least progress.

Citigroup Inc., which got three bailouts, at least operated at a profit during January and February, according to its chief executive officer, Vikram Pandit. Morgan Stanley, which got a bank charter last September, is off the critical list. But the news at AIG keeps getting worse.

Worst Outrage

Ben Bernanke, the normally even-tempered Federal Reserve chairman, has said he is fuming over the way the regulated insurer used its high-rated balance sheet to run a hedge fund- type operation that helped to derail Wall Street. Lawrence Summers, the president’s top economic aide, says of all the outrages, AIG is the worst.

So why is the government allowing AIG to use its taxpayer lifeline to pay seven-figure bonuses? Seven employees will get at least $3 million and one will get $6.5 million. What kind of company pays such bonuses for a year in which it lost $99 billion -- the biggest loss ever by a U.S. corporation?

Just as outrageous is the fact that some foreign banks are getting some of that AIG bailout money:

I added up the various lists provided by AIG by country (see below), and the results were quite revealing. About $44 billion went to counterparties headquartered in the U.S., such as Goldman Sachs and states such as California and Virginia.

But as I expected, the majority of the funds—$58 billion—went to banks headquartered outside the U.S. The big winners were French and German banks, which pulled in $19 billion and $17 billion respectively.

To put these numbers in perspective, remember that the U.S. fiscal stimulus bill passed in February provided only $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction.

In effect, the U.S. Treasury and Fed have been bailing out the rest of the world, to a massive degree. Is this a good thing? Perhaps.

But the U.S. cannot be the banker for the entire world. Now that the list are public knowledge, Congress is going to balk at providing any more open-ended financing for foreign counterparties. We are faced a global crisis, and it can only be solved through global action.

Cheney Unapologetic in CNN Interview: Transcript (3-15-09)

This man should be on trial not appearing on some news program. Read the Full Transcript. Excerpt below:

KING: There are people I assume watching this interview right now, and people in this town who would say, why should we listen to you? And they would say that because of the context of the Bush administration numbers.

They would say, you know, what did you do when you were in charge?

And they have some numbers to back up their case. And I want to show some to our viewers When you came to office, the unemployment rate in the country was 4.2 percent, when you left it was 7.6 percent.

The number of Americans in poverty when you arrived, just under 33 million, over 37 million when you left. The number without health insurance, a little over 41 million when you came, over 45 million approaching 46 million when you left.

And you came with a budget surplus of $128 billion and in the final year, the budget deficit was a record $1.3 trillion. So what would you say to someone out there watching this who is saying, why should they listen to you?

CHENEY: Well, there are all kinds of arguments to be made on that point. But there's something that is more important than the specific numbers you're talking about, and that had to be priority for our administration.

Eight months after we arrived, we had 9/11. We had 3,000 Americans killed one morning by al Qaeda terrorists here in the United States. We immediately had to go into the wartime mode. We ended up with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of that is still very active. We had major problems with respect to things like Katrina, for example. All of these things required us to spend money that we had not originally planned to spend, or weren't originally part of the budget.

Stuff happens. And the administration has to be able to respond to that, and we did.

I think it's also -- you talked the unemployment...

KING: But you're a conservative administration, spending more than

$1 trillion.

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: We always said -- I always said that wartime scenario is cause for an exception in terms of spending. It was appropriate in World War II, certainly, and I think it's appropriate now.

KING: I want you to listen to something one of the president's top economic advisers, Larry Summers, said, at the close of last week, trying to explain to the American people how he thinks we got into this financial mess. Let's listen to Larry Summers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUMMERS: This is the paradox at the heart of financial crisis. If, in the last few years, we've seen too much greed and too little fear, too much spending and not enough saving, too much borrowing, and not enough worrying, today, our problem is very different.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you accept that analysis of what happened?

CHENEY: No, not really. I think there's no question but what there is an element of concern out there now in the country because of what's happened in the stock market, partly. People with their savings being diminished because of the state of the economy, reluctant to spend, trying to hang on to everything they can, and, naturally, it results in a slower level of economic growth.

