Start A Petition

Hubris: The Selling of The Iraq War

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, bushadministration, cheney, corruption, dishonesty, ethics, Govtfearmongering, iraq, lies, media, military, propaganda, republicans, terrorism, troops, war )

- 1906 days ago -
This in depth documentary takes us back to look again at information and facts that led us into the Iraq invasion. Based on the book, "Hubris"

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Darren W (218)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 2:45 pm
Lies, damn lies, and the Bush and Blair administrations...

JL A (281)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:05 pm
From Wikipedia:
Hubris (pron.: /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

Yup--that sure describes it

Barbara K (60)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:41 pm
I watched this on Rachel Maddow a week or two ago and it is going to be on again on March 15 on her show. I hope we never get "snowed" by such a bunch of liars again. Shame on them to have cost the lives of our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, children, grandchildren, etc., and maimed 25,000 plus of our soldiers.

Barbara K (60)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:42 pm
Thanks, Kit.. Welcome back, I've missed you.

Darren W (218)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:43 pm
The scary thing about "cost" is, the amount they've plowed into these futile wars could easily have ended world poverty and hunger...

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:44 pm
When the liberals can no longer defend Barack Obama's failed presidency they put up a thread on the Iraq War and George W. Bush. It never fails.

Mike S (86)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 3:51 pm
Awesome historical document! Thank you Klt.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 4:04 pm

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 4:24 pm

I have no need nor desire to defend President Obama, I will leave the Ad hominem, and false attacks of the president to you. This is a documentary, I know you have not watched it and have no clue as to the content. So why comment about something that can only embarrass you? Foolish.

Mr Bush is far beyond defense and his crimes are countless. What he did is grievous to the United States. People should be allowed to know the facts.

Laura H (964)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:24 pm
I watch Rachel's show every night and so I saw this as well; FACTS do not LIE and those who defend W are either damn stupid or paid by the Koch brothers...or both...trolls are trolls...

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:38 pm
Genuine online stupidity at its best.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:41 pm

Another assessment without watching - put your head deep in sand, or just keep it there.

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:46 pm
Not clear to what exactly that other assessment was, kit- I prefer to interpret it differently.. ;)
I'll bookmark to watch later, for sure.

Laura H (964)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:48 pm
The TRUTH hurts. Facts ARE facts.

Karma knows!!!!

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 5:53 pm

The book is excellent and this documentary is well worth watching even if you some how were suckered into buying the Iraq connection to WMD's. As Laura said, facts are facts.

Sheryl G (360)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 6:00 pm
I'm glad you placed this on here. TomCat had also done so in another format, but none the less he had it on C2. I say the more who view this the better, I almost placed this on tonight myself. I'll make sure this gets passed along and I'm glad the Rachel Maddow show is showing it again as Barbara stated.

Watch and learn. I really don't know why those who come onto this thread can't deal with the subject matter at hand but need to deflect all the time.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 6:05 pm

I know you have trouble with these videos Ros and I understand that. Sheryl I don't know the answer to that either. John did surprise me, though he often disagrees, he is not usually so rude as others.

Agnes N (703)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 6:13 pm
Thanks Kit

Fiona O (565)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 6:37 pm
Hubris. There could not have had a better title. Thanks, Kit.

JL A (281)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 7:28 pm
C2 Causes has an article with related content posted, too with this marvelous quote:

"Had George W. Bush’s presidency not been an unmitigated disaster, Jeb might have had a shot in 2008 or 2012. Of course, Dubya’s time in office was best known as a time of a stuttering economy and a disastrous war of choice, punctuated by a near-depression."

Read more:

JL A (281)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 7:39 pm
I see hope.
The first efforts to bring Bush to trial in an International Court occurred before any government leader had successfully been tried. That is no longer true.

Also, some international trials did not occur until evidence was revealed, sometimes through declassification of government documents. This was identified as a problem in the latest UN investigation of Bush reports. Such will eventually happen and Bush is young enough to be alive when it does.

pam w (139)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 7:50 pm
SIGH! I've been so happy....NOT seeing that smirking SOB's face.

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 8:20 pm

As the US does not recognize the International Courts using them may prove difficult.

Yes, it is much nicer to not see that face, but this documentary is a must see.

JL A (281)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 8:56 pm
If he leaves US soil, most countries would turn him over to an International Court upon request.

l L (1)
Wednesday March 6, 2013, 11:42 pm
Thx noted.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 7:16 am
I arrived at this video and from there your post, Kit, in a roundabout way: on a picture search for two of my own posts, I came across a good possibility - an -I assume fake- Time mag cover, showing Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice Powell with akward, uncomfortable expressions, under the title 'War Crimes Trial'! (Perfect for my post)
And it illustrated a post on the BradBlog, entitled " 'Hubris' Isn't the Half of It," which goes on to applaud and criticize the "NBC News documentary on the lies used to sell the Iraq War, (which) while worthy, conveniently avoids several key points... "

I googled to find out if anyone'd posted it, & me voilà! at your post.

You may be interested in reading what the 'conveniently avoided key points' are.
I am interested in watching the video & reading the BradBlog review of it, but haven't had time to do so yet, because just hearing it in the background as I type my comment here doesn't enable me to concentrate on it properly. So I'll be back!

You might also be interested in the posts on Iraq I've just submitted, both about a breaking The Guardian/BBC-Arabic investigation on US special operations in Iraq:

Exclusive! Guardian & BBC-Arabic Investigation Reveals Pentagon's Link to Iraqi Torture Centres

James Steele: From El Salvador to Iraq, US's Secret Man Behind Brutal Police Squads & Torture Centers - 50"& 5" Videos + Text

Jim P (3257)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 9:06 am

Hubris Was Too Good Not to Share

The MSNBC special on how the Bush Regime lied us into the Iraq War, did not contain much new information. However, it does collect and document the information so well and so undeniably, that even a Republican could understand it, if they were willing to to do so. In case you missed it, here it is in its entirety.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

The Rachel Maddow Show

How I wish we had charged the Republican war criminals!
Many of the people in bush's administration, including bush
himself, are subject to arrest in certain countries.

Ty, Kit.

paul m (93)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 2:39 pm

I'm glad so many people all over the World know the truth,,by the way did we ever find the W,M.D.?

Julia R (296)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 5:31 pm
From the very beginning, I never bought into the hawks' pretense for this war and it's too bad that the belt line media didn't do their job in really getting to the bottom of these leaks and the real motives behind them! I never believed much of anything that came from the mouth of puppet Bush and as far as Cheney is concerned, believed even less!! It is really pathetic and one of the darkest days in history, that so many people in the Bush administration abused their power, and were more interested in pursuing policy based on their own selfish interests than ever that of our Nation! What is even more incredulous than all the corruption, and lies that they were telling the American people was the majority of Americans at that time that believed them and then reelected Bush for a second term!!

Kit B (276)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 7:17 pm

No Paul, it's nearly impossible to find something that does not exist.

Yvonne White (229)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 8:23 pm
Hubris=Insanity when you really have NOTHING to be proud about..Bu$h the Le$$er & Cheney the Zombie are criminals..period. Obama cannot allow the Pentagon (or whoever is pulling the strings) to get us into yet another useless war (with Iran or an enemy to be named later..;)

Terrie Williams (798)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 2:32 am
You and me both, Pam. The only thing better would be to see him and his crew at The Hague being convicted of War Crimes.......and the sentence being carried out.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 4:08 pm
Kit, I posted this on another thread....a walk down baby boomer memory lane....and I would like to repost it here:

Personally, I am proud to be an American. At my age, I have witnessed the civil rights movement and remember well how African Americans were mistreated in our country. My generation was the first to experience desegragation in our schools and while the politicians were going wild either fighting or supporting it, the kids at school were more than open to the new students coming in. It was uneventful. We were all just "kids." There were huge riots at places like Kent State with the protest against the Viet Nam war and the draft. The National Guard was called in and opened fire. Protests were everywhere both peaceful and violent.

I remember where I was the day that JFK was assassinated. I remember when Robert Kennedy was assassinated and Martin Luther King and his speech at the Lincoln Memorial. In 1973, Governor George Wallace of Alabama was shot in Laurel, Maryland because he was a huge supporter of segregation, a pure racist, which put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. And then there was Woodstock in New York around 1969 when the young people went "hippie" chanting "free love, communes, and smoking dope." Enter Gloria Steinem....what a change to brought for women.

My generation has lived through President Nixon's "Watergate" and the resigning of a president as well as President Ford who had to get substance abuse rehabilitation for his lovely wife and how she touched so many women by being truthful in sharing her struggles. And then there was President Carter who had mortgage interest rates at 22%, inflation, recession and the Iran hostage crisis. President Reagan had the Iran Contra scandal. Next was President George H.W. Bush and Desert Storm. Then President Clinton and his being impeached lying under oath and we all knew he never met a pretty girl he didn't like. As Governor of Arkansas, he had several high profile affairs and then his wife, Hillary, and her Whitewater scandal.

We have witnessed many changes in our country as baby boomers. I'm sure I missed a few and I apologize for that but the point I am trying to make is that our country is still the same country it has always been. We still have patriotic Americans who believe in personal responsibility and taking care of themselves so as to not be a burden on society. We aren't the last generation who feels that way. We have raised children to believe that to be an American means to step up to the plate, get an education, learn a trade, be a good citizen, help your neighbors, take care of the elderly and disabled....we are still the country that believes in equal opportunity for all because we fought for that in the 50's and 60's and we lived it and now we see the results of that fighting for what was right for all Americans.

As much as I constantly show my displeasure at President Obama's vision for our country, I've been here before with other democratic presidents. I've seen it all. And, I'm not alone. All of this to say that our country will survive Obama. We are a country that thrives on innovation, competition and competitiveness in business. We are a country who has enormous natural resources. We are a country that has stepped in to help other countries under a dictatorship that murdered, raped and mutilated their people. We are also a country that has made mistakes and hopefully we have learned that to go into a middle eastern country to bring some semblance of democracy is, in fact, not a good thing to repeat. We've lost too many lives trying to help them when, in fact, they've been fighting religious wars which cannot be won. These people are killing each other over a slight difference in religious beliefs. So, let them kill each other and not another American.

