I was reading the New York Times several days ago and the lead story, rightfully so, was about the final withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Iraq War is over. Hallelujah (rhymes with Fallujah)! However, as I read deeper into the story I came across a discussion of the cost of the war, and the figure cited by the journalist was one trillion dollars. Is he kidding? One trillion dollars? And yet that’s the number that keeps getting tossed around when the cost of the Iraq War comes up in the media.

     The Great Patoo is here to set everybody straight. One trillion dollars may be the amount of money appropriated for the war by Congress over these last ten years, but that doesn’t even come close to representing the actual amount it has cost American taxpayers. The first thing to understand is that all that money was borrowed. Pick your source. China? Japan? Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that  like any other financial transaction that includes the borrowing of money, there’s always a catch. The catch is called interest. And in this case the interest on Bush’s War Loan is costing the American taxpayer another two trillion, bringing the total amount to a more perfidious three trillion dollars.

     Nobel award winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has included medical care for the returning American vets in his cost analysis of the war. Tens of thousands of Americans were injured, many critically, during the fighting, and they will need medical services for the next three or four decades. Also, how many of our returning soldiers will be suffering from PTSD and need the help of therapy or medicine until they can assimilate back into society? The real cost of the Iraq War will probably amount to something along the line of five or six trillion dollars.

     So when some right-wing lunkhead tries to hoodwink you into thinking the cost of the war was only one trillion dollars, consider it a teachable moment and give him hell for it. Then be sure to inform him that if we added up the real cost of the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts, we could account for over half of our staggering fourteen trillion dollar deficit. Then tell him that the next time he’s whining about the deficit to go to the nearest mirror and take a long, hard look. Whether he knows it or not, he’s the face of deficit spending.

We all know that anti-Semitism exists. It takes various forms, and historically, Jews have been scapegoated by Gentile leaders, with horrific consequences.  Nary a week goes by without newspaper and television headlines screaming about another hateful message attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, prejudice and hatred reside in every human heart, even Jewish ones. Last week, the Anti-Defamation League condemned the comments of Shas Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. It didn’t make front page news, but  it should have.

Two weekends ago, Yosef was quoted as saying, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel.” According to Haaretz.com (Natasha Mozgovaya), Rabbi Yosef went on to say, “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.” An effendi is a person of the landed gentry class, the aristocracy.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

Yosef was quoted saying that death has no “dominion” over Gentiles in Israel. “With gentiles, it will be like any person-they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

Clearly, Rabbi Yosef thinks that Gentiles are merely beasts of burden for Jews. Which is insane. It points up the problem with theocracies. Religiosity creates irrationality, which is not a quality anyone should be looking for in their political leaders

Rabbi Yosef is part of an orthodox sect in Israel which wields a great deal of political power, and right now that power is being used to determine the outcome of the Middle East peace process. Specifically, Yosef and others are voting on whether or not to ban construction on the West Bank. If Rabbis like Yosef decide to continue construction, they can force the hand of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

What should the Christian world make of Yosef’s comments? Is he a crackpot? Surely, but he’s a crackpot wielding considerable power, and there’s a lot at stake for the US in these Middle-East negotiations. A successful peace treaty would bring stability to the region and enhance security for all nations. Unfortunately, it seems that we have  an Israeli Ayatollah, spouting anti-Gentilism, standing in the way.

     Here’s the deal, straight from The Great Patoo. The main thing this midterm confirms is that Americans prefer leaders with stiff backbones. They don’t like gridlock, and they don’t like weakness. They expect the party in charge to lead, and they expect them also to wield power in the name of getting things done. When the party in charge waffles or makes ridiculous compromises with the opposition, they view it as cowardice. The American working class doesn’t warm up to cowards. They respect leaders who are willing to roll up their sleeves and throw political punches for their constituencies. When their leaders are not willing to go to the mat for them, especially when the times are crying out for bold measures, they get angry. The American people don’t do wishy-washy. They want to know where you stand. If you’re for a single payer health care system, then just commit to fighting for it. If you believe in a public option, fight like hell to make it happen. 

     Too many times in the past four years, Democrats, including our President, have compromised when they should have fought. When Republicans threatened to filibuster important legislation, Democrats backed down every time. If they had let the Republicans filibuster legislation crucial to the middle class, they could have won the day. Instead, they showed themselves unwilling to fight for what they believed in (or said they believed in). The Dems need new leadership, the kind that believes what it says and the kind that fights boldly for its beliefs (think Anthony Weiner, NY).  And it goes without saying that the new leadership will have to do a better job of conveying that message to the public. My advice is this-keep it real and keep it simple. So says The Great Patoo.

     Israeli and Turkish moles, ensconced in the State Department and the Pentagon, selling state secrets and nuclear materials? Only the most cynical of Americans could turn an indifferent eye to what has happened and may still be happening in the corridors of power in this country. The US media are so toothless that no one dares take a bite out of this story.