A couple of points that need to be made here, John. One is this is a global problem. This isn't something that happened just in the Bush administration or just in the United States. We are in the midst of a worldwide economic period of considerable difficulty here. So I think in terms of trying to assess it and trying to fix it and address it, it's important to understand that. It doesn't do just to go back and say, well, George Bush was president and that is why everything is screwed up, because that is simply not true.

KING: I think some people do go back to that, sir, and say, understanding that. And the Democrats were in charge the last two years of your administration. That's a point that should be made. And you're right, other governments around the world have been caught up in this.

But I think some Americans say, wait a minute, he was the MBA. Dick Cheney was the veteran Washington insider and a CEO who came back into government. How could they have not seen this coming? Was everybody, not just the administration -- I'm not trying to pin this on the Republicans -- but was the White House, everybody in Congress, regardless of party, leaders around the world so caught up in the boom that they had blinders on and didn't see the warning signs?

CHENEY: I think so. I don't recall, you know, sort of a general warning of concern until things started to turn -- turn south on us.

I do remember, and I mentioned earlier, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As best I can tell, from looking at the evidence, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was one of the key ingredients that caused the subsequent financial problem and economic recession. We did try, earlier in the administration, to impose reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we ran into a stone wall on Capitol Hill in the form of the chairmen and -- of the Banking Committee in the House and the Senate, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Democrats absolutely opposed any effort to reform those two institutions, and I think the collapse of those two institutions, as much as anything, contributed to the financial difficulties we've been living with since.

KING: I want to move on to other issues after a break, but before we go to the break, any regrets about the financial bailout package that started in your administration? The Obama administration is building on it. They say they are fixing some things they thought went wrong in the Bush administration, but I know hindsight is easy, but looking back now from outside of the government, was it a mistake? Should you have let the market run its course and let some of those institutions you deemed too big to fail to let them fail? Would that have been a better course than where we are now?

CHENEY: I don't think so. And I think you've got to remember, we were talking here about financial institutions. And the federal government is -- does have the lead responsibility for those financial institutions. That's what the Federal Reserve is part of. That's what the FDIC does. That's what we do with budgets and treasury functions and so forth.

Those financial powers and responsibilities belong to the federal government. If the system is bad, if it freezes up, the only one that can fix that is the federal government. That's different than getting into the industrial sector of the economy or necessarily the housing sector or other parts of the economy.

And I believe, as much as a conservative as I am in limited government, I did believe that with respect to the financial problems we had, when the credit market seized up, only the federal government could address those issues.

Meet The Press Transcript (3-15-09)

On the program the Republican Congressman, Eric Kantor, demonstrates hypocrisy on the budget and the deficits:

REP. CANTOR: David, David, the Republicans will have a plan. We had a stimulus plan. You know, part of the problem with being in the minority is, David, that sometimes your colleagues in the press don't want to cover the ideas that the minority has. We had a plan on the stimulus. It was, it was tailored to small business tax relief. It was focused on what a stimulus plan should be, which is the preservation, protection and creation of jobs. And what we see in this president's budget is, is a lack of that kind of focus. I mean, what we're talking about with him is, is trying to address the energy situation, the health care situation. And you heard Dr. Romer here just today say if we can look long term, these short-term problems will just fix themselves. Well, that's not true. When you sit here and advocate long term, an energy tax and a tax that some have some have said will amount to about $3,000 per household of four, that means everybody that pays an electric bill will have an additional tax, everybody that pays a gas bill will have a tax, everybody that buys anything manufactured in this country will essentially have an $800 per man, woman and child tax. How is that something that will help create jobs in this economy? Again, they're trying to do entirely too much and not focus on the job at hand, which is to get these credit markets working again and have small business create jobs again.

MR. GREGORY: There's a concern about spending in this budget that you and other Republicans have talked about. And yet this was John McCain, the--obviously the standard-bearer of the party, the presidential candidate in 2008. Back in 2007, this is what he said about the Republicans.

