McCain explained what had given him confidence in Keating's operations, citing written assurances from some of the financial world's sacred cows, including Alan Greenspan -- ...And while the speech skirted over an issue of earlier letters McCain wrote to the Reagan White House in support of Keating's efforts to reduce federal restrictions impeding his investment plans, his implicit message was clear: Even the sharpies had been fooled by Keating -- there was plenty of fault to go around.
"...reduce federal restrictions..."?
When will John McCain learn his lesson?
MOMENTS OF TRUTH | McCain and the Keating Five
Senator's Image as Reformer Born in Crisis
Career Eventually Thrived in Aftermath
By Michael Leahy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2008; Page A01
Facing the biggest crisis of his political career in late 1989, John McCain telephoned Jay Smith, an old friend and strategist, and asked him to come to a damage-control session in McCain's Washington office.
McCain was under investigation for his connection to a pushy savings-and-loan operator named Charles H. Keating Jr., and Smith worried that the senator had created an appearance of impropriety because of his uncharacteristically guarded response to the accusations and his stubborn refusal to talk to reporters about them. The solution, he told McCain and his aides, was to hold a news conference. Take every question, Smith said. Say nothing is off limits. Let McCain be McCain.
Others in the room remember press secretary Victoria Clarke arguing against Smith's recommendation. "I don't think he can pull it off," she said of McCain, and then, with the senator just a few feet away, she raised a disastrous possibility: "I think he will lose his temper."
"I don't think that's true, " Smith said, turning in his chair toward McCain. "What do you think?"
"I can do it," McCain said.
Smith wasn't surprised -- he knew he had been appealing to McCain's instinct to get on the offensive. As much as he loathed the media now for what he regarded as their unfairness, McCain liked the idea of walking into the lions' den and taking on the enemy.
Some of his advisers thought his vacillation over what to do about the Keating controversy reflected an internal conflict of their boss -- between his philosophical preference for public openness and his private fury anytime he felt his dignity trampled, an anger that sometimes revealed itself in his walling himself off from anyone who crossed him. But as the Keating crisis played out, they concluded that to frame the shifting tides of his nature this way was to miss the real point about McCain: that, at his best and worst, he was driven mostly by defiance in the face of pressure.
"If people tell him he can't do something, John's instinct often is to do it and prove them wrong," Smith says.
If anything at all was slowly changing in McCain, it was the new priority he assigned to pragmatism, accommodation and self-preservation, a trio of concepts that his once-rebellious father had tried to instill in him during McCain's Naval Academy days, and that the son had scorned. Under the stress of his political nightmare now, he exhibited the first signs of a self-reevaluation.
The means and manner of McCain's political resuscitation during the weeks that followed provided a window to his emerging style amid controversy -- his zest for the big gamble, the aggressive push-back while his similarly beleaguered Keating Five colleagues took refuge behind closed doors, his deftness in recasting himself as a chastened reformer and his skill in turning a potentially disastrous setback to his advantage.
Oddly, the crisis some thought would destroy him proved to be fortuitous. While the Keating episode was the most searing moment of his career, his response to it launched him into the national spotlight. Ever since, he has been on the long, if bumpy, ascension that led him to the Republican presidential nomination.
Later those same instincts helped make his recovery possible in the wake of his crushing loss to George W. Bush for the 2000 presidential nomination. In both crises, he proved himself to be a resilient and resourceful fighter, a dangerous politician to underestimate.
No other blow in McCain's life had stung him as much as the Keating bludgeoning. "At least the North Vietnamese didn't question my integrity," he famously snapped at two Arizona reporters when asked how the fallout from the scandal compared with the torment he suffered as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
When it came to Keating, McCain had a unique public relations mess that had little to do with the $112,000 in contributions he had received from the magnate during his first three campaigns. "Of the five senators before you, then-Representative McCain had the closest personal friendship with Charles Keating," Robert Bennett, chief counsel of the Senate ethics committee, informed panel members. Bennett, who would later represent the presidential nominee in his battles with the New York Times, added that McCain had been given gifts from Keating that the other senators hadn't: "Senator McCain was also the only one to receive personal as well as political benefits from Charles Keating."
During his early years as a congressman in the 1980s, McCain had vacationed, along with his wife, Cindy, young daughter Meghan and a babysitter, on Keating's estate at Cat Cay in the Bahamas. On several occasions, Keating flew the family down to the vacation site aboard the aircraft of his corporation, American Continental, after which McCain seemingly violated congressional rules in not promptly reimbursing the corporation.
In 1989, McCain finally paid about $13,000 to American Continental to cover the expense of his family's previously unreimbursed airfare to the island, later saying that the delay resulted merely from an oversight. But, politically speaking, the timing could hardly have been worse. By then, federal regulators had seized the savings and loan under Keating's control and news had broken of a Justice Department investigation of the S&L.
Aware of the fallout that might come from the news that he had run afoul of congressional rules in not swiftly paying his friend's company, McCain turned to his wife, who generally handled the family's household bills, in hopes that she might find canceled checks proving that the McCains had reimbursed American Continental for some, if not all, of the flights at issue.
Complicating McCain's public relations problems, stories surfaced that Cindy and her father, Jim Hensley, the owner of a successful Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship in Phoenix, had invested in a real estate deal with Keating. While McCain had played no role in their investment in an Arizona shopping center built by a subsidiary of American Continental, the deal triggered questions among reporters and Senate investigators about his motives and possible conflicts of interest.
It was a dark period. "John was deeply down," Maine senator and future defense secretary William S. Cohen remembers. "