PDA

View Full Version : The Great American Stickup



Qtec
11-28-2010, 01:23 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NAgPdHmVEk&feature=player_embedded)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you look at the root causes of our current financial disaster, they can all be traced back to the disastrous policies put in place by Ronald Reagan in his never-ending quest to appease Wall Street. But the truth is that since the day Reagan took office, we haven’t had an American president that was willing to stand up to the corrupt bankers on Wall Street, and each of Reagan’s predecessors has managed to grant every wish they made. Mike Papantonio discuss what has happened to our financial sector with Robert Scheer, author of the new book “The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.” </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So did Clinton regret removing the firewall between prudent commercial banks and riskier investment banks? Didn't this act encourage excessive risk-taking with state-backed deposits, landing taxpayers with an almighty "bail-out" bill?

"I'm not convinced we made a mistake in allowing commercial banks to get involved in investment banking," said Clinton. "But I accept the legislation facilitated more bank mergers and banks got too big, too fast, to be properly managed".

After that semi-concession, Clinton back-tracked. "The bill [repealing Glass-Steagall] was passed on the basis someone would be minding the store e_SEnD that the regulators would do their job," he said. That lays the blame squarely on the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

But then, unprompted, the former President added: "I regret that I didn't regulate derivatives … I should have taken advice".

This is a telling reference
to an episode involving Brooksley Born, a distinguished financial lawyer, appointed by Clinton in 1996 to run America's Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Admirably independent, Born issued warnings about the systemic dangers posed by America's vast and entirely unregulated "over-the-counter" derivatives market. Worth some $600,000bn (£375,000bn) today e_SEnD having grown 20-fold since Born first raised the alarm </div></div>

the warning. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACkiKVtF3nU&NR=1)

Greenspan didn't think fraud would be a problem. part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AmQLmuLvnk&NR=1)

The derivative market grew to $595 Trillion! That's more than the entire GDP of the world!

Q

LWW
11-28-2010, 05:15 AM
So ... the left's new logic is that since Billy Jeff Clinton was a tool of the Wall St bankers it must be Reagan's fault.

LWW &lt;--- Amazed at the mythology the far left will so easily buy into.

Stretch
11-28-2010, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... the left's new logic is that since Billy Jeff Clinton was a tool of the Wall St bankers it must be Reagan's fault.

LWW &lt;--- Amazed at the mythology the far left will so easily buy into. </div></div>

So....You invent what you think the lefts logic is, then are amazed by it, typical. St.

LWW
11-28-2010, 08:50 AM
No ... I simply read Snoopy's post.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-28-2010, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So ... the left's new logic is that since Billy Jeff Clinton was a tool of the Wall St bankers it must be Reagan's fault.

LWW &lt;--- Amazed at the mythology the far left will so easily buy into. </div></div>

So....You invent what you think the lefts logic is, then are amazed by it, typical. St. </div></div>

He twists everything to suit his ignorant assessments.

Do you think any righties on here even bothered to watch, "The Warning"

Greenspan set out to destroy Born. He couldn't do it copletely because she was a model of intennigence and honor, so he took her power away.

That was Clinton's mistake, listening to Greenspan, another Free Market Zealot, who now admits that he misread human nature, and didn't think the Wall Street crooks, would be so damned greedy, they would cut their own throats.

As it turns out, Bush and Paluson, protected them from eing held to complete account, for their thievery,m focused on propping things up, instead of getting those who torn everrything down.

Free Market does not mean free of oversight, limits, integrity and honorable business practices.

Greenspan, obviously didn't care about trechery, thievery, or fraud, as he himself, stated, during the hearings, with born present.

Born, was exactly right. If Hillary had had her way, Born would have held a far higher position.

Bill should have listened to Hillary, obviously.

However, the deregulatory policies of Republicans, are the single most responsible, the greatest cause of the crash, including Greenspan, holding down rates, enflaming the Real Estate Market, to promote Bush's "Ownership Society" as SEC regulators admitted, saying they didn't want to go against President Bush's policies.