(Videotape, May 15, 2007)

SEN. McCAIN: We didn't lose the 2006 election because of the war in Iraq. We lost it because we in Republican Party came to Washington to change government and government changed us. We let spending go out of control. We spent money like a drunken sailor.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Where was all the concern about fiscal conservatism and reining in spending from you and your Republican colleagues during the Bush years?

REP. CANTOR: Well, well, listen, David, if you're asking could we have done better, absolutely. If you're asking us did we blow it in terms of restoring fiscal sanity into this system, absolutely. But that doesn't give now the Democrats in power in this town to go in and repeat the mistakes that perhaps we may have committed in the past. You know, you look at this budget, how can it be that they claim that they're balancing the budget when they are doubling the debt, when they are increasing the deficit to record levels of a trillion, seven hundred billion dollars this year? How is it that, that that is a fiscally sane plan? We've got to remember...

MR. GREGORY: Did you oppose President Bush's budgets that increased the deficit or the debt?

REP. CANTOR: Well, David, we were in a time where I think the priority then was to make sure that we could deliver the money for our troops. And I joined along with Democrats on, on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on mine to say the most important thing we needed to do at the time was to support the efforts of our military to insure our national security.

MR. GREGORY: So it was OK to, to support deficit spending at wartime, but it's not OK now during an economic crisis, when Warren Buffett calls that the equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

REP. CANTOR: Listen, I, I, I--there is no question that priority one has to be to restore the confidence in this economy, and, and we must do that which we have to do. But when you're talking about the type of budget--and look, look, over the last 50 days we have passed the stimulus bill, we have passed the omnibus spending bill. And it is striking to see the lack of change in that bill, the type of waste and pork barrel spending, the earmarks that exist in that bill. You've got that train from Disneyland to Las Vegas, you have, you know, you have other things like the, the money that goes to remove pig, pig odor.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

REP. CANTOR: I mean, come on.

MR. GREGORY: How many earmarks have you supported...

REP. CANTOR: Well...

MR. GREGORY: ...in the time in Congress?

REP. CANTOR: Well, I mean, I...

MR. GREGORY: Because Democrats provide data saying that you voted for more than 46,000 earmarks. Is that wrong?

REP. CANTOR: Well, in terms of the votes and the budgets in the past, clearly. But I for one, along with our leader, John Boehner, have said we ought to all embrace a moratorium on earmarks so we can get the process working again.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. CANTOR: And we're looking to President Obama. You know, he did promise, he said he'd come to Washington to get rid of the pork barrel spending. We saw him sign the omnibus spending bill without doing anything of the sort. And what I would say to him is we will work hard to sustain his veto if he will, you know, keep--deliver on his promise that he made. We'll work to help sustain his veto on these pork barrel spending bills. And frankly, if he wants to look at some of the things that he's already signed into law, we'll work as well with him to try and rescind some of those expenditures.

MR. GREGORY: But, but isn't the problem in the, in the public's mind, Republicans are calling for things now that they didn't actually do during the Bush years? And you look at some of the polling, here's our recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Which party would do a better job of getting the U.S. out of a recession? It's the Democrats that have, by a 48 to 20 percent margin, the advantage in terms of people's confidence. What do you do to change that as the minority party?

REP. CANTOR: Well, I mean, listen, as the minority party, I think part of our job is to be the honest opposition. And we also, I think, are charged with the task of bringing President Obama back to the center. That's what bipartisanship is about and, frankly, that's what the solutions are going to be about going forward. And what we see is very troubling given the last 50 days and the direction of the ideology of this administration and, frankly, of Speaker Pelosi and others in Congress. We've seen the failure of that ideology in the '70s in Great Britain, in the '80s in France. We, we understand in this country, I believe, that we're about free markets, we're about individual freedoms, and that is what our goal is. And when you apply that to the budget that we're going to be discussing over the next couple weeks, we've got a job to do. I mean, because I don't think that the American people are going to embrace this budget. I think you've seen the news reports that the administration now is on an all-out campaign to beef up the support for their budget. If it was a sane budget, I don't think you'd have to have some kind of multitiered campaign plan to get people behind it. It'd sell itself.

