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)
It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.
Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?
For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.
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:
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.
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABCs This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think its a manageable one for the White House especially if we dont know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
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.
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?
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.
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme
By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.
According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."
In a statement to ABCNews.com, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."
The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."
Freddie Mac agreed to pay a $50 million penalty in 2007 to settle the SEC complaint and four top executives of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation were charged with negligent conduct and, like the company, agreed to settle the case without admitting or denying the allegations.
The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.
The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.
Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.
Emanuel was named to the Freddie Mac board by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and resigned his position when he ran for Congress in May, 2001.
Freddie Mac Misrepresented Income, Says SEC
During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."
The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.
The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."
The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."
As a Congressman, Emanuel recused himself from any votes dealing with Freddie Mac until just this year.
In dealing with the nation's economic crisis, the new White House chief of staff will almost certainly be involved in discussions about the house and mortgage markets.
Emanuel's spokesperson said, "As White House chief of staff he will work with President-elect Obama and his economic advisers to help ensure we protect taxpayers and homeowners."
It is not possible for other countries to differentiate between the people of Iran and the government leaders. They deal with the leaders.
You know, we were fed a line in this country as far as back the first George Bush administration back in 1988-1992 that the people of Iraq did not support Hussein and that he would be overthrown by internal forces. That did not happen. We went in there 3 years ago to free the Iraqi people and it is now a huge mess that has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Now Iran is making more noise. They hated the Shah because of his close ties to the West, so they put in a lunatic Islamic cleric and turned the country into a religious state. Islam teaches brotherhood and tolerance, so why are the leaders of this religious state so full of hate and spite?
Frankly, I think we should completely withdraw from the Middle East, including Israel. We should deport all Middle Easterners from this this country and from our American territories. We should quit buying your oil and anything else you produce. Leave us alone and we'll return the favor.
I think it is apparent that democracy is not possible in Arab Islamic countries. It works in other Muslim countries, like Turkey and some other places, but obviously the Middle East is not evolved enough to be able to tolerate other people's viewpoints and value systems. Until that happens, there can be no democracy.
Iran
" Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "
" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people, he said in an e-mailed statement. "
Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests. Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!
I was listening to a variety of news shows and visiting a number of news sites this morning for my "daily dose" when it struck me that the coverage about Iran is already diminishing - even on sites like Fox News.
Sometimes I think that we Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly...and I also think that people like the Ayatollah rely on the fact that after a brief period of outrage, Americans will forget that there may be thousands of Iranians either in hospitals or sitting in cells waiting to hear exactly how they will be executed.
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
Ummm...yes you did....
You said take it to the conservative board. And I do not see what in the post was bashing. It was stating an opinion, which anyone, no matter what their political affiliation is, still has the right to do on this board or any other to my knowledge. If you perceive the truth as bashing, that is your prerogative. And the truth IS, liberals continue to defend Clinton even though he was and is a morally corrupt individual who broke the law of the United States while a sitting President. He did it, that is the truth, there is no way around that. Yet your party continues to say it was about sex. I will try this one more time...perjury is perjury no matter what it is ABOUT. It is a felony. He broke the law and his oath of office. Never apologized for either. And took his last hours in office an opportunity to pardon all the crony crooks he could. And yet you continue to defend him as a great man. Pardon me if that seriously undermines the credibility of your party. That is NOT bashing. That is the TRUTH.
ummm
The way I read that is these units would be activated in case of natural or manmade diaster, not out on the streets everyday. Good greif.
Ummm, so maybe they can
Then the guilty can be punished, and the innocent prisoners who are not terrorists (or at least weren't when they were initially locked up) can be set free.
Kinda a no brainer, dontcha think?
Ummm....
source of the info and the fact that you "don't know anybody who would think it's right" yada yada yada, chances are you and the author are jumping to conclusions that are most likely a tad over-stated. It might be helpful to keep in mind that the "government" is not some block of concrete buildings or master computer somewhere. They are flesh and blood just like the rest of us and are not likely to be party to placing "control" of the heath care of themselves, their parents and their own children in the thoes of such a scheme. Sorry. Jury's still out on this.
Ummm....
source of the info and the fact that you "don't know anybody who would think it's right" yada yada yada, chances are you and the author are jumping to conclusions that are most likely a tad over-stated. It might be helpful to keep in mind that the "government" is not some block of concrete buildings or master computer somewhere. They are flesh and blood just like the rest of us and are not likely to be party to placing "control" of the heath care of themselves, their parents and their own children in the thoes of such a scheme. Sorry. Jury's still out on this.