The overly zealous Free Market rhetoric, started with Reagan. Reagan, grew the government, and the deficit, the deficit by 187 percent.

The last thirty plus years, Republicans have grown the deficit, and the government, more than Democratic administrations.

Facts are not something the right cares about.

Who propped up Saddam in the first place? Who armed terrorists all over the world in the first place? Who commited treason, Reagan, Nixon, Bush, all....



G.

LWW
11-29-2010, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who propped up Saddam in the first place?


G.</div></div>

That was easy.

James Earl Carter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New information, coming out of events related to the recent invasion of Iraq suggest that Saddam did not act alone. It was kicked off on August 10th 1980, when Saddam Hussein was invited to his first state visit to Saudi Arabia, the first for any Iraqi President. This was a historic meeting. Prince Fahd had been asked to convey a private message of support for an invasion of Iran by Saddam from President Carter.

Think back to the summer of 1980. Jimmy Carter was running for reelection as President. The Mullah's in Iran had turned against him holding Americans hostages at the US embassy in Tehran (even though he had brought about the Shah's demise). Carter had also been secretly briefed about private meetings between the Mullah's and the Republican Party... to hold the hostages until after November elections... to humiliate him and engineer his loss. The Mullah's had betrayed him.

With his back against the wall, Carter pushed for a quick decisive invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein... hoping for a quick demise of the newly installed Islamic regime. The Saudi's and other allied Arab states had been asked to assist. And assist they did...

And so, on September 22nd, 1980, twelve fully equipped Iraqi Army divisions crossed into Iran, with simultaneous fighter-bomber attacks of Iran's major airports. Iraqi troops immediately occupied ten important Iranian cities: Khoramshahr, Susangerd, Bostan, Mehran, Dehloran, Hoveizieh, Naft Shahr, Qasr Shirin, Sumar and Musian. And began targeting Abadan, Ahwaz, Dezful, Shushtar, Andimeshk, Isalmabad-e-qarb and Gilan-e-qarb with hundreds of surface-to-surface missiles. They also started targeting oil tankers servicing Iranian ports, Iranian Oil platforms, and Iranian Islands in the Persian Gulf - with Exocet missiles and Super Etendard Aircraft supplied by France. Iraq's goal was to completely shut down Iran's oil exports, and grab land.

Iran was very vulnerable. The Carter administration had placed Iran under a worldwide arms embargo, which in effect prevented Iran from obtaining weapons and spare parts necessary to defend it. Also, Iran's foreign currency assets were frozen. And most senior Iranian airforce and army officers had either been executed or imprisoned or had simply fled Iran. Iran was basically defenseless. Carter was now going for Iran's throat using Saddam's hands. </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2004/September/War/index.html)

LWW

Chopstick
11-29-2010, 09:15 AM
You left out the part where Saddam started losing the war with Iran and the we gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran to turn it around. Oh, wait. I forget myself. There never were any chemical weapons in Iraq. Where's my spoon?

Gayle in MD
11-29-2010, 08:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You left out the part where Saddam started losing the war with Iran and the we gave him chemical weapons to use against Iran to turn it around. Oh, wait. I forget myself. There never were any chemical weapons in Iraq. Where's my spoon? </div></div>Seems you are using the same illogical Bs as the right is famous for, chop.

the fact is, Bush was told, there were no chemical weapons left in Iraq, before he invaded.

That they were there years before, has nothing to do with the FACT that they were not there during W.s administration.

Reagan propped up Saddam....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Clinton Destroyed the weapons factories, during Desert fox, along with much of Iraq's infrastructure.

Saddam's brother in law, had defected, and was vey specific in his descriptions of how the weapons factories had been destroyed.

As for chemical Weapons, ever more absurd. They only had a shelf life of three months.