- Read the full show transcript

AIG Thumbs It's Nose at the American Taypayer, Congress

Is this what the bailout means? Apparently, it's business as usual for big business. This time they are using the American taxpayer to line their pockets directly--with the help of Congress. Just call the government Uncle Sucker. What is President Obama going to do about this outrage? Will he allow them to get away with it? Once again it becomes perfectly clear that the two parties do not give a damn about America:

Despite being bailed out with more than $170 billion from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, the American International Group is preparing to pay about $100 million in bonuses to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

An official in the Obama administration said Saturday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had called A.I.G.’s government-appointed chairman, Edward M. Liddy, on Wednesday and asked that the company renegotiate the bonuses.

Administration officials said they had managed to reduce some of the bonuses but had allowed most of them to go forward after the company’s chief executive said A.I.G. was contractually obligated to pay them.

In a letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Liddy wrote: “Needless to say, in the current circumstances, I do not like these arrangements and find it distasteful and difficult to recommend to you that we must proceed with them.”

The bonuses will be paid to executives at American International Group’s Financial Products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bond backed by subprime mortgages.

An A.I.G. spokeswoman said the company had no comment beyond the text of the letter.

In his letter to the Treasury, Mr. Liddy said A.I.G. hoped to reduce its retention bonuses for 2009 by 30 percent. He said the top 25 executives at the Financial Products division had also agreed to reduce their salary for the rest of 2009 to $1.

But Mr. Liddy defended the need to continue paying bonuses if A.I.G. was going to unwind the rest of its disastrous mortgage-related business at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.

“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote Mr. Geithner. The government owns nearly 80 percent of the company.

The bonuses were first reported by The Washington Post.

Of all the financial institutions that have been propped up by taxpayer dollars, none has received more money than A.I.G. and none has infuriated lawmakers more with practices that policy makers have called reckless.

Mr. Liddy, whom Federal Reserve and Treasury officials recruited after A.I.G. faltered last September and received its first round of bailout money, said the bonuses and “retention pay” had been agreed to in early 2008 and were for the most part legally required.

The company told the Treasury that there were two categories of bonus payments, with the first to be given to senior executives. The administration official said Mr. Geithner had told A.I.G. to revise them to protect taxpayer dollars and tie future payments to performance.

The second group of bonuses cover some 2008 retention payments from contracts entered into before government involvement in A.I.G. that the company says it is legally obligated to fulfill. The official said Treasury concluded that those contracts could not be broken.

Indeed, in his letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Liddy wrote that he had shown the details of the $450 million bonus pool to outside lawyers and been told that A.I.G. had no choice but to follow through with the payment schedule.

A.I.G. did cut other bonuses, he explained in the letter, but those were part of the compensation for people who dealt in other parts of the company and had no direct involvement with the derivatives.

Ever since it was to be bailed out by the government last fall, A.I.G. has been defending itself against accusations that it was richly compensating people who caused what might be the biggest financial crisis in American history.

A.I.G.’s main business is insurance, but it had a unit called A.I.G. Financial Products that sold hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of derivatives — the notorious credit-default swaps that nearly toppled the entire company last fall.

In his letter to the Treasury, Mr. Liddy said that A.I.G. was required to pay about $165 million in bonuses on or before March 15. The company had already paid $55 million in December, but the rest was about to come due.

The bonus plan covers 400 employees, and the bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $6.5 million. About seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses.

Ex-WWE Champ, Andrew Martin, Found Dead at 33

You can bet that it's steroids related. We need to do a better job of educating the public on how harmful steroids are to the human body. Martin was only 33 years old.

Authorities say former professional wrestler Andrew Martin, who was known as "Test" and "The Punisher" to fans, has died at his Tampa home. He was 33.

The former World Wrestling Entertainment champion was found dead at his apartment Friday night. Police say a neighbor reported that she could see into his apartment window and that Martin appeared motionless for several hours.

Police say there was no indication of foul play. A cause of death will be determined after an autopsy.

During his time with Stamford, Conn.-based World Wrestling Entertainment, Martin held the Intercontinental, European and Hardcore belts. He was also a tag-team champion.