     The next question, of course, is why? Is it a question of fear? Are they afraid of  AIPAC? Politicians of all stripes are constantly fawning over the “special relationship” between Israel and the US. Does “special” include stealing state secrets and helping Pakistan and Turkey to get nuclear weapons? And why is it that The London Times can’t divulge the name of the high-ranking State Department official who aided and abetted these foreign agents? The story is rank with corruption and espionage, like something out of a Tom Clancy novel, and yet it isn’t considered newsworthy by the  major dailies in this country. No wonder they’re all destined for extinction. If this is the best they can offer us, good riddance.

Volcker Rules

     Regulation is back. Former Fedhead Paul Volcker, an oldie but a goodie, has finally been given his just due in the Obama administration. After a year of listening to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on all matters financial, the President has put a bold face on change. It comes in the form of The Volcker Rule, which disallows investment banks from proprietary trading if they receive federal backing. Think FDIC. Think TARP.

      Volcker insisted in testimony before Congress that the best way to protect against future financial meltdowns is to completely ban speculative trading from investment banks who have business models that create conflicts of interests with their customers. We need large financial institutions whose business should be the lending of money and providing a savings outlet for their customers’ money. Think Capra. Think old timey savings and loans.

     Is the move political? You bet your sweet ass it is. It helps the administration look tough on Wall Street at a time when the right-wing is pushing to ride herd on the current populist wave. It’s also just what the doctor ordered for this moribund economy. Without real financial reform, we’re headed toward speculative bubble after speculative bubble. We’ve seen bank behemoths take cheap government money and use it to speculate in the market. They’re gambling with the public’s money mere months after tanking the global economy with the very same corrupt tactics.

     Now, already there are people in the Congress who are pooh-poohing The Volcker Rule. The Senate promises to be especially intransigent. Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby of the Senate Finance Committee have started talking smack about the political motives behind the new rule. They’re frustrated by the way it was handled, and guess what? They’re just going to have to get over it. Their jobs just got harder, but these are trying times for everyone. Roll up your sleeves, gentlemen, and let’s get the legislative ball rolling. Bold is back and so is President Obama. And not a moment too soon.

     The commission, formally known as the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, will have subpeona power, but only an eight million dollar budget to work with. The 9/11 Commission, by contrast, was given a budget of 15 million. A measly eight million to investigate the worst financial scandal since the Crash of 1929 says a lot about the (lack of) desire in Washington for getting to the bottom of things. Both parties could be in for some real populist rage if the investigators decide to dig deep. What kind of revelations are we in for? The Republicans are much better at faking moral outrage, so watch for them to make as much shameful political hay as they can with the findings of the commission. Then watch them wax hypocritical when the solutions proffered tend toward a regulatory nature. 

     For those of you hoping to see a reincarnation of Ferdinand Pecora in the guise of Angelides, forget it. That kind of showmanship won’t play in a more sophisticated world. It will be interesting, however, to see if the commission plays to broad public enmity for bank bigwigs and how much subpeona power they use. It will also be interesting to see if anybody ends up in jail for what occurred.  The public wants to spill some bi-partisan blood. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the commission waxed Jacobinical, wheeled out the tumbrils, and lopped off a few heads? Figuratively speaking, of course.

I don’t think I need to remind anyone that we’re already fighting two land wars and that the war on terror has many fronts (we just added Yemen). While a series of strikes against Iran wouldn’t necessarily involve ground troops, it would piss off the Arab world and help Al Queda recruit more suicide bombers for the cause. We would also be jabbing a big stick in the eye of reformers in Iran. In the face of attacks from the Great Satan of the West, reformers would be marginalized and their frustration could result in a backlash against democratic reforms.

Am I the only one who is worried by this trend in The Times? Absolutely not. Juan Cole, Professor of  History at the University of Michigan and a Middle East expert was blogging at Informed Comment about this very issue. Cole has studied Iran all of his life, and in his blog he lays out a nuanced “Goldilocks Principle” which takes a middle approach to dealing with it. He compares the claims of Iranian weapons facilities inside the tunnels to the claims of yellowcake uranium by the Bushies in the runup to the war in Iraq(remember Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger?). If neocons in this country and Israel are calling for airstrikes against their nuclear facilities, benign or no, then it just makes sense that they would protect the facilities through the use of the tunnels. There is no evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is hiding centrifuges in the tunnels. Cole also points out that a fatwa has been issued from Ali Khameini which states that deploying a nuclear weapon would violate Islamic Law.