Our country will survive Obama. As baby boomers, we've seen worse. It may have been packaged differently but the issues were the issues of the time. What lifted my spirits was the election in November 2010 when the American people sent a big message to the White House. That's what it takes....our votes.
As Americans, we sign petitions, call our congressmen and governors but in the end it is the vote that matters.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 4:24 pm
As Americans, we have the freedom to voice our personal opinions whether it be the Iraq War, Afghanistan, the Second Amendment, entitlement issues, our national debt, immigration, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Sequestration and the list goes on and on. We will always be divided as a two party system on what we feel is right for our country, our children and our grandchildren. As a baby boomer, I have seen many changes, big changes, in fact, over the course of my lifetime. We are still a great country. I believe the big elephant in the room is our soaring debt. If we can get the debt under control we can move mountains. We have fought bigger issues and we survived.

At this time in my life I believe our issues are due to bad policy making and poor leadership. We have external pressures but what we are experiencing today are internal problems. We need to get a handle on that as soon as possible. We, as a country, have weathered many storms, and I believe we can get a handle on what is taking place internally today. I'm very open to discussion from my liberal and conservative Care 2 friends.

Lois Jordan (63)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 5:51 pm
Adding my thanks for posting this, Kit. I watched it on msnbc when it aired, and thought it was an excellent piece. Just want to note that those who continue to harp on the debt are simply messengers for billionaire Pete Peterson and his cronies Simpson & Bowles, whose chief goal is to destroy Medicare & Social Security while continuing an upward flow of wealth. Please don't listen to those behind that crazy "Fix the Debt" campaign....they're preaching the same austerity that's devastating Europe presently.

Kit B (276)
Sunday March 10, 2013, 5:56 pm

True Lois but that too has been sold very well.

Sheryl G (360)
Monday March 11, 2013, 6:35 am
Our Country will survive the puppets in Government but will our Country survive the Too Big to Fail Banksters? The Corporate Greedy ones like the Koch brothers? The Oil Barons whose private Companies have more finances to weild power than some Countries have in total? They are the ones that control the Puppets in Government of both Parties. Start looking behind the curtain.

Never before in the history has there been such a gap between the people financially.

“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
–Louis Brandeis
U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)
Inequality In America

Sheryl G (360)
Monday March 11, 2013, 2:58 pm
I know, poor President Carter, Republicans never happy with him but he reduced the top tax rate on capital gains to 28% from as high as 98%, seems we never hear about that little gem.

mary Lee (2)
Monday March 18, 2013, 10:40 am
What will end war and conflict? Age old human dilemma needs a new answer:

"Peace is on the minds of many people, but peace is not possible without
necessity. Peace as a goal or peace as an ambition or peace as a wish does
not have the power to overcome the tensions and animosities that exist between
people and even within people, within individuals.

The peace that can be forged in the future must be based upon necessity.
It must be based upon a clear understanding that humanity is entering a
period of grave difficulty, facing a world in decline, a world of declining resources
where many more people will be drawing from the bounty that the
world can provide, a world where humanity will be facing competition from
other races from beyond the world, a set of circumstances when taken together
is greater and more profound and far reaching than anything that
humanity as a whole has ever had to face before.

And there will be no one in the world who will not be affected by these
Great Waves of Change and by the Greater Darkness that is in the world,
that is growing with each passing day. Here peace cannot simply be the cessation
of conflict, for the steps taken to establish peace now must be far
more radical and far reaching. To simply hold people back from attacking
one another will not be effective in the future when these restraints will not
be there.

In order for you to understand what will be required in the future, you
must understand the great peril of the future and the great needs of humanity
and how they can be fulfilled in the future. You must bring a new understanding
to the situation, or you will not see the nature of the problem, and
you will not see how the solution can be forged.
It is not enough to say that people want peace, and you should not believe
that people have always lived together in harmony, for there has been
very little harmony in the world at any time. And you should not think that
establishing peace in the world is simply creating a new social program or
platform or that it is all about politics or relations between various nations
or groups.
If people are at war within themselves, they will express this in the
world, and they will add to conflict that exists between people. And if people
are committed to fulfilling their desires, it will place them in conflict with
others whose desires are competing with theirs. And if people want more
than they really need, then they will be taking from others whose needs are
going unmet.

This is a moral and an ethical issue for each individual, for here the
rich must give to the poor. It is not simply an option. It is not simply a moral
or ethical question. It is a necessity, or there will be no stability...."

Read more from

Mary R (280)
Friday March 22, 2013, 7:33 pm

Devon Leonar (54)
Friday March 22, 2013, 8:37 pm
It's very important to re-post this as we need to always be aware of such destructive personal agenda's of person's in power... History often repeats itself and unless people are interested in participating in the world they live in, they usually follow the crowd...... Thats why it's vital that we continue to share this message.... We need to remain vigilant to hold back the forces that always bring such horror, pain and suffering. Smiles across the miles for posting this video Kit...

Edwin M (346)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 8:35 am
Thanks Kit

Henriette Matthijssen (154)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 10:47 am
I will watch asap. All wars are based on lies. Thanks Kit for posting!

. (0)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 1:08 pm
It's interesting that the video jumped from LBJ to the Bush administration leaving out Cater and Clinton. Is Clinton's lack of interest even acknowledged in this book? The first bomb ever on this soil happened during his Presidency, AND, he never came to NY afterwards.
When you have an administration completely void of retaliation, Sept. 11 in retrospect was Clinton's failure to do a damn thing.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 2:28 pm
Allan, those democratic presidents are too busy campaigning and being impeached for lying under oath. In Clinton's defense, he was too buy having sex in the Oral Office. Jimmy Carter was too busy screwing up the backing of the Shah of Iran and allowed Ayatollah Khamenei to return to Iran and instigated the Iranian Revolution and one of their first acts was to raid the American Embassy and take Americans hostage....443 days (give or take a day or two). They were released a day after Reagan was inaugurated. Thank God Carter had only one term. LOL

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 2:30 pm
I still can't get over how incompetent Jimmy Carter was as president. He was instrumental in starting the sub prime mortgage debacle leaning on banks to "relax" their lending requirements so that people who normally would NOT qualify for home mortgage got one anyway. Take a bow, Jimmy!!

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 3:21 pm

The first bomb ever dropped on American soil by a foreign power was during WWII, when the Japanese found what we now call the "Jet Stream" and by using the jet stream they were able to sent up weather style balloons, with bombs attached (estimated at 4,000). Only one that we know of exploded, killing 5 in a family, I think that was in Oregon. One atomic bomb was accidentally dropped by one of our planes on a test flight. That was not fully armed and land just outside a small town in South Carolina, no injuries.

The next major bombing was in 1993 at the WTC, and then of course, the Oklahoma City bombing. I am open to correction, Allan. Please do provide me with that evidence.

The Shah of Iran was over thrown by a revolution, and knowing that history who could blame them. As for the actions taken by the Carter administration, I suggest you do some actual reading of history. I am not about to try and teach history to those who have such erroneous and preconceived ideas.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 3:23 pm

** landed** (typos)

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 3:26 pm

I personally can not believe how incompetent and deceitful GW Bush and his gang of thugs were. They took us into a war that was nothing but lies for what? Cut taxes while at war? Few are that stupid.


Julie E (405)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 3:35 pm
Thanks for the post Kit.

Diane O (194)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 4:02 pm
Kit, how about you just tell me where I am wrong about Iran?? My information is correct. As for Jimmy Carter you need to revisit his "Community Reinvestment Act." Start there and follow the yellow brick road to sub prime mortgages. And don't forget to include Bill Clinton doubling down on this during his presidency which landed on GWB's watch....the sub prime mortgage debacle where the liberals in congress didn't pass the Housing Reform Act because Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said the "economy is just fine." The Housing Reform to immediately regulate Fannie and Freddie was shot down by liberal know it alls who didn't see the housing bubble coming.

Jimmy Carter was naive and inept in dealing with Iran both in support of the Shah and in his passivity towards the threat Khomeini. In 1978, Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah by saying "Under the Shah's brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like more." In 1979 Carter support caved allowing Khomeini to return from exile and begin the Revolution that killed tens of thousands of Iranians and started the Revolution that continues to this DAY with iron fist control of the country by Islamic zealots who, by the way, continually threaten the annihilation of Israel and foster terrorist attacks on the US and allies.

Carter in his naivete considered Khomeini a "Holy Man" similar to his understanding of a Christian priest or minister but Islam is a religion and a political creed and belief and The Koran guides principles of government and social control as well as tenets of belief in "divine power." Khomeini was a political figure who established the Islamic Revolution and iron fisted rule of the Imams.

Fine one term President you are supporting....unbelievable! He handed President Ronald Reagan 22% mortgage interest rates, inflation and a recession plus his debacle in Iran......he was a one term president for a very good reason.


Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 5:01 pm

I bet no one here knows that I am a pied piper. Please share that far and wide.

I said and please do re-read, that Allan was, to my knowledge incorrect about the first bombs on US soil by a foreign government and gave some examples. I did ask him to correct me if I was wrong.

One of my favorite people was the intellectual giant William F Buckley, if you do not know he was a Republican. I may have found myself in disagreement with his premises, but at least he forced me to learn, to research and to pause and think, to find facts, not just blind assumptions.

I claim no moral superiority to any person, therefore I am not sanctimonious by definition. I do realize that many others have knowledge of greater depth than my own. Unfortunately, I see few of them from the far right element that present cognoscente arguments on Care 2.

What you do or do not think of me has little to no consequence in my life.

Sheryl G (360)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 5:38 pm
Diane O. What is it with the deflection?

You said: "I still can't get over how incompetent Jimmy Carter was as president. He was instrumental in starting the sub prime mortgage debacle leaning on banks to "relax" their lending requirements so that people who normally would NOT qualify for home mortgage got one anyway. Take a bow, Jimmy!!

How about stay on topic.

I also resent that we are all being put into the same soup bowl with your comment. "You have a devoted cult following here on Care 2 who would not DARE to challenge you on any topic."

As a lifelong registered Independent I do not always support everything that is placed by everyone on here, be it Kit or otherwise. Do not take liberties with the rest of the C2 membership telling us we dare not question or step up to a discussion contrary. I take exception your choice of terms of her being the Pied Piper which leads to the insinuation that the rest of us are what?.......a bunch of rats.

In fact I'm on many threads pulling apart BOTH Parties where I feel they are wrong in their dealings or support them likewise unlike those who side with either Republicans or Democrats. That is the problem with this Country, blind loyalty to Party instead of loyalty to Country and the people within it.