Ummm...no....
Get over yourself. If you have something intelligent to say, I'm all ears, but until that time.....
Ummm....(sm)
So you don't think waterboarding is illegal -- even though it goes directly against at least 4 existing treaties? If we aren't going to be held accountable by treaties that WE agree to, what's the point of being in them?
This is actually where I do disagree with Obama. He doesn't want to make this into a partisan thing and is seemingly not too interested in prosecutions. My opinion is that its not partisan to enforce existing laws. As far as I'm concerned the whole bunch from the Shrub gang need to be prosecuted. Maybe we can just extradite them to Spain. That would work for me.
Ummm....(sm)
Doesn't this belong on the gab board? What's wrong....don't want to talk about your heros, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld going down for torture?
Ummm....(sm)
I think I would go with conventional interrogation techniques...you know....the ones that actually worked on KSM before the waterboarding.
Ummm....(sm)
"what right does the government have to take MY money and give to an organization like ACORN to pass out to democratic candidates for their campaigns"
Well, that was straight out of O'Reilly's mouth. LOL. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's just about exactly what he said last night.
So you think that there is a direct funnel that takes our tax dollars and just hands them over to Acorn? Here's a news flash --- as the ladies noted last night on Billo's show, they are a nonprofit organization and have to apply and compete for grants and loans just like everyone else.
As for whether they are completely on the up and up, I have no idea, but I don't think I'll base that judgment on the commentary of a right-wing show host.
Exactly how is it that Fox's ratings prove that O'Reilly is not far right? LOL.. Ratings have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
However, since you mentioned Obama and fulfilling his promises, it may not turn out like you think. For the most part people who voted for him are pretty happy with how he's handling the economy and foreign affairs. However, there are a few things that have gotten to a lot of dems. For example, he hasn't gotten rid of "don't ask don't tell" yet. He hasn't fulfilled promises he made to the LGBT community. He's carrying on seemingly with "indefinite detention." He ran on a platform that promised these things would be fixed. Granted, he hasn't been there long and can still come around on these things. However, if he doesn't my guess is that the country will go even farther to the left than they did this time. Now that is what you should be worried about, not Fox ratings.
And just as a side note, if he gets healthcare reform through, it will be decades before a pub sets foot in the White House.
ummm.
Now who's making assumptions? You don't know what he paid for either. Secondly, I am fully aware of what is going on in this country. Spending, printing money, spending, printing money, etc., etc. Get over Bush He is gone. Obama has in four shorts months spent more money than the 43 presidents who preceded him COMBINED. So yeah, I worry about the cost of his date. Because it's just plain wrong. You want logic - you don't spend taxpayer money on a DATE in this failing economy. Logic would be to lead by example, not telling other people to sacrifice and then do something so excessive. Furthermore, who said I voted for Bush? You? Shows what you know. Next time don't vote in Obama and maybe free enterprise in this country will survive so we will all have jobs.
Ummm....(sm)
Obama has writtent 2 books ---- the first, "Dreams From My Father," was published in 1995. The second, "The Audacity of Hope," was published in 2006. --- Both before the election.
Ummm....actually it does...(sm)
The Declaration of Independence is not and was not a legal document. It simply stated the intent of the US to separate from Great Britian and why. It did not define any rules or regulations to be imposed in this nation.
Explain the Treaty of Tripoli that says "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Another note: Not everyone in this country is in the business of impressing your god and therefore has no need of any kind of "blessing" from your god. What if I were a pagan and told you that the sun god was going to scorch the US unless everyone prayed to him/her. Would you do it? That's what you expect everyone else to do to impress your god. Why? Because YOU don't want to be in the mix when your supposed wrath of god experience comes. I would put that in the category of trying to make others do something they don't agree with just to save your behind. Don't even bother with the "but we want to save you too" speech. Believe me, we don't want or need saving.
Your main point was what you initially stated, and that was that there was no mention in the MSM about this incident. Unfortunately for you, I can undoubtedly come up with even more proof of MSM coverage if you'd like, but that would only serve to embarass you further.
As far as Obama not saying much about it, I think that was a good choice. At the time he was only a couple days out from his speech in Cairo. --- That would be the speech where he is seeking to calm tensions between our religous nuts and their religious nuts. Yeah....that would have been just a perfect time to bring that up. How about using your brain for a change instead of just spitting out the right wing talking points.
