Senate scandal snares Obama Chief Aide...

• Senate scandal snares Obama Chief Aide... - sm
  • Did you not haer the "all they offered was appreciation" part? - nm
  • Gimme A Break - Sheesh
    • I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg. - Going to all get worse.nm
      • Boy who cried wolf. - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

x

Part of article on AIG and what they are really doing - pretty interesting.....for full excerpt goto:  http://www.truthout.org/031809R

The Real AIG Scandal

Tuesday 17 March 2009

by: Eliot Spitzer  |  Visit article original @ Slate Magazine

Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (pictured), then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made the initial decision to bail out AIG. (Photo: Elizabeth Dalziel / AP)

Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.

During the savings and loan crisis of the late ྌs and early ྖs, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

Sound familiar?

In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.

The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.

And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.

Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:

http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo

It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.

It's long (13 minutes) but information every voter should know.

Dyncorp and Halliburton Sex Slave Scandal Won't Go Away
Halliburton, Dyncorp lobbyists stall law banning human trafficking and sex slavery

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | January 1 2006

Almost a year after Representative Cynthia McKinney was told by Donald Rumsfeld that it was not the policy of the Bush administration to reward companies that engage in human trafficking with government contracts, the scandal continues to sweep up innocent children who are sold into a life of slavery at the behest of Halliburton subsidiaries , Dyncorp and other transnational corporations with close ties to the establishment elite.

On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal.

Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?

The response and McKinney's comeback was as follows.

Rumsfeld: Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question.

McKinney: Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?

Rumsfeld: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity.

McKinney: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box.

Rumsfeld: I'm advised by DR. Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I'm told it was an employee of the corporation, and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place.

Watch the video here.

Rumsfeld's effort to shift the blame away from the hierarchy at Dyncorp and onto the Dyncorp employees was a blatant attempt to hide the fact that human trafficking and sex slavery is a practice condoned by companies like Dyncorp and Halliburton subsidiaries like KBR.

What else are we to assume in light of recent revelations cited in the Chicago Tribune that Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists are working in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors?

Three years has now elapsed since President Bush's promise to bring an end to this disgrace and the Pentagon is still yet to actually bar the practice.

And the employees themselves that are burned for blowing the whistle, like Kathryn Bolkovac who was sacked for reporting on Dyncorp officials who were involved in the Bosnian sex trade.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is one of very few representatives in high office aside from Cynthia McKinney to demand answers on this issue.

We applaud Blagojevich's eforts. The iron curtain of official denial and soft-peddling is falling down.

What has happened to the children who were sold into slavery and forced to satisfy the demands of sick pedophiles working on behalf of the US government?

Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?

What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for 'peacekeepers' to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes?

In addition, we received an E mail from a person claiming to be a Dyncorp employee stating that a high level Dyncorp official is breaking the law by accepting payment from the US government and in turn the American taxpayer by falsifying timesheets and claiming pay for hours not worked.

The contact states that this was repeatedly brought to the attention of DynCorp program managers by Dyncorp employees but they were told it was none of their business.

It is important to stress that at the moment these are allegations and we have no proof of this other than the validity of the e mail.

The e mail is a reminder that we should always consider the fact that the vast majority of Dyncorp employees are just doing their jobs and have nothing to do with this scandal. It is a small faction at the head of the hydra that have authorized and engaged in these horrors.

We have a government that says it doesn't advocate torture and yet tries to block a law that would end torture. We have a government that repeatedly burns lower level minions to wash its hands of every major scandal that encompasses policies directly administered by the government itself, as in the case of Abu Ghraib and the Dyncorp sex scandal.

A government that covers-up for those who force children into prostitution and slavery is a clear danger to our very way of life.

We must demand answers and finally put an end to a process that exploits and wreaks terror on the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society, whether they be in the Balkans, East Timor or here at home.

Our own children.

I guess JM is a crook, too

http://www.mahalo.com/Keating_5_Scandal

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

of the troops?  And his love affair with war is the entire reason they need to be recruited in the first place.

Too bad you think it's just fine and dandy to recruit handicapped people.  Speaks volume about the kind of person you.  The despicable kind that doesn't deserve any further response from me.

Now hurry along and don't forget to kiss King George's ring as you kneel at his feet, worshipping a false god.  What a fool.

The buck stops there (although KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, in which Cheney has a very large interest).

As has been mentioned on this thread already, our soldiers were poisoned with Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

It's bad enough having to fight one enemy, but when there are TWO enemies and one of them is your own government, I feel such sorrow for these soldiers.  Bush's smirking lack of respect for these soldiers on occasions has been infuriating.  He gave a presidential coin to a grieving mother, swaggered, giggled and told her to not "go and sell it on eBay."  You can Google it.  It happened.

The buck starts and stops with Bush.

Dirty politics equals dirty water.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Los Angeles Times

EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove

The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.

By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.

The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.

In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.

Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.

Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.

Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.

Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.

In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.

I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.

Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.

White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.

The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.

Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.

The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.

For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.

White House and administration officials disagreed.

At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.

When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.

The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.

A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.

That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.

In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.

A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.

We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.

Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.

In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.

His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.

The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

this is all way over my head... anyone make any sense of it who is willing to share?