War Mongering isn't a partisan issue, in fact BOTH Parties since WWII have gotten us into one military action, war, or conflict after another. This so happens to be a topic that pulls into the dates concerning the Iraq war after 9-11. You want to pull out the Democrats dirty laundry, then post the wars during their time in the White House. I've give you a few to start with.
Korean War
Iraq Operation Desert Fox 98
Afghanistan and Sudan 98
Drone strikes Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya

Republicans have
Desert Shield Iraq and Kuwait

El Salvador

As long as the two parties or the people that suppot one party over the other fail to see that BOTH Parties have done their share of dirty deeds we get no where and that is exactly the way the Plutocrats like it. Have us at each others throats.

This was a SECTION of time........

Why not stay with it, you either agree with it or you don't......but don't drag in all the "other" un-necessary topics or other time frames. Post whatever you want on President Carter or President Clinton.

There is plenty of crap to go around by BOTH Parties, is why we are in the mess. Start looking outside your little boxes of R or D, Left or as the eagle and see it from a differing perspective, then maybe we won't be into so many military actions in the future. This pieces is a good learning curve for people.

Presented to Educate. I hope people will LEARN about THIS TIME IN HISTORY.


Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 5:46 pm

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I think that fits quite nicely.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 5:49 pm

Many people that I like and respect here at Care2 and other sites I visit disagree with me or I with them. Some how we manage to do that with out name calling or attempting to disparage their character.

Kit B (276)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 8:29 pm

I wonder just how people are confused about sub-prime mortgages. They begin soon after WWII and were a "polite" code for mortgages for African Americans. During the building boom after the war, many sub-divisions were built with a large wall to separate the prime, or white property and the sub-prime or black owned property.
Reference the book "Ascent of Money" by Nialls Furguson...also available in a mini-series from PBS.

Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with that.

JL A (281)
Saturday March 23, 2013, 9:24 pm
Thank you Dandelion.

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 3:59 am
An Interesting Opinion Article on Iraq Today:

Ten years ago, along with three-quarters of the American people, including the men just appointed as President Obama's secretaries of state and defense, I supported the invasion of Iraq. A decade on, unlike most of the American people, including John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, I'll stand by that original judgment.

None of us can say what would have happened had Saddam Hussein remained in power. He might now be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Iran. One or other of his even more psychotic sons, the late Uday or Qusay, could be in power. The Arab Spring might have come to Iraq, and surely even more bloodily than in Syria.

But these are speculations best left to the authors of "alternative histories." In the real world, how did things turn out?

Three weeks after Operation Shock and Awe began, the early-bird naysayers were already warning of massive humanitarian devastation and civil war. Neither happened.

Over-compensating somewhat for all the doom-mongering, I wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph that "a year from now Basra will have a lower crime rate than most London boroughs." Close enough. Maj. Gen. Andy Salmon, the British commander in southern Iraq, eventually declared of Basra that "on a per capita basis, if you look at the violence statistics, it is less dangerous than Manchester."

Ten years ago, expert opinion was that Iraq was a phony-baloney entity imposed on the map by distant colonial powers. Then-Sen. Joe Biden, you'll recall, advocated dividing the country into three separate states, which for the Democrats held out the enticing prospect of having three separate quagmires to blame on Bush, but for the Iraqis it had little appeal.

"As long as you respect its inherently confederal nature," I argued, "it'll work fine."

As for the supposedly secessionist Kurds, "they'll settle for being Scotland or Quebec." And so it turned out. The Times of London, last week:

"Ten Years After Saddam, Iraqi Kurds Have Never Had It So Good."

In Kurdistan as in Quebec, there is a pervasive unsavory tribal cronyism, but on the other hand, unlike Quebec City, Erbil is booming.

What of the rest of the country? Iraq, I suggested, would wind up "at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world, and, at best, pleasant, civilized and thriving." I'll stand by my worst-case scenario there. Unlike the emerging "reforms" in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, politics in Iraq have remained flawed but, by the standards of the grimly Islamist Arab Spring, broadly secular.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 4:07 am
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had a tremendous impact on sub prime mortgages. To deny that would be equal to stating that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did NOT lean on the banks to relax their lending practices to minorities. Carter is responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act.

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]
The CRA was passed to discourage redlining, a practice originally based on Home Owners' Loan Corporation "residential security maps," like this 1937 security map of Philadelphia.


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.[6][9]

The same Federal banking agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions are also the agencies that conduct examinations for CRA compliance.[10] These agencies are the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). In 1981, to help achieve the goals of the CRA, each of the Federal Reserve banks established a Community Affairs Office to work with banking institutions and the public in identifying credit needs within the community and ways to address those needs.[6]

Implementation of the CRA by these financial supervisory agencies is enacted by Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); Parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e with the addition of Part 203 as it relates to sections of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).[11]"

Sub prime loans are linked to Carter and Clinton. There's simply no way that it can be denied.

Arild Gone for now (174)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 4:42 am
Thanks Kit,I've nothing to add to all the commentaries on your post.

pam w (139)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 9:26 am
Diane O...."Excuse me, Kit, I think you are sanctimonious and pompous. You have a devoted cult following here on Care 2 who would not DARE to challenge you on any topic. "

+++++++++++ Aren't YOU just the sweetest, most non-judgmental little cupcake on the platter?

You appear to have some facility with language but you lose it when you descend to personal bitchery. Tsk, tsk.

Lois Jordan (63)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 1:30 pm
Scrolling through these comments, I can only add that Halliburton made a gross profit from these wars to the tune of.....$39.5 BILLION. That is called war profiteering. It was a set-up from the beginning.

Diane O (194)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 1:37 pm
Halliburton was the only company who had the special supplies needed at the time. Do some research on this. It's always good to find out why Halliburton got the contract and it was directly related to the fact that no other company had these supplies. I would say that Dick Cheney was a very good businessman and got an excellent contract or the company. The taxpayers were always going to have to pay for the special supplies needed in Iraq no matter which company got the bid.


Caitlin M (104)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 2:16 pm
Thanks, Kit. Amen, oh holy leader and guru. You have been outed here. Stop fighting. It's just inevitable that the world should know. Om mani padme hummmmmmmmmmm.

Sheryl G (360)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 3:30 pm
"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
--Mahatma Gandhi

"None of us can say what would have happened had Saddam Hussein remained in power. He might now be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Iran. One or other of his even more psychotic sons, the late Uday or Qusay, could be in power. The Arab Spring might have come to Iraq, and surely even more bloodily than in Syria.

But these are speculations best left to the authors of "alternative histories." In the real world, how did things turn out?" Diane O

I'm sure all the people who moarn the dead from both Countries, many of them civilian deaths in Iraq will find comfort in what you say Diane. I'm sure those of us who suffer in the economic mess are so delighted for the drain on our economy for speculations. There are many Countries that have jerks in power, ruthless tyrants at the head of State, when did it become our "job" to rid the all around the world? The fact is we don't, but pick and choose to help some people, which is actually a guise of some in the correct places that will stand to get rich on going into a certain war.

So enjoy your increased debt that will have to in time be followed with increase in taxes at some point as James Madison said, enjoy the blood of many who did not have to die based on lies or as you call it speculation, and toss out the Constitution for no where in there is it our business to prevent Iraq and Iran from going at each other. In fact they kept each other in check, now that we have one weakened it has emboldened the other. Yup, good work we did.

I really wished you watched the film, you might of learned something, that we were sold a bill of goods. Don't you want to know that? I don't care what Party or who the people were that lied to us, we were used and abused and in doing so many are suffering for it and will continue to suffer. Is why as an Independent I see that so many former players are still surrounding the new Administration. I get frustrated when we continue to pass the ball back and forth between Republican and Democrat and each keep screwing us in one way or another. Wake up to that fact. No one has their hands clean. We best as a people start cleaning house in both Parties even if it is to vote in new Parties that have not been part of this problem for so many years. For when people can't see the wart on their nose but only see the other persons nose then we have a real problem and nothing gets fixed.

And if you say 3/4 of the American people including some in leadership see the mistake and failure in Iraq then I am going to say, yippee. Maybe we just might not get suckered in again. Maybe, just maybe. But it will be people like you, the 1/4 that most likely will push for the wars in the future, whether there is merit to them or not. Please if you do, will you volunteer to serve and go stand out there with the newly recruited 19 year olds who might want a bit of life to live. In fact find the rest of the 1/4 and you can all go serve with your weapons, leave our children alone.


. (0)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 9:49 pm

Our study suggests that without the CRA, the subprime crisis and related spike in foreclosures might have negatively impacted even more borrowers and neighborhoods. Compared to other lenders in their assessment areas, CRA Banks were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans that were made, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and hold high cost and other loans in portfolio. [TRAIGER & HINCKLEY LLP, "The Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis", January 2008]

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

"Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley." [Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis]

"Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics." [Scapegoating Minorities for Failures of Banking

"Editorials in the L.A. Times (10/25/08) and in the New York Times (10/15/08) dismissed the charges surrounding the CRA as inaccurate; as the NYT pointed out, CRA rules apply to banks, not to the private, unregulated mortgage lenders that made the vast majority of subprime loans during the boom." [Scapegoating Minorities for Failures of Banking

JL A (281)
Sunday March 24, 2013, 9:53 pm
When the intelligence said no reason to go to war but Cheney & co. said ignore that and war began--that is war profiteering no matter how you cut the cookie and claim we needed what Halliburton had for a purpose that didn't exist.

Diane O (194)
Monday March 25, 2013, 2:42 am
Occupy, it opened the door to predator lending. First the banks are pressured to relax their normal lending practices and they did. It's interesting that today, the banks have gone back to their original ending practices of a full 20% down on a mortgage loan and a pristine credit rating. You won't see anymore 110% mortgages by private lenders. In other words, it is my opinion that all of this led to the sub prime debacle.

Your information is correct but it doesn't tell the whole story.

. (0)
Monday March 25, 2013, 3:30 am
Diane: What an inane argument. Considering the majority of the banks involved in CRA were much more rigorous in managing these mortgages; which btw, weren't the ones defaulting, and the banks that were involved in the sub-prime mortgages that DID lead to the financial meltdown were not subject to CRA regulations, you argument makes no sense whatsoever. That is like saying that Boeing opened the door to 9/11. You will make any excuse to justify anything by the GO-Baggers. You have often accused me of defending Obama (which is a joke considering I spend a considerable amount of time speaking out against his policies - while you scream craziness with birth certificates, his educational record, etc.), yet you superficially scan dubious blogs, regurgitate them and call them good.