I do believe I've more than proven I can take the heat on this board....LOL, even from the loons like you who just lurk around waiting for me to post something so you can jump on it, which is rather funny and pathetic all at the same time, as well as from the paranoid lunatics like Patty.
BTW, you can now take "paranoid lunatic" out of the insinuation box and put in the statement box......just so you don't get confused.
The whole point of the gag order (which the prosecutors asked for, btw) is so they can come up with a jury that has not been overexposed to the case. I guess Fixed Noise wants to ensure that everyone hears about this so we can have a really hard time prosecuting this guy. Way to go Fox!
Well, here it is, folks. The beginning of the end of humanity, as Congress sits paralyzed and watches it happen (unless they finally grow a backbone and say *ENOUGH* to Bush).
The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.
The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
That's the name they're using, the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.
A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war.
The former intelligence officials depicts planning as enormous, hectic and operational, Hersh writes.
One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government, The New Yorker pointed out.
In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.
One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.
But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.
There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries, the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.
The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke a chain reaction of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.
If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle, the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
These remarks from Iran and Russia may not
RE: Response to Obama's election by Iran: What I see here is an opening for dialog in the recognition that there is a capacity for improvement of ties, not exactly the "Death to America" sentiments expressed in the past, this despite Obama's statement directed at those who would tear the world down (we will defeat you). I also see several implied preconditions. After all, preconditions are a two-way street:
1. I would be curious to have Aghamohammadi expand on what he means by Bush style "confrontation" in other countries. He is the spokesperson for the National Security Council in Iran, has been involved with the EU, Britian, France and Germany as a nuclear arms negotiator and would be directly involved in any dialog with the US on the subject of nuclear arms nonproliferation. We hardly have a leg to stand in this arena with our current "do as I say, not as I do and never mind the nuclear stockpiles in Israel we financed" approach. My guess would be he is condemning military invasion and occupation, hardly a radical position for any sovereign nation to take. In his own capacity, he should understand the US has unfinished business in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, so it is impossible to know in the absence of dialog what alternatives to military invasion may be possible. It might be worth a look-see.
2. His implied request for the US to "concentrate on state matters" might be seen by some as a little progress, especially since, at the moment, we do not even have an embassy in Iran. This also implies a possible opening to US business interests there (which were abundant under the Shah), a staging ground for diplomacy and establishing an avenue for articulating US foreign policy within their borders.
3. Concentrating on removing the American people's concerns would imply a desire on his part to repair and improve Iran's image abroad.
A well thought out response to these implied preconditions would be a logical place for Obama to start when speculating on his own preconditions.
RE: Russia's recent behavior and rhetoric is worrisome on many levels to more than a few countries in the region. Cold war with Russia is in NOBODY'S interest, including Russia's I fail to see how turning our backs, isolating ourselves or ratcheting up bellicose rhetoric toward them would do anything except give them a green light to proceed. It's an ugly world out there and Obama will inevitably be taking either a direct or an indirect diplomatic role in addressing this issue. Russia has expressed that same expectation.
I agree with you and find humor in the remarks from Sudan. Anyway, wait and watch is all we can do at this point. It certainly beats the heck out of prognostications of failure or defeat. setting the stage for a war with iran
Maybe this will come to nothing, but the NYT reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/world/middleeast/20nuke.html?hp) that ''the amount of uranium that Tehran had now amassed more than a ton was sufficient, with added purification, to make an atom bomb.''
So here we go again, people nudging us towards war, with the complicity of the Times. We'll pretend that a nuclear weapon is something you can cook up in your kitchen, once you have the requisite number of atoms. We'll pretend that this is The Greatest Threat We Have Ever Known. Even bigger than Saddam, who ended up not having all the WMD the NYT said he did. We've already begun playing around with 2007's National Intelligence Estimate (see LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-usiran12-2009feb12,0,3478184.story) to make Iran seem more dangerous.
We really just can't leave *anyone* alone, can we?
marks the location of current message within thread
!["](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/global/odot.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_tl.gif"){kind=small}
![](http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/news/story_bl.gif"){kind=small}
![Iran](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090617/videolthumb.ec330d8bf51ff0f97896c253d0a81a66.jpg?x=213&y=160&xc=1&yc=1&wc=399&hc=300&q=85&sig=n02llinss0WKJvn1w3HGlg--")