I thought senate seats belonged to the state that person resided in.  And I thought the people who fill the seats are picked by the people of their states in a vote.  These DC people are acting as though their seats are to be handed down to their family members as though they are Royalty.  Last I knew I didn't think we lived in a Monarchy, but now I'm beginning to wonder.  Bill Clinton is now "suggesting" Hillary's old seat should go to Chelsea Clinton?  Impeached Bill should have no say in who the senate seat goes to.  The Clintons don't want Caroline Kennedy to fill it because Caroline backed Obama.  This is rediculous.  They think they are entitled to these positions.  My feeling is that the senate seat should be filled with someone who is qualified from that state.  Not family members of family members of family members.  Caroline Kennedy should run for the seat when the time to run comes up.  Not be placed there because her name is Kennedy.  As for Chelsea?  Talk about someone with NO skills or qualifications to fill the position.  She has worked for a manager at some Hedge fund company.  She is a total id!ot.  Just because daddy was the Prez and mommy held the senate position, does not mean that Chelsea is qualified.  And certainly just because she attended a lot of mommy's fund raising events doesn't mean she's qualified.  Blimey, why not let Obama's daughter take his old senate seat. 

I heard someone describe our government as an aristocracy.  There are so many people who are qualified for the positions, but they will never get appointed because they are not rich or don't have the "name' or in the club.  I also heard that someone is sitting in Biden's old senate seat "keeping it warm" until Biden's son comes back from the service where he will just waltz in and the seat will be his.  All I can say is W-T-F??????

Like I say, I thought senate seats were appointed by people who vote for the candidates to fill the seat.  Now I'm hearing seats are just being given to the children and relatives of the ones who held the seat before them.  Tell me there isn't something wrong with what is going on.  Cripes!  We got rid of Bill (finally), sort of got rid of Hillary, and now little miss Chelsea is trying to weezle her way into the scene via mommy and daddy to get there.  

I am really disgusted with the political scene. 

Now it's on to the House-Senate negotioations.  I just hope we can stand this as a nation. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29119293/

GOP Discourages Harris Senate Run in '06

Monday, July 25, 2005 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos PHOTOS Click image to enlarge STORIES • Katherine Harris to Run for Senate in 2006 • Man Charged With Trying to Mow Down Katherine Harris • Harris Apologizes for Alarming Midwest City WASHINGTON — Katherine Harris (search) may have been the darling of the Republican establishment when she stuck her neck out as Florida secretary of state to halt the 2000 presidential election recount, but she doesn't seem to be getting much love from GOP powerbrokers today.

don't let him blindly lead them down that road. We have a national security force now, the National Guard, but of course, they're stuck fighting for our country since the draft was banned.

We need to get back to draft registration like it used to be, then our military will be good and the Guard can stay home and protect us like they're supposed to be doing.

Hackett has his work cut out for him, but I hope the vets keep running. It is a good sign of potential changes in the WH soon.

Ohio War Veteran Running for Senate

CINCINNATI -- Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, made his official entry into a U.S. Senate race Monday.

He faces a tough Democratic primary with Rep. Sherrod Brown in the race for the nomination to challenge second-term Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine next year.

Paul Hackett, the Democratic veteran of the Iraq war who narrowly lost in a special election in a heavily Republican congressional district in August, announces his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, at his home in Cincinnati, Ohio. (AP Photo/Al Behrman) (Al Behrman - AP) Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. msskybluez.blog-city.com Fired Up! America | for responsible government, strong communities, and secure families. BizNet- Productions-Today :: Main Page Full List of Blogs (5 links) »

Hackett's only political experience is a stint as a small-city councilman.

I'm asking all the people of this great state, regardless of political affiliation, to consider my message and to consider joining me in the fight to take back our government from the career politicians and their special interest support groups who have hijacked our government, he said as he announced his campaign at his home in suburban Indian Hill.

Hackett decided to run for Congress earlier this year after completing a seven-month tour of duty in Iraq as a Marine reservist. That special election in southern Ohio's seven-county 2nd District was to replace Rep. Rob Portman, who left his seat to become the U.S. trade representative.

Hackett won the Democratic nomination, then battled Republican Jean Schmidt, a former state legislator, in a campaign in which he linked her to embattled Republican Gov. Bob Taft while sharply criticizing President Bush's handling of the war.

Schmidt won on Aug. 2 with 52 percent of the vote, though Portman had consistently won re-election in the district with more than 70 percent and Bush had carried it in 2004 with 64 percent.

Hackett's strong showing in a state that was a pivotal presidential battleground solidified the attorney as a likely 2006 candidate for Congress or statewide office.

After Hackett decided to oppose DeWine, Hackett was irked when Brown, with three decades of elective politics behind him, decided he also would run.

Brown, a former state legislator and Ohio secretary of state, is in his seventh congressional term, representing northeastern Ohio's 13th District. He's expected to officially launch his Senate race in early November.

Brown said Monday he initially didn't plan to run because of family reasons, but changed his mind with his family's encouragement. He said he wasn't expecting the race for the May 2 primary to damage his chances of defeating DeWine in the general election.

I've had primaries before, Brown said. It makes me a stronger candidate.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137

Do you actually look up anything?

Jack Welch's Take

Former GE CEO on whether 'spreading the wealth' sinks small business