. (0)
Monday March 25, 2013, 4:42 am
Group Tied To Koch Brothers Caught Up In California 'Dark Money' Investigation. You're tea-bagger organizers Diane. I hope your proud.

JL A (281)
Monday March 25, 2013, 11:02 am
Thank you for your accurate and on target FactCheck Occupy.

JL A (281)
Tuesday March 26, 2013, 3:46 pm
I note that the personal attack by the alleged hijacker has been removed.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday March 26, 2013, 6:35 pm

Thanks for the follow up information, Occupy Care Two. It really is so easy to look for facts before making sweeping generalizations.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:24 am
To get back on the topic, GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. pushed into Iraq on false premises with no plan for the aftermath of 'victory', causing unlimited destruction to Iraq, the country & the fabric of Iraqi society & to Iraqis themselves on the pretext of wanting to bring them 'freedom'; causing thousands of unnnecessary deaths & injury to American military personnel; and have never been held accountable. Nor have they done anything meaningful and/or effective to alleviate the suffering, to 'fix' the mess they made & that they don't care one iota about. The extent of the devastation they caused is here:

Please take a look at this post of mine- Please WATCH the posted video ; READ the other resources linked to in the comments thread -

Democracy Now! - 10 Years After Iraq Invasion, Massive New Study -"The Costs of War"- Tallies Huge Human, Financial Toll :
DN! Summary of the show (to watch; on video) - "On the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we look at a massive new report by a team of 30 economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts and physicians about the Iraq War’s impact. "The Costs of War" report found the total number of people who have died from the Iraq War, including soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and Iraqi civilians, has reached at least 189,000 people, including at least 123,000 civilians. Financially, the report estimates a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $2.2 trillion, a figure that could one day approach $4 trillion with the interest accrued on the borrowed money used to fund the war."
Guest: Neta Crawford, co-director of the Costs of War Project, the report’s co-author, and a professor of political science at Boston University.

The report "The Costs of War" site - "Iraq 10 Years After the Invasion: see the new research findings on the the war's impact" : not only articles & charts reporting findings on every aspect of the Iraq War & occupation -consequences to Iraqis, Iraqi society, US casualties & injured, war veterans' issues & those of families- but photos, as well, including this one that tells a terrible story in the caption, but would be too small to read as the post illustration pic.

'Right to Heal' spokeswomen, "Yanar Mohammed and Maggie Martin on DemocracyNow!" - Video to watch; originally published on DN!, March 20, 2013: "On the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, we look at how U.S. military veterans and Iraqi civilians have come together to launch “The Right to Heal” campaign for those who continue to struggle with the war’s aftermath. We’re joined by U.S. Army Sergeant Maggie Martin, who was part of the invading force in March 2003 and is now director of organizing for Iraq Veterans Against the War. We are also joined by Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, who describes how the condition of women has deteriorated in Iraq, with many young women and orphans pushed into sex trafficking. Mohammed’s organization has also documented the toxic legacy of the U.S. military’s munitions in Iraq by interviewing Iraqi mothers who face an epidemic of birth defects."

The site Demanding The Right to Heal: "The Iraq war is not over for Iraqi civilians and U.S. veterans who continue to struggle with various forms of trauma and injury; the effect of environmental poisoning due to certain U.S. munitions and burn pits of hazardous material; and with a generation of orphans and displaced people.

As Iraqi civil society tries to rebuild from the Iraq war as well as a decade of U.S. bombing and sanctions, they face political repression by a corrupt U.S.-established government that is selling off the country’s natural resources to foreign interests. The U.S continues this pattern of violations with its ongoing war in Afghanistan. The United States must be held accountable for its violations of the rights to life and health of these war-torn peoples."

Petitioning Organizations -
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW):
Iraq Veterans Against the War was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent. From its inception, IVAW has called for: (1) Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq; (2) Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and (3) Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI):
The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), founded in 2003, is a truly pioneering national women’s organization dedicated to rebuilding Iraq on the basis of secular democracy and human rights for all. OWFI has developed innovative anti-violence and political empowerment strategies for women across Iraq. OWFI advocates on behalf of women who are most marginalized, including those who are incarcerated, widowed, displaced or battered.

Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI):
The Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq is a national unionist organization for the defense of rights of workers in Iraq, established since 2003, and has representatives in all main cities. FWCUI is known for its continuous positions against the newly introduced neo-liberal economic policies, and the new labor code which the FWCUI describes as “protecting the rights of employers while disempowering workers”.

Legal Representative - The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) :
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Supporting Organizations
•Civilian Soldier Alliance
•War Resisters League
•Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic

(see links on Right to Heal site)

Kit B (276)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 8:50 am

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the topic, which is a documentary about how we were sold on the Iraq war. I would be one of the first to say that we have sold on each and every war. Maybe, just maybe if we could watch this short documentary, listen and learn, pause and think; we could also learn to stop being suckers for each president that wants to take us into a war.

Some have said we need wars for population control. I would say, that it is not very effective for that purpose, and I do think that education and FREE birth control will be more effective and far less destructive.

The Iraq was is one of the keystones that brought us into this economic decline. We must learn.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 1:59 pm
Actually, sub prime mortgages brought our country to his knees. Builders stopped building and thousands were out of work from the trickle down of that such as building supplies, furniture sales, appliance sales...right on down the line. Foreclosure on homes, realigned mortgages by the government, increase in food stamps, small businesses shedding jobs and even closing their doors.

Sub prime loans took our country down and we haven't recovered yet.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 2:48 pm
I know this is not relevant to the issue here of the Iraq War & how Americans got manipulated, as they did with the framed-up Bay of Tonkin resolution for Vietnam, into supporting an invasion of Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaida, or weapons of mass destruction, but I can't resist answering the persistant off-topic poster here:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is (was) governor of New York.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:04 pm
George W. Bush had nothing to do with this debacle. Although the liberals are usually frothing at the mouth to blame this on Bush it just doesn't fly mainly because it was Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who promoted and backed "relaxed lending practices" at the banks. What morphed from this was the sub prime predators.

John McCain recognized what was happening and tried to stop it in 2005 but the all democratic congress thought they knew better and guess what? They were too dumb to realize what was happening.

So, please, let's get the facts straight.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:08 pm
The subprime started on Jimmy Carter's "watch." He laid the ground work for it and Bill Clinton enhanced it. The sub prime debacle just happened to land on GWB's watch. John McCain tried to stop it but he was unsuccessful.

Because of the sub prime mortgages, we had to go in and bail out companies who got into the sub prime market namely our brokerage companies, Morgan Stanley, etc. who were lending 110% to people who never would've qualified for a mortgage loan under "normal" circumstances. TARP was under Bush. It impacted his large deficit when Obama was elected. However, most of TARP was paid back and that needs to be deducted from Bush's deficit. Once that is done you'll see that it wasn't the Iraq War that brought our country to its knees, it was predator lending, foreclosures, and the collapse of the banking industry who were also in on it. Remember the "bail outs" and remember why they had to be bailed out.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:13 pm
Millions of Americans would have never in their lifetime signed the paperwork for a "no doc" loan or a first and second mortgage loan (110% loan) if they had done their due diligence and read what they were signing. Many signe and didn't read. These were the people who had ARMS which kicked in a year, 2 years, 3 years, five years and the interest rate due to the real estate crash put them out of their homes. Many, due to absolute greed, refinanced their homes with ARMS to buy shiny new cars, a second home, new furniture, pay off college loans for their children, etc. I mean, who does that? Would you have done that? I would not have done that. So, the blame has to be shared between the lenders and the signers. Then, of course, our country wanted the taxpayers to bail these people out of their stupidity. And we did.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:18 pm
The sub prime mortgage debacle was global. Do your research.

. (0)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 6:57 pm
Diane - your essential truth seems to be as long as you can blame it on a democrat, EVEN THOUGH EVERY SELF RESPECTING ECONOMIST isn't blaming Jimmy Carter nor the CRA bank loans because they weren't the loans that defaulted. It was sheer greed and fraud that created the meltdown Diane.

I am done having a conversation with someone who has no clue, nor knows any of the facts regarding this topic. I think that maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with a topic before commenting. Time after time you chirp on about a topic you know nothing about.

In addition Diane, it is the bank that is supposed to do the due diligence. It is their job, and that is what they get paid for. They have people that actually do this work. That is like saying that people should diagnose themselves other than physicians. They are the expert Diane. The loans were shady, changed the terms which was hidden in the small print and preyed on the least educated.

. (0)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 6:59 pm
BTW, you spouting off that the meltdown had nothing to do with George Bush is like saying George Bush didn't lie about going into Iraq and they actually did have WMDs but evaporated into thin air by Saddam's magic wand when they went to look for them.

Sheryl G (360)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 7:00 pm
No homeowner could of done what they did if the Banksters had run their business properly. No homeowner had a gun to those Scammers heads and said give me a loan. When I took my first mortgage out in 1984 I had to sit with the Bank President while he went over everything we had presented, he met with us personally before the loan was approved and all terms were discussed and made sure all Parties understood what was happening.

My husband as he was self-employed had to present many years of tax returns, I had to document my earnings, we had to list the time we lived in our residences for the last 10 years, where we went to school, any current or former outstanding loans, it was thorough, but it protected the bank but it also protected us from getting into something we wouldn't be able to pay. That was the BANKS JOB! Protecting both parties and for years it worked.

Those loans you speak of that based on absolute greed should never of been allowed in the first place. Who does that, well when people were being talked into such things. I had those calls coming into my home all the time that wanted me to change my conventional mortgage into one of those pay off for a new car, money for college and the smooth talk that was given, had I not been so firm in my own knowledge, I can see how people could of been led in a wrong direction.

To me the greed came from those who KNOWINGLY sold those loans to people who were going to get caught in a mess. These Scammers also preyed on peoples dreams, preyed on the less educated who didn't really know or understand the loan process and BELIEVED that the people who had all the legal paper knew what they were doing. Some people didn't even understand the language and thought it was the American way as they came from other Countries. Why is it that it is the people who were victimized that get all the blame instead of the ones who were preying on an unsuspecting public?

I'm tired of the average American getting blamed for the crap that was handed to them. Maybe some people should of been more alert, seen some red flags, or went with the statement "if it is too good to be true it most likely isn't". But the bottom line the Banksters and the people who were writing out the loans KNEW better but they continued to write those loans anyways. Those faulty loans were then bundled and passed along to more unsuspecting in the chain of scam after scam.