Other wrestlers died under similar circumstances.

Steroids played a role in the deaths of several pro wrestlers since 1997, according to medical examiners, family members and the wrestlers themselves, including:

• Curt Hennig, 44, died of acute cocaine intoxication in February 2003, medical records show. But his father said last year that a lethal combination of steroids and painkillers contributed to his death.

•"The British Bulldog," Davey Boy Smith, 39,died in 2002 in Canada of an enlarged heart with evidence of microscopic scar tissue, possibly from steroid abuse, a coroner said. "Davey paid the price with steroid cocktails and human-growth hormones," says Bruce Hart, a veteran trainer who worked with Smith and was his brother-in-law.

•Louie "Spicolli" Mucciolo, 27, died from coronary disease in his San Pedro, Calif., home in 1998, according to his autopsy. Investigators found an empty vial of the male hormone testosterone, pain pills and an anxiety-reducing drug. The Los Angeles County coroner's office determined the drugs might have contributed to his heart condition.

•Richard "Ravishing Rick Rude" Rood, 40, died from an overdose of "mixed medications" in Alpharetta, Ga., in 1999, his autopsy shows. In 1994 he testified that he had used anabolic steroids to build muscle mass and relieve joint pain.

•"Flyin' "Brian Pillman, 35, was taking painkillers and human-growth hormones when he died from heart disease in 1997, his widow said several years ago. Investigators found empty bottles of painkillers near his body in a Minnesota hotel room.

We've already forgotten about Chris Benoit:

Steroids were among the prescription medications found by investigators going through pro-wrestler Chris Benoit's house, where he strangled his wife and young son last weekend before hanging himself.

Key to their probe is determining whether drugs played a role in the double murder-suicide, and whether so-called "roid rage" was at the root of the tragedy.

Chronic use of anabolic steroids — the kind commonly taken in excessively high doses by athletes including wrestlers — has been linked to marked aggression and anger, or what is referred to as "roid rage."

"Anabolic steroids affect neurochemicals in the brain," said Dr. Linn Goldberg, an expert in steroid use and the head of sports medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. It's those neurochemical changes that cause the extreme anger, he explained.

"They're not in great control to start with and then they use steroids and it heightens that," he said. "They have problems with impulse control."

[...]In addition to uncontrollable fury, other possible behavioral side effects of regularly taking large quantities of steroids include paranoia, delusions, depression and mania.

"They lead to psychotic episodes of aggression," said FOXNews.com's managing health editor Dr. Manny Alvarez. "It's not inconceivable that this wrestler was indeed suffering from some of the psychological consequences of anabolic steroids, which might have led him to commit this heinous act."

And there is no doubt that steroids are an integral part of wrestling:

In November 2005, 38-year-old professional wrestler Eddie Guerrero died in a Minneapolis hotel room due to what a coroner later ruled as heart disease, complicated by an enlarged heart resulting from a history of anabolic steroid use.

In the aftermath of that tragedy, WWE chairman Vince McMahon announced a new drug policy, one that would give "no special consideration" to anyone and would involve frequent, random drug tests performed by an independent agency.

In the wake of this past weekend's murder/suicide case, in which steroids were found in the home of pro wrestler Chris Benoit, one has to wonder just how well the WWE's new policy is working.

If steroids are common in pro baseball and football, then the drugs are rampant in pro wrestling, which places an enormous emphasis on the size of its athletes. Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura admitted to using steroids when he was in the WWE and Hulk Hogan has admitted to taking steroids for 13 years. In 1993, McMahon was charged with conspiring to distribute steroids to his wrestlers, one of whom testified that McMahon had directed him to use steroids. McMahon was acquitted by a jury in U.S. District Court the following year.

Moreover, Bruno Sammartino refused to be inducted into the wrestling hall of fame in 2005 because he believed wrestlers were pumping themselves with steroids. More recently, a story by SI.com reporters revealed that former WWE champion Kurt Angle and other wrestlers allegedly received a wide variety of anabolic steroids supplied by Applied, the Mobile, Ala., compounding pharmacy that was raided last fall by investigators.