Of course, it also never hurts to point out the obvious: no Middle East country is going to strike Israel with nuclear weapons. First, because it would be suicide, considering that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons to deploy in her defense. Secondly, because an attack on Israel would also be an attack on the Arabs who live and work there. I agree with Cole that “the New York-Washington-Tel Aviv discourse on the Middle East is not about the Middle East  but about New York and Washington and Tel Aviv…”. Go to the earlier link at Informed Comment and read Cole’s Blog. I think you’ll agree with me that it’s just right.

http://www:juancole.com/2010/01/iran-and-goldilocks-principle-why.html

     When I think of the Fed, I’m reminded of Enron. No one knew what they did, how they made money. Most important of all, no one was brave enough to ask the tough questions before it was too late. Enron fleeced the public and then proceeded to do the same to its employees. The company no longer exists and the main reason it doesn’t exist is deregulation. No one has been willing to ask questions of the central bank and no one, besides initiates, understands how it operates. It creates its own budget outside of the appropriations process, and it’s considered both a  public and private entity. A group of twelve private banks creating public policy for the entire nation and without any checks on its power is a recipe for elitism and arrogance, evidenced by Alan Greenspan’s assertion to Brooksley Born, one-time commodities regulator, that he didn’t believe financial fraud was illegal. I mean, who are these people?

     A good way to begin a discussion of regulating the Fed is by reading William Greider’s article in the July 15th issue of The Nation. In it, Greider explains why the Fed can’t function as a bank regulator. Its cozy relationships with the behemoth banks is what created the corrupt crisis in the first place. Let the Fed stick to questions of monetary policy and reassign the regulatory functions to a new agency, one more insulated from financial industry influence and interest. He also maintains that we could use the Fed for long-term budgetary projects. If the Fed could make long term budgetary projects its focus, then we could finance much-needed infrastructure improvements. Greider actually mentions high-speed rail as an example of what’s possible. And that’s something that would benefit all Americans, not just a handful of corrupt, financial plutocrats.

     He spoke Everyman fluently, and after five years of doing the radio thing, he has built up a loyal audience and branched off into cable TV. No one ever said Big Red wasn’t ambitious. The thing is, he’s been the right guy for these troubling times, and his popularity continues to translate into  influence with the political left and center of the country. Some have criticized him for being in the camp of the Democratic Party, but I’ve heard him verbally whack them too many times to give that canard any credence.

     One thing I like especially about Ed is that he’s positive. He likes his life, and he doesn’t do a whole lot of handwringing on the air. He’ll bitch and moan sometimes, especially if the Dems aren’t showing any spine on an issue (which happens too damned often, to my liking), but he always knows that he’ll live to fight another day. And fight he does. He’s not afraid to snarl at neocons or call them out if they get him riled with their baseless attacks on the President or their phony displays of moral outrage.

     I wish his cable show well (MSNBC, check it out), and I also hope he’ll continue the Quixotic battle over the AM airwaves. He proves with every broadcast that liberal talk radio is interesting, informative, and very cool. Go out and catch that Big Red Wave, America. Surf’s up!

     Sibell Edmonds was hired as a translator for the FBI a few days after the attacks on 9-11. She was tasked with translating covert tape recordings that, she says, produced damning evidence against senior officials within the Bush Administration. When Edmonds brought the information to the attention of FBI officials, she was fired. She has been under a gag order since 2002.

     The Bush Administration claimed a States Secret Privilege when they hushed up her assertions that certain US officials and lawmakers had been involved with ginning up the war in Iraq, even before the attacks on 9-11. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the policy, claiming that the truth could somehow undermine our relations with certain foreign interests. Those interests, apparently, would be Israel and Turkey.

     According to Edmonds, the tapes reveal that four months before the attacks on 9-11, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle met with the Turkish ambassador in Washington to discuss an invasion of Iraq. Part of the discussion centered on how Iraq would be divided up and what Turkey would receive in exchange for allowing US forces to attack from Turkish soil. This flies in the face of what the Bush Administration claimed again and again after 9-11, namely that our invasion of Iraq was in answer to 9-11.

     Edmonds says that FBI files show how members of Congress and Pentagon officials supplied classified information to Turkish and Israeli sources and how the information then flowed to their respective foreign embassies. The pro-Israeli political action committee known as AIPAC is also implicated in the FBI files. Apparently they acted as conduit for the flow of information to Israel. Hmmm. That would seem to be a major breach of security. Don’t we have laws against spying in this country? Against treason?

     The Holder Justice Department needs to look into the claims of State Secret Privileges in the Edmonds case and shed some light on these FBI files. If the case for going into Iraq was based on lies, provable lies, then the perpetrators of those lies have to atone for their crimes. And that’s a story that makes all the hoohah over ACORN seem downright ridiculous. 

The basis for this post came from the Daily Kos blog at the following link:

http://wwww.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/23/785500/-FBI-Whistleblower-says-Neocons-Negotiated-Iraq-Invasion-with-Foreign-Agents-inSummer-2001