Now I have tried not to address the loan situation on here at this was a war story, but it kept being pulled back in over and over. I suppose you get an A+ for deflection. But when you keep placing the blame upon the victims it is not doing this Country any good for the "real" criminals are still doing their dirty deeds because no one has still got things in check.

. (0)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 7:10 pm
I see Diane and company blame the average people rather than blaming the lenders. The lenders (Wall Street, banks, etc) were sophisticated, their specialization was this field and wants to give them a pass, but let's blame the single mother of four, low income, no education. People trust in what institutions, such as banks, tell them. I think Diane forgets also there was more to it than bad mortgages, there was also the derivative aspect (let's bundle them up, all of the bad debt and send it off to be rated AAA), the betting against investments they were recommending to their clientele, the failure to do "due diligence", all for greed.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 3:56 am
Diane, you keep telling everyone to "Do your research," as though you were the only well-informed person on this thread!

Well, I think you've got some research to do yourself! After all, blind allegiance to dogma parading as knowledge has never cut it with anyone. Begin with a thorough reading of Eliot Spitzer's Washington Post piece that I reprinted in an earlier comment up there somewhere.

"New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer spearheaded the investigations into Wall Street practices that led to the historic $1.4 billion "global settlement" between regulators and 10 Wall Street firms, first announced on Dec. 20, 2002, and finalized on April 28, 2003. Spitzer tells FRONTLINE that his investigation led him to the conclusion that Wall Street's whole business model in the late-1990s, in which stock analysts were fully integrated into the investment banking operations of brokerage houses, was not only "fundamentally corrupt" but, in fact, fraudulent. The only solution, he believes, is for Wall Street to implement the "structural reforms" agreed upon in the settlement, in which analysis and investment banking are walled off. And if abuses continue, he says, "The next time there will be absolutely no inhibition to bringing criminal cases" against individuals and the institutions. FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith conducted two interviews with Spitzer, the first on Dec. 19, 2002, and the second on April 16, 2003."
EXCERPTS from 2nd:
Frontline's H.S.: So you're saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the permission for these huge superbanks is one of the proximate causes of the corruption on Wall Street?

E.Spitzer: Absolutely. There's no question about it. On the day that I announced the global settlement, on Dec. 20, [2002], I began by saying that the problem at its root is a flawed business model, and that business model is the product of a government regulatory decision to repeal Glass-Steagall administratively and legislatively, and to seek this tremendous concentration of power; and then the abuse of that power by the investment houses.
But it was that effort to create these one full-service banks, and that model that was the proximate cause for all of this.

Frontline's H.S.: What other problems arose from the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

E.Spitzer: For instance, the opportunity to give a line of credit, a $2 billion line of credit, to the bank that brings in your investment banking, ultimately is going to be just as injurious to a banking system. That line of credit, the Enron lines of credit, the fact that the companies default, the banking system is saddled with bad debt -- we all pay the price, because we can't let the banks fail. So you have the instability that can result, because we use lines of credit as the bait for investment banking bills. Remember, the traditional divide between investment banking and commercial lending was designed to prevent that risk from being linked.

Then watch 'Inside Job,' Charles Ferguson's "infuriating and compelling" Oscar-winning documentary, which can be viewed in its entirety online here or on YouTube here, and that tells the story of the global financial crisis of 2008: its origins, the build-up & consequences, like leading to millions of people around the world losing their homes and jobs.

2010 Oscar Winner for Best Documentary, 'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.

It got a stirring Alternet write-up (which btw was posted on C2 by CareForA.) : " 'Inside Job': Film Brings Us Face to Face with the People Who Nearly Destroyed Our Economy" - excerpt:
"... Critics have been raving about the film's insight and incisiveness. Kenneth Turan from the Los Angeles Times wrote, "After watching Charles Ferguson's powerhouse documentary about the global economic crisis, you will more than understand what went down -- you will be thunderstruck and boiling with rage."
Through interviews with financial experts such as International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, French Minister of Finance Christine Lagarde, and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, and detailed explanations of credit default swaps and derivatives, Ferguson paints a picture of an unethical industry driven by greed, rampant deregulation and an indifferent government.

Ferguson, who also made No End In Sight, about the Iraq war, has a PhD in political science, and worked as a government consultant and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He is clearly outraged about what happened.

So outraged, in fact, that when he came onstage to collect his Oscar, he began his acceptance speech by saying “Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”

In 'Inside Job," it is particularly moving to see this one brave, intelligent woman, Brooksley Born, and her "failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008." (from Frontline- 'the Warning') Particularly moving, too, her colleague's memory of how she looked on putting down the receiver after a phone conversation with [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers: the blood had drained out of her face; she was white! after receiving a threatening reprimand and instructions to lay off regulation '..."You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] "13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more." '

"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

"Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," [veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael] Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

On the site of PBS Frontline - "The Warning" there's an article that tells the story of Born's unsuccessful battle for regulation & intimidating rebuke & threat from Summers, and the whole investigative program can be watched online.

"Credit Crisis Cassandra - Brooksley Born's Unheeded Warning a Rueful Echo 10 Years On" (Washington Post in-depth article on Born & her career, including of course how she was marginalized by more powerful govt & banking (& often both) people gung-ho for deregulation)

Kit B (276)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:42 am

Thanks again for trying to keep this on topic.

Diane O (194)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:11 am
This comment by Kit changed the direction of the topic IMO:

"The Iraq was is one of the keystones that brought us into this economic decline. We must learn. "

I didn't agree with that comment and like the liberals, I, too, enjoy my freedom of speech.

Sheryl G (360)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:24 am
Diane truly, take the time to read and study what others have left on the threads. There have been various things I had thought I had straight in my mind when I came onto C2 that after reading and learning a bit more indepth from the articles others had left, my own research, and reading the various comments, that I reformulated my mind due to it.

It is like the 3 Stooges you know when Shep is running and the the one who is trying to catch him asks Moe and Larry which way did he go and they both point in opposite directions. Of coarse the culpits don't want you to look in the correct direction at them. Most things were done without the general public having the foggiest idea what is being done to steer them into either wars or faulty loans. Then to blame the victims of wrongdoing is simply most agregious in particular since so much is being uncovered that presents otherwise.

That is why it is important to get the Big Money and the Lobbyist out of Washington and to support those Elected Officials backs that are showing they are behind the people of this Country, not just for the few special interest, be they of any Party. Everyone has to realize their particular parties are not acting like they had in the past, today we do not have an Dwight D. Eisenhowers nor any Franklin D. Roosevelts. The people have allowed a semblance of what was to erode and that is due to the fact that the undermining of what we had has been chipped away by the few with deep pockets.

We, the people didn't question enough, the Press fell asleep at the job or was bought out, and so some blame can be placed around but we must be sure the greatest share of the blame goes to those who had the greatest hand in it and it wasn't the Joe the Plumbers, nor the Grandmothers living on Social Security, nor little Timmy trying to get an education, and the countless others who get up every day, do their best to feed their families and keep a modest roof over their heads on stagnant wages.

Now Diane, please do all those millions of Americans a favour and start reading what others leave, otherwise I have to assume you are being paid to mislead and deflect for unless you, yourself are in the top 10% of this Country, then you are doing the 90% an injustice, and if you are in the top 10% you might want to be thinking real hard if you want to keep pushing your fellow Americans under the water with your boot. For if you and the other top tier of people keep pushing them all down, eventually some of them turn into sharks.

Diane O (194)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:36 am
So, Dandelion, what you are saying is that you would feel much better if I could see things your way? Right?


Kit B (276)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 7:22 am

I don't know about Dandelion, I would prefer if comments would just address the topic posted. Watch the video and then add conclusions from that information. This is not about the many other issues, brought up, it is about how we were taken into one of many wars.

JL A (281)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 8:58 am
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last day.

JL A (281)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 8:59 am
You cannot currently send a star to Dandelion because you have done so within the last day.

. (0)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:11 pm
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” - Dwight Eisenhower

When we are actually have to weigh waging war against a country that hasn't made an aggressive move against us against the cost of the health and welfare of our own citizens, there is a problem. When we actually entertain hypothetical conversations of the legality and constitutionality in regard to the killing Americans on American soil, we are in trouble. When we witness the legislation of indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, we should be afraid. When we learn that our country flies drones over a sovereign nation we are not at war with and kill people we don't know the name of, I think that we, the people, are late for the ball.

I fear that we are passed the tipping point and it maybe no longer possible to reverse what has been done. I fear that in five years from now, things may still look relatively normal, but will no longer be anything that resembles a democracy. It won't be until things get so bad, when the majority of the population can't put food on their table to feed their kids, will they rise up and demand their democratic rights. By that time, it will be far to let to claim them.

. (0)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:25 pm
Sorry for my bastardization of the English language, had just walked in and was doing several things at the same time. Let's try this again.

When we are actually weighing whether to wage war on a country that hasn't threatened us against the cost of the health and welfare of our own citizens, there is a problem. When we actually entertain a hypothetical conversation regarding the legality and constitutionality of killing Americans on American soil, we are in trouble. When we witness the legislation of indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, we should be very afraid. When we learn that America flies drones over a sovereign nation we are not at war with and kill people whose names we don't know, I think that we, the people, are again late for the ball.

I fear that we have long passed the tipping point and may no longer be able to reverse the tide. I fear that in five years from now, things may still look relatively normal, but will no longer resemble a democracy. It won't be until things get so bad, when the majority of the population can't put food on their table to feed their kids, will they rise up and demand their democratic rights. By that time, it will be far to late to claim them.

Sheryl G (360)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:06 pm
My comment didn't take, I'll try again. Perhaps Occupy and I were hitting in at the same time.

No Diane, I don't expect you to think exactly like me nor anyone else. In fact I've given you a green star in places. I just know that so many have offered you good quality links, not only on here but other places on C2 and it seems that you read none of them: for you pass out the same information exactly month after month. Kind of like Paul Ryan presenting the same budget plan over and over that most experts have shot down including most of the American people for it lacks of empathy and the math doesn't work.

Maybe if I knew you read some of the links and said, well I can agree with what so and so said on the article concerning this or that, but when he or she said blah blah blah I can't go there because of........then I might think perhaps you may of at least considered another angle onto things, or maybe why others might view it the way they do. What the right has been pushing, it hasn't worked at all, and to the failure of the left they haven't stood up for their principles, sold out many times and voted in or picked up many policies that the right wanted and then it gets thrown back into their faces.