There were no WMD in Iraq at the time that Bush hastily invaded Iraq.

No connections to al Qaeda.

No connection to 9/11.

The experts all told Bush, Saddam was no immediate threat. Bush then fixed the intelligence, to fit his chosen policy, as the British Memo clearly stated.

Facts are facts.

No ties to al Qaeda, No WMD in Iraq, No immediate threat to the United Stated Of America.

G.

LWW
11-30-2010, 03:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for chemical Weapons, ever more absurd. They only had a shelf life of three months.

There were no WMD in Iraq at the time that Bush hastily invaded Iraq.


G. </div></div>

Facts ARE facts ... (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/) the shame is thatyou have no clue what the facts are.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/10/97vials_300-660x491.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. "One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.” ...

American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.” ...

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.” ...

But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.” The following month, an intelligence report refers to a “chemical weapons expert” that “provided assistance with the gas weapons.” What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.</div></div>

LWW

LWW
11-30-2010, 03:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for chemical Weapons, ever more absurd. They only had a shelf life of three months.

There were no WMD in Iraq at the time that Bush hastily invaded Iraq.


G. </div></div>

FACTS ARE FACTS! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/mar/13/20060313-123146-7380r/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.

In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing <span style='font-size: 17pt'>thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.</span>

Mr. Tierney made a copy, which he provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The committee in turn gave a copy to intelligence analysts who authenticated the voice as that of Saddam.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>There also exists a quote from the dictator himself</span>, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>"Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans," Saddam said. "With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."</span> ...

There is more to come. House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, told The Washington Times that about 500 hours of additional Saddam tapings are still being translated and analyzed by the U.S. In addition, in Qatar, U.S. Central Command's forward headquarters in the Persian Gulf, sit 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, of which the military has delivered 68 pages to the committee. ...

Of the tapes released so far, Mr. Hoekstra said, "Everything [Saddam] is doing is saying, 'Let's take it and hide it' with a clear intent. 'As soon as this is over, we're going to be back after this.' "

So far, the tapes do not shed light on what ultimately happened to Saddam's large stocks of weapons of mass destruction. None were found by the ISG, whose director, Charles Duelfer, filed a final report in 2004.

Some pundits and recently retired military officers are convinced that Saddam moved his remaining weapons to Syria. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>They cite satellite photos of lines of trucks heading into the neighboring country before the invasion and the fact Saddam positioned his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service agents at border crossings.

Mr. Duelfer said there were promising leads that weapons of mass destruction did go into Syria, but the security situation prevented him from closing the loop. Mr. Duelfer concluded that Saddam planned to resume weapons of mass destruction production once the United Nations lifted economic sanctions.</span>

Mr. Tierney said he thinks the regime poured chemical weapons into lakes and rivers and sent other stocks over the border to Syria. Mr. Tierney served as a U.N. weapons inspector in the 1990s.

"The ISG, they were lied to in a very systematic way," he said. "Lying. They were very good at it."</div></div>

Facts. They are such stubborn things.

LWW

Qtec
11-30-2010, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war. </span></div></div>

Nobody believes the US went to war for these useless old rusty ex-WMDs.

Q

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war. </span></div></div>

Nobody believes the US went to war for these useless old rusty ex-WMDs.

Q </div></div>

The right never admits to the absurdity of their twisted, cherry picking...anyone who still believes there was any immediate threat from Saddam, is living in denial.

They take out of the leaked documents, the very same cherry picked outdated intelligence, that Bush and Cheney created themselves, and call them facts! LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

"The Iraq War was about oil"
Republican Alan Greenspan

We now have the actual oil charts, produced by the Bush Administration, long before 9/11, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, their cause for the invasion, was about NOTHING BUT OIL CONTRACTS!

Still, the right, lives in total denial. No hope for these nutjobs.

G.

LWW
12-01-2010, 11:40 AM
So now you don't believe wikileaks?

LWW