War and the Economy:
We Must Take our Countries Back
The imminent indictment in Spanish courts of former officials of the Bush Administration is being applauded by civil and human rights organizations and legal scholars. The popular wave of support for indictment of Bush officials will inevitably lead to Bush himself.
The rule of law, justice, and basic integrity require the indictment for criminal wrongdoing of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other high officials of the former Bush Administration.
Eliot Spitzer, the former New York Governor who was set-up in a sex scandal to prevent him investigating Wall Street’s financial gangsterism, pointed out on March 17 that the real scandal is the billions of taxpayer dollars paid to the counter-parties of AIG’s financial deals. These payments, Spitzer writes, are “a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.”...
Lees verder op Counterpunch
The Bush/Obama bailouts require serious investigation. Were these bailouts necessary, or were they a scam, like “weapons of mass destruction,” used to advance a private agenda behind a wall of fear?
We didn’t elect President Obama to preserve the Bush administration’s anti-contistutional executive power grab. We elected him to end it.
aldus Witte Huis-woordvoerder Scott Stanzel.
"But there is no credible threat at this point to the inauguration that is precipitating this."
Misschien, en dat valt te hopen, is het te vergezocht. Maar er is reden genoeg om dit bericht even te bewaren. Zeker met het oog op de ontwikkelingen rond Gaza, alsmede de aanhoudende herrieschopperij rond Iran."I'm not going to go into the details of it, but it is a disaster scenario where the government would be very much tested," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.
But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other. Neocons are alot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberalss are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.
Waarom heeft president Bush en zijn familie een 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay (nabij Chaco) nodig? Deze lap grond wordt inmiddels beschermt door een volledige V.S. militaire basis, inclusief amerikaanse troepen. Tevens is Bush vrijgesteld van veroordeling voor oorlogsmisdaden door de Paraguyaanse regering...
Informatieve links bij Harten 8
Sarkozy wil de financiële architectuur van de gemondialiseerde wereld hertekenen, ‘want als we verderwerken zoals we bezig waren, krijgen we straks opnieuw dezelfde rampen over ons heen.’ Bush wil graag gastheer spelen voor zo’n bijeenkomst –op de valreep, nog net voordat hij de achterdeur van het Witte Huis achter zich dichttrekt– maar hij wil vooral het gehavende gebouw renoveren: ‘We moeten de fundamenten van het democratisch kapitalisme behouden: vrije markten, vrije ondernemingen en vrijhandel.’
Democratisch kapitalisme? Dat klinkt even mooi en onbetrouwbaar als het compassionate conservatism waarmee Bush in 2000 net genoeg stemmen kreeg om door het Hooggerechtshof aangeduid te worden als de winnaar van de verkiezingen. De belofte op een warm en medelevend beleid heeft geleid tot het meest oorlogszuchtige regime dat de Verenigde Staten de voorbije halve eeuw kenden. En de idee dat kapitalisme democratisch is, geldt net zolang de belastingbetalers de rekening van het gore feestje van de speculanten willen betalen. Er is niet veel democratisch aan het financiële kapitalisme, en dat. zou zelfs George W. moeten weten.
...Now that the Government at last faces a merits hearing before an Article III Court, the thinness of its basis for detaining Petitioners is plain. ... The Government nowhere acknowledges—and indeed, has done its utmost to avoid—the thorough investigation performed on the ground by Bosnian authorities in 2001. ... By mid-January 2002, both the prosecutor and the investigating judge had concluded that no basis had been established to hold Petitioners even for further investigation. ...Now that the Court has finally ordered the Government to provide reasons for its continued military detention of Petitioners, its assertions in 2008 bear very little relation to its reasons for Petitioners’ initial extrajudicial rendition from Bosnia in 2002. The United States’ original claim was that Petitioners were supposedly plotting a terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo.Indeed, in the 2002 State of the Union Address, delivered fewer than ten days after Petitioners were flown by plane to Guantanamo, President Bush stated: “Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy.”Notably omitted from the President’s account was the fact that the three-month investigation carried out by Bosnian authorities failed to unearth any evidence to warrant further investigation, let alone sufficient evidence to charge Petitioners with any terrorism-related crime. ... The Government’s unclassified Return makes no mention of the claim that Petitioners “were plotting to bomb our embassy.”
Or it could be a setup for the next 9-11.