Like Romney Care and Obama Care, it's the same thing really, but the right wants to distance themselves from it, yet it was something the right had come up with, most on the left that I know wanted Universal Health not what we got. That NAFTA was something really that the Republicans wanted but it was Bill Clinton that signed it in, yet the right will not sing his praise for doing so and Bill Clinton did this Country and his party a dis-service for doing so. I feel we have had two Parties that have led us into one military action after another, have signed away protections that our acestors placed in from the last Depression, that the Gilded Age of the past is here again and with even more of a divide than it had back then, I see worker rights eroded, the statistics do not lie when it comes to wages stagnant and the majority of Americans are less well off today due to poor polices and wars going back to after the WWII.

So that is all I'll say on the matter to you Diane, for if you are not willing to look at information from the so called other side then there is nothing further I can say. But those of us that I do believe are on track will have to keep on truckin as they say and pull the unwilling along, and I don't mean from solely a stand point on the left, I mean from the Independents that are rising in numbers. *as my comment didn't take I can also address Occupies last line. I hope it isn't too late, but the window is closing, however, Nations have changed in the past in one direction to the other, my fear is the window is closing for a more peaceful way of dealing with things, sharks can get mighty and very agressive when they and their offspring are hungry.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

JL A (281)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:55 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Dandelion because you have done so within the last day.

Kit B (276)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 8:27 pm

Thank you Occupy and Dandelion. When reading a part of Dandelion's opening paragraph I thought of some thing that we all know but sometimes forget. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Not unlike Paul Ryan and his budget or 36 attempts to repeal Obamacare, aka ACA.

JL A (281)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 9:38 pm
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't.
Anatole France


LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Friday March 29, 2013, 3:02 am

Diane proudly declares that 10 years after the Iraq invasion & the beginning of US occupation, at a time when so many have come to realize the tragic error of this war, the unwarranted, unjustifiable human & financial costs, when so much evidence of the lies & manipulation unabashedly invented & exploited to justify & win support for attacking Iraq has come out, she -proudly, smugly- stands by her original support for the invasion & destruction of a country which, as Occupy said, "ha(d)n't made an aggressive move against us." Bravo! Let no iota of truth sway you from your obstinate support of a tragic, colossal mistake & its horrendous consequences !

Better yet, just deny that the mistake was a mistake and that the horrendous consequences ever occurred: "Three weeks after Operation Shock and Awe began, the early-bird naysayers were already warning of massive humanitarian devastation and civil war. Neither happened."

Well, I'm in SHOCK & AWE after reading that! Remember that period during the US occupation of Iraq when there were different armed militias moving around Iraq, some opposed to coalition forces, but most fighting against each other, different Iraqi groups (aka Shia vs Sunni) at war amongst themselves, and numerous mutilated dead bodies (bearing obvious signs of torture) kept showing up on the streets every morning for quite some time? THAT, Diane, was the civil war that 'never happened.'

And as far as the 'massive humanitarian devastation' that 'never happened' - Do you have a source or sources for that gem? I have a great deal of trouble understanding how you missed that one, you who seem so well informed on certain issues & apparently know how to use Internet. Are you totally callous? What a colossal insult to the Iraqis! Talk about the necessity of doing research...

-from 'Save The Children': 'No Child Born to Die' - Iraq:
"..a decade after the 2003 Coalition invasion,Iraq is still one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. Hundreds of thousands of people remain displaced. Tens of thousands of children have lost parents and siblings.

Services in many areas are barely, if at all, functional. The country has lost many of its doctors and teachers. Day by day more children are unable to go to school. Every fifth child shows signs of stunted growth, an indication of malnutrition.

Ongoing and daily brutality is having a devastating effect on a generation of children. From kidnapping to bombs to blows from an angry, anxious parent, up to half of children suffer from violence. ...
The stories of violence against children in Iraq fill you with horror. A ten-year-old boy forced to watch a film of his father’s beheading. Children witnessing their parents’ dismembering. Children risking bombs or held at checkpoints as they walk to school.

Nearly a decade of conflict and war, in addition to the cost of the Saddam regime and sanctions, has made children’s daily lives almost unbearably harsh. Our new survey of 5,000 children, carried out with UNICEF, shows that up to half of Iraqi children have been directly affected by violence.

In Umm Qasr and Al Thagar, two communities near Basra where we are rebuilding the water systems in schools and communities, children navigate piles of rubbish and stagnant water on their way to school.

Once they get there they are faced with broken windows, litter, splintered desks, no electricity, doors hanging by nailsand a complete lack of running water - making cleanliness, let alone flushing toilets, impossible. When the school day ends, children return to houses that are surrounded by mountains of rubbish and open sewage lines.

What’s urgent:
In a country that once had the best health and education in the Middle East, infant mortality in the south of the country is now on a par with that of Zimbabwe or Eritrea. Water systems are in a state of collapse. Between one in four and one in five children die before they reach five.

Support for education is vital, not least for the rising numbers of working children, if Iraq is to have a viable future."

DN! March 20, 2013 - Ten Years Later, U.S. Has Left Iraq with Mass Displacement & Epidemic of Birth Defects, Cancers

DN! March 19, 2013 - "We’ve Lost Our Country": An Iraqi American Looks Back on a Decade of War That’s Devastated a Nation

Not only is Diane insulting towards the Iraqis by negating the human, social & economic devastation inflicted on them & their country -c/o the coalition invasion/occupation- and which they still suffer from, she's also insulting towards those of us who applaud this documentary with this comment:
"When the liberals can no longer defend Barack Obama's failed presidency they put up a thread on the Iraq War and George W. Bush. It never fails."

Her vision is distorted by the US partisan-politic lenses through which she insists on seeing every domestic & international event & issue !

Don't you realize that attacking & denouncing Bush, Cheney, Rumsefeld et al for the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, the Iraq fiasco they failed to plan for, the privatization of US war, the war profiteering & the Blackwater/K.B.R.-Halliburton contractors, in addition to the post-9/11 liberty-killing laws like the Patriot Act are not a pretext to DEFLECT CRITICISM from Obama? Although Obama did not bring us into Iraq & in fact voted against it, some of his policies, too, can be vehemently criticized, since the supposed 'hero of the liberals' has done nothing to change and/or repeal Bush adm abominations, and has failed to bring their perpetrators to justice. If he has shied away from any talk of prosecution -not to mention action!- perhaps it is because he fears the rats would have to share the guilt with the Pied Pipers (a popular image on this thread it seems) - all those Democrats who voted for the war, along with their GOP colleagues, &, like them, voted Iraq military budget after Iraq military budget under the Bush administration.

Worse still, Obama has more than simply condoned the Bush war on terror; he has endorsed & ratified the very Bush policies (like the Patriot Act, SAMs & pre-emptive strikes), that we all opposed! It's not because the Democrats have done it that these measures have suddenly become acceptable! And Mr O has gone further still, with ever greater use of drone attacks that seem never to cease to kill innocent people & children; & a Congress, even without Bush's incisive & genial leadership, that has approved 'perpetual war' & starting war with any country for any reason whatsoever & without the requirement for the President to obtain Congressional approval.

Worse still is Mr Obama's war against whistleblowers at every level of government, with the most famous case being the aggressive persecution & prosecution of Bradley Manning ! We who are interested in the truth about govt affairs must support whistleblowers in general, Bradley Manning in particular, & Wikileaks' Julian Assange, who is still fighting extradition to the US. These people have given us the inside story of many events our governments systematically lie to us about. Glenn Greenwald, who is one of my favorite commentators, has for years published a regular civil liberties blog (first on the Salon site & since July, 2012 on the The Guardian site: Glenn Greenwald on Security and Liberty) & has written quite a lot about Wikileaks, Manning, Guantanamo, & Obama's war on whistleblowers. The most recentof his columns on the latter are these: Pentagon Papers lawyer on Obama, secrecy & press freedoms: 'worse than Nixon' - Career First Amendment & transparency advocate James Goodale sounds the alarm about the current president & Remember When Obama Vowed to Protect Whistleblowers? - Obama promised transparency. We now have a Presidential administration as secretive as Bush's

So there are more than a few adequate reasons for revealing & denouncing the crimes of Bush & his cronies without adding the false accusation of looking to protect Obama.

Nevertheless, the Nuremberg Trials did hold some of the highest Nazi leaders accountable & responsible for war crimes without trying every Nazi party member or the 75%-85% of German population, for that matter, who believed the propaganda & supported their policies. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell could similarly be tried and should be tried for bringing this country into the Iraq War on false pretenses of their own invention.

As David Swanson says in his BradBlog critique of the'Hubris' documentary & of Rachel Maddow's remarks on it, entitled " 'Hubris' Isn't the Half of It" (which I previously linked to on this thread),
"When Diane Sawyer asked Bush why he had claimed with such certainty that there were so many weapons in Iraq, he replied: "What's the difference? The possibility that [Saddam] could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger." "

"What's the difference?" asks David Swanson, "In a society based on the rule of law, the difference would be a criminal prosecution. MSNBC and Hubris steer us away from any ideas of accountability. And no connection is drawn to current war lies about Iran or other nations."

Reporting such as that in 'Hubris' was out of the question during the Bush years, when Republicans & Democrats alike trembled with fear at the prospect of being accused -by Bush & Co, & the rubber-stamp media that spread their propaganda as fact- of being less than 120% patriotic! That's why they overwhelmingly all voted to attack Iraq, all accepted Guantanamo & Special Renditions, all voted for the Patriot Act, all allowed SAMs (Special Administrative Measures) to destroy humane detention conditions, all allowed Bush & co to trample on the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Conventions & the International Declaration of Human Rights.

BradBlog's David Swanson complains that 'Hubris' "pointed out the role of the New York Times in defrauding the public, but not MSNBC's role.": "As our government was making a fraudulent case to attack Iraq in 2002-2003, the MSNBC television network was doing everything it could to help, including booting Phil Donahue and Jeff Cohen off the air. The Donahue Show was deemed likely to be insufficiently war-boosting and was thus removed 10 years ago next week -and 10 days after the largest antiwar (or anything else) demonstrations in the history of the world- as a preemptive strike against the voices of honest peaceful people. From there, MSNBC proceeded to support the war with mild critiques around the edges, and to white-out the idea of impeachment or accountability.

A word about KBR-Halliburton in Iraq - they may have been able to provide some indispensable part no other corporation could, but they didn't take their mission seriously enough to properly install the electricity at US military personnel housing which they had been contracted to provide and maintain:

"While I had always been prepared to hear that one of my sons died by way of a firefight or a roadside bomb, I was dumbstruck to hear that my son was electrocuted while taking a shower in his living quarters," said Cheryl Harris, mother of army Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, whose "burnt and smoldering" body was found under still-running, electrically charged water by a fellow soldier who kicked down the door of the bathroom at an army base in Baghdad, Harris told Senate Democratic policy committee hearing into contractor malpractice in Iraq.

KBR, a former subsidiary of the Halliburton energy firm which was once led by Vice President Dick Cheney, was contracted to maintain facilities at the base and had been informed of electrical problems in the building where Maseth died.

But, said Harris, KBR showed "extreme recklessness and a total disregard for public safety" by failing to fix the problem as well as others that have caused at least 13 electrocution deaths among soldiers and civilian contract workers in Iraq.

Larraine McGee also lost her son, National Guard Staff Sergeant Christopher Everett, to electrocution at another facility maintained by KBR, which won the "elephant contract" for Iraq, under which it is tasked with providing and maintaining housing for US forces.

Still grief-stricken at the loss of her son, McGee also feels anger towards KBR, she told AFP.
"How can they stand there, an American company, and say they're supporting our troops?" she said as tears moistened her eyes. "They are not supporting our troops. They're undermining our efforts. I don't know that I want to go so far as to say they're murdering our troops, but in essence if you take something that is so easy to fix but you don't even though you know there's a problem, that is homicide, in my mind," she said.

Debbie Crawford, who worked as an electrician for KBR in Iraq, drew a grim picture of incompetence, lack of accountability, poor leadership and poor workmanship by KBR.

"Qualified electricians found it difficult to deal with the complacency, the lack of leadership, the lack of tools and materials, and the lack of safety... Time and again we heard, 'You're in a war zone, what do you expect?' and 'If you don't like it you can go home,'" she said.

"It saddens and angers me that 11 American soldiers and two civilian contractors have died due to electrocution. Not in combat but at camps and bases where they should have felt the safest," she stated, with evident emotion.

Senator Byron Dorgan, who chaired this hearing, said Halliburton and KBR were invited, but did not attend.

You can watch/hear the testimony of these two grief-stricken moms, as well as that of the former KBR electrician Crawford and another former KBR electrician on this YouTube clip of these Senate oversight hearing into contractor malpractice in Iraq.
That other former electrician, btw, cites KGB's failure "to provide adequate supervision of the work done by its electricians at almost every (US) base (he) went to in Afghanistan. This lack of supervision was part of what (he) considered a good ol' boy network where communication was poor and professionalism almost nonexistant."

Rachel Maddox whose Bush-era report on KBR-Halliburton criminal negligence in Iraqfeatures whistleblower Debbie Crawford, also tells us lots of other things about the corporation, like their move to the Cayman Islands to avoid paying US taxes (very patriotic!), & the expanding use of private contractors in Iraq, gives theSenate Oversight Committee figure of 19 suspected electrocution deaths.

And puh-lease, don't tell me 'Stuff happens.'

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:18 am
Reading various posts here is very stimulating for me. I haven't been able to send a green star for every comment I like, because some people have made several that I'd like to reward & you can't.

I love Dandelion's Mahatma Gandhi quote: "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" - That really speaks truth to the heart & the right-thinking mind, as well as Louis Brandeis' “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Occupy C2's Dwight Eisenhower quote is great & -sadly- so premonitory: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
I knew he was the originator of the expression "the military industrial complex," but not the rest.
How little heed was taken of his premonitory warning!

I enjoyed Kit's clever definition of "insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," but I hadn't known Albert Einstein said it.

JL A.'s Anatole France quote is worth remembering, too: "An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't."

I love Dandelion's comment about warmongering not being a partisan issue in the US, with her list of which parties were responsible for which wars, & which wars they were both behind.

It was, however, a Republican who set the stage for America's becoming -depending on how you see things-a world power and/or an imperialist nation: Teddy Roosevelt was not yet president when he resigned from the Navy to start a great recruitment campaign for the 1898 Spanish-American War, which (wiki tells me) involved the US siding with the Cubans in their revolt against the Spanish colonial power. Republican President William McKinley who was unfavorable was pressured into this war by the Democratic Party and certain industrialists into getting into war. Roosevelt became the 'rough riding' war hero who fought the Spanish in Cuba &, as a result of the American victory, the Philippines were annexed to the US & Spain's international empire crumbled.

Roosevelt used the expression "speak softly, and carry a big stick," that came to characterize his aggressive foreign policy, before becoming president. Credited with building the Panama Canal, Roosevelt was able to gain control of the Panama Canal Zone by having the US 'engineer' a revolution in Panama, then part of Colombia, against that country. According to the Wiki article on Theodore Roosevelt, "In 1905, he issued a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which allows the United States to "exercise international policy power" so they can intervene and keep smaller countries on their feet," but I would put it a bit differently: his corollary enabled the US to intervene & keep smaller countries on their toes or under the US thumb!

The Wiki article on the Roosevelt Corollary really shows how this ushered in the period of US imperialism that has never ended & takes us right up to Vietnam & Iraq: "While the Monroe Doctrine said European countries should stay out of Latin America, the Roosevelt Corollary took this further to say he had the right to exercise military force in Latin American countries in order to keep European countries out.

Historian Walter LaFeber wrote: [Roosevelt] essentially turns the Monroe Doctrine on its head and says the Europeans should stay out, but the United States has the right, under the doctrine, to go in in order to exercise police power to keep the Europeans out of the way. It's a very neat twist on the Monroe Doctrine, and, of course, it becomes very, very important because over the next 15 to 20 years, the United States will move into Latin America about a dozen times with military force, to the point where the United States Marines become known in the area as "State Department troops" because they are always moving in to protect State Department interests and State Department policy in the Caribbean. So what Roosevelt does here, by redefining the Monroe Doctrine, turns out to be very historic, and it leads the United States into a period of confrontation with peoples in the Caribbean and Central America, that was a really important part of American imperialism.[1]

U.S. Presidents cited the Roosevelt Corollary as justification for U.S. intervention in Cuba (1906–1909),[2] Nicaragua (1909–1910, 1912–1925 and 1926–1933),[3] Haiti (1915–1934),[3] and the Dominican Republic (1916–1924).[3] (I'm sad to discover that it was President Woodrow Wilson who allowed the 1915 invasion & occupation of Haiti- not sad because he was a Democratic, but because I thought he was so peace-loving)
Critics, such as Noam Chomsky, have argued that the Roosevelt Corollary was merely a more explicit imperialist threat, building on the Monroe Doctrine, and indicating that the U.S. would intervene not only in defense of South American states in the face of European imperialism, but would also use its muscle to obtain concessions and privileges for American corporations.[7]
In July 1905 Roosevelt secretly agreed a "Japanese Monroe Doctrine for Asia."[11]" that allowed the takeover of Korea by Japan. With this secret and unconstitutional maneuver,[12] Roosevelt inadvertently ignited the problem (Japanese expansionism in Asia) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would later confront during World War II in Asia.[9]

Wars are one thing, secret operations quite another & US foreign policy has also involved quite a lot of covert CIA operations as a means of keeping 'friendly' governments in power (usually bloodthirsty despots or military juntas), helping them eliminate any opposition, or as a way of destabilizing 'unfriendly' governments & overthrowing regimes, like the 1973 coup against the democratically-elected Allende government in Chile that ushered in the horrific Pinochet years, with the blessings of Nixon & Kissenger.

That is why I get particularly angry when stupid Americans blame Jimmy Carter for the Iran hostage crisis that happened to occur on his watch but that was not the consequence of any act on his part. The Iranians have long held a grudge against the US for the covert CIA operation that the US carried out at the bequest of Great Britain when the latter, initially acting alone, failed to oust the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in the early 1950s, An author, administrator, lawyer, prominent parliamentarian, Mohammad Mosaddegh was Prime Minister from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'État orchestrated by the British MI6 & the CIA. It was all about oil & the monopoly that the UK had enjoyed for years. The Iranian oil industry had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum or BP, sound familiar?) & Mossaddegh nationalized it. Suffice it to say here that Mosaddegh was so loved and admired by his people that you still cannot speak to Iranians today, whatever their walk of life, whatever age group, whatever persuasion, without hearing how this great statesman was unjustly removed from power & how the future of Iran changed forever, their future was, in fact, stolen from them by the US & the UK. Even the human rights lawyer & activist, former judge, writer, educator and founder of Defenders of Human Rights Center in Iran, Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, devotes a number of pages in her book," Iran Awakening" to the impact this event had on the lives & psychology of Iranians.

At no time during the Iran hostage crisis, however, did any US news source bother or dare to tell Americans why Iranians might believe they had reason to take retaliation against US citizens. Informing the US public of the CIA's despicable deeds in Iran would certainly have helped Americans to gain some perspective on these frightening events. Obviously, nothing could have justified the hostage-taking, but people would at least have understood that there had been a terrible injustice, there was a strong grudge, and Iranians felt they had grounds to retaliate.

Sheryl G (360)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:22 am
Phil Donahue is to be commended on being a Patriotic voice of reason before the Iraq invasion and what he has done afterwards to expose the tragic consequences of the Iraq War. For those who still support the actions of having gone into Iraq based on lies I suggest you watch Body of War which includes Tomas Young who is now in Hospice care and is beginning to wean all nutrients as his body is in too much pain to live in anymore. Learn about this young man, he rallied to the cause of Afghanistan only to be sent to Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11.

Just plug Tomas Young's name into a search engine and learn about one of them who was used and abused. Think about what he and others like him are going through that were so callously sent in to a war that didn't need to be. He is your own citizen if you can't gather any compassion for the wee ones in Iraq who lost parents, brothers or sisters, arms, or are being born today deformed. One might want to learn of the legacy of VietNam that is still playing out years afterwards from Agent Orange. Indeed, I'm in Shock n Awe as well that there are those who still support and defend actions that have condemned a multitude of human beings, animals and the environment to an ongoing nightmare.

Thank you Lucy for the above......well said. Aho! JL A as well for the quote on March 28 @ 9:38pm and to Kit for placing this story on in the first place, something I wanted to do but with current time limitations was unable. Also a nod to Occupy for coming on board.

Kit B (276)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:33 am

Well done Lucy! There are truthful facts which tie themselves by no political affiliation, and there is parroting a "party line".

Why was the United States military not prepared for establishing a base fully prepared to house and equip our troops? Because we have become fully dependent on the private sector to sell their wares to the military. Our military has the largest portion of the entire US budget. Men and women enter the military to defend this county and learn a practical skill for civilian life. Why didn't the military have personnel trained to build temporary housing, proper plumbing and electrical facilities, food preparation skills, a quarter master corps attending the purchase and dispensing of the latest clothing, personal protection, field supplies? Please do remember that the first troops to enter this disaster of a war, were given out of date and low quality flack jackets. Does any one remember the US Army Corps of Engineers?

Could it be that our own Vice President at the time was a part owner in Halliburton?

We have as a country long used contractors, they design and build helicopters, bombers, and needed battle field or other equipment. The military is expected to compare the quality and availability of those wares and after that buy from that company that offers the best bid, this does not buying lowest bid, lowest quality.

A consistent idea in capitalism is that when offered a contract for large quantities of a product, a low bid can be offered while still making a profit.

We went to war because war is profitable for those in the business of war profiteering. We went to war in Iraq because we hoped to stake a claim on well established OIL fields.

If our own military was not prepared to properly house, feed and supply our troops; where than some one should have been held accountable for where the funding had/has gone.

To deny the reality of this farce of a war is to deny all that has been admitted by both political parties and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, for nothing more than filling the pockets of those we were meant to trust.


Let's not forget both Jessica Lynch who has spoken to tell the real truth of her story, and Pat Tillman who was not only a causality of "friendly fire" but whose death was used a Public Relations boon by the Bush Administration. His family was told lies, it took a persistent and heroic quest for the truth to discover the honest facts of his death. The problem of "friendly fire" had grown in the Iraq war, as it has in Afghanistan. Because the US military does not chose to recognize these deaths it has been obligatory for reporters to attempt to "dig out" the depressingly harsh numbers.

One of the more profoundly honest books that covers the embarrassing and deceitful recent wars and an overall perspective of what our nation is doing, has done and continues to do with our war like policies across the globe. Read: "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" By Andrew Bacevich.

"From an acclaimed conservative historian and former military officer, a bracing call for a pragmatic confrontation with the nation's problems

The Limits of Power identifies a profound triple crisis facing America: the economy, in remarkable disarray, can no longer be fixed by relying on expansion abroad; the government, transformed by an imperial presidency, is a democracy in form only; U.S. involvement in endless wars, driven by a deep infatuation with military power, has been a catastrophe for the body politic. These pressing problems threaten all of us, Republicans and Democrats. If the nation is to solve its predicament, it will need the revival of a distinctly American approach: the neglected tradition of realism.

Andrew J. Bacevich, uniquely respected across the political spectrum, offers a historical perspective on the illusions that have governed American policy since 1945. The realism he proposes includes respect for power and its limits; sensitivity to unintended consequences; aversion to claims of exceptionalism; skepticism of easy solutions, especially those involving force; and a conviction that the books will have to balance. Only a return to such principles, Bacevich argues, can provide common ground for fixing America’s urgent problems before the damage becomes irreparable."

Kit B (276)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:50 am

Dandelion, I can only assume we were posting at the same time, and I did not see your comment before posting my own.

Again, I offer my thank you to the many fine comments here. When possible I have sent out green stars as a nod of appreciation.

*I do personally question Walter LaFeber, only because much of his biographical facts have been soundly refuted by so many highly respected historians. It is the task of a biographical historian to present the individual from an unpolished and factual look at history. La Feber has a personal history of placing laurels on the heads of some while ignoring some brutal but factual truths. Of course, that guilt applies to many historians.

Though the quote is often attributed to Einstein, during his life he said it was not his won words, and yet deferred explaining whether the statement came from observation, or was slight twist taken from another. Either way, in our own observations, most of us would I think agree with the statement.

Kit B (276)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:54 am

I take no applause for submitting this documentary, I felt that after it was aired, I wanted others that may not have access to cable television, to be able to watch this.

I would suggest that reading the book by the same name, authored by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Saturday March 30, 2013, 3:24 am
On the subject of noteworthy comments I neglected to acknowledge:

I loved Ros' "LIBERAL: Generous; Open-minded; abundant; Free from Prejudice, Political Party favourable to Democratic reforms. I suppose that George W Bush could call himself a Liberal then because he was all for Democratic reforms in other Countries." (Yeah, let freedom reign, even as we push our brand of freedom, corporate freedom, down your unwilling throats!)

& also wanted to thank her for calling me 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' (Btw, my C2 pseudo contains, I know, a spelling mistake: instead of 'LucyKaleidscope Eyes,' it should be 'Kaleidoscope,' but C2 won't allow you to have a name that is >15 characters long, so I had to remove a letter.)

and I, too, like Pam W, "have been so happy....NOT seeing that smirking SOB's face." I always got a strange sensation looking into his eyes, his beady little eyes that, to me, are totally devoid of human depth & feeling. It's trite, I know, to say that the eyes are the mirror of the soul (or something like that), but there is an emptiness in his eyes, I never felt they connected with any soul at all! I always felt Bush Jr seemed so weak, so lacking in conviction, even when making important statements, so out of his element as President, much more natural on the Golf Course.

I completely agree with you, Kit, about the unwarrented role private contrators were allowed in Iraq. Bush's trend-setting outsourcing of US military activities to corporations was unpardonable to me. Why, indeed, didn't the military have personnel trained to build temporary housing, proper plumbing and electrical facilities, food preparation skills, a quarter master corps attending the purchase and dispensing of the latest clothing, personal protection, field supplies?

I really must admit, Kit, that I have no first-hand knowledge of Walter LaFeber, whose quote was part of the Wiki article I was quoting from. But, according to the article devoted to LaFeber & his career that I read on Wikipédia after reading your comment, he sounds like a highly regarded historian, greatly appreciated by his students & colleagues during his long career at Cornell U, and three or four of his books won prestigious awards, 1 of them awarded two, in fact.
What "biographical facts" are you refering to? You'll soon be able (if you want to) to send me the détails via e-messaging, even if I can't send out messages myself, I can receive & read them.

Since we've been on the topic of US foreign policy & warmongering, I think it would be useful for people to read this November, 2012 post of mine, which is very pertinent to this discussion:

NYTimes Op-Ed: "The Permanent Militarization of America" by Assistant Professor of history at the US Naval Academy & Marine reserve officer, Aaron B. O'Connell.

Occupy C2, for one, is sure to like it, as O'Connell repeatedly refers to Eisenhower's warnings as a basis for his own analysis & warnings about modern American society's excessive, growing & dangerous support of the military, our "Uncritical support of all things martial," which forms a part of his essay. It came as a shock to me that such an on-target critique should come from a man with his background: a US Naval Academy history professor and a Marine reserve officer.


But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Saturday March 30, 2013, 7:18 am
I'm not in the USA, Ros, I'm in Paris. I'm a native New Yorker, but I've lived in France for about 35 years. If you look at my profile page, you'll see that French is my daily language. Until I got a computer in 2003, was really quite out of touch not only with US events, that I perceived at a great blurry distance, but with the English language itself. Thank goodness for Internet & Care 2 - I now get the right kind of aural input, & get to flex my written expression skills with my (overly long -alas!) C2 comments. I even speak to my companion more often in English than before. I was quite rusty before. I've been struggling with his native language, Italian, for years, because I no longer have the intellectual energy & affective determination that I put into learning French, at a much younger age, of course, but also because I've never lived in Italy long enough for quick & easy progress.

It was a combination of Internet & George W Bush that brought US policies back into focus, frightening focus for me. I remember starting to cry while talking to my piano tuner about the soon to occur invasion of Iraq. He, dear man, is blind, but he picked up on the sniffles I was trying to stifle.

I remember the day before 9/11 when Ahmed Shah Massoud was assassinated - I was devastated. We had heard quite a bit about him here in France and I was very touched by a man who -while sacrificing years & years of his life to fight for the goals of freedom & democracy for his country- dreamed not of military glory, but a peaceful life spent reading poetry, his great passion.

Well, the next day it was the trauma of 9/11 & we all know the rest of the story. I hadn't voted since I was first eligible at 18 for George McGovern, but thanks to GWB I got myself registered to block a 2nd term for that ignoramous of a wimp.

Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion.

I immediately liked living in France, because being in Europe you no longer feel that the US is the center of the earth. I felt closer to world events unfolding in Latin America, for example, from France than I ever had in NY, despite the greater geographical proximity.

Yes, there are great international tensions & conflicts developing on your doorstep, as you say. We heard on the evening news the other evening about an extremely aggressive, belligerent declaration by North Korea that either preceded or followed, or maybe accompanied a view of the White House being blown up.
What is it with North Korea? I haven't done any Google research on this subject & am totally ignorant as to the possible motivations behind this country's belligerent posturing, except that the population suffers from regular or constant famine & seem obliged to behave like ultra-patriotic robots. I don't know the subject well enough to form a judgement of what might be Western distortion as opposed to actual fact.

Before I end this (overly long) comment, I'd just like to thank Occupy Care2 for his/her last comment. The events s/he recounts bring back very painful memories. I saw much of that in the news at the time & then in different documentaries, such as 'Inside Job' which I've linked to up there somewhere, and Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story," which I thought was excellent the first time around, but just recently saw a 2nd time, partially that is, until it was too unbearable, I became too angry, too outraged & agitated & had to leave the room. I started rewatching from where Moore shows how the House first rejected the bail-out, but then some last minute wheeling-dealing enabled Bush-Paulsen et al to overcome the Reps initial good judgement & get the Democrats to cave in, up to where Moore is talking with Marcy Kaptur and she agrees with him that what Bush, Paulsen & Co had just pulled off amounted to an economic 'coup d'etat' At that point I more or less rushed out of the room, overcome with frustration & fury.

Not only do I leave overly long comments, I also sometimes get a bit too emotional.


LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Saturday March 30, 2013, 7:37 am

Just one last thing -- why was Lehman Bros allowed to fall? Why did no one lift a finger to prevent their collapse?

Why Goldman-Sachs, another non-partisan issue!

The revolving door between the White House/the Treasury & Goldman-Sachs is an American institution. Those Goldman-Sachs guys must really be just great, so rewarded & admired & loved are they by one federal administration after another, whether Democratic or Republican, they've got the hot phone connection to anyone in power.

And of course, Lehman Bros was a rival of Goldman-Sachs, they were in the same business. What a neat way of getting rid of a competitor! And Who cares about all the people who lost their jobs overnight - afterall, is govt there to protect their favorite business buddies or US citizens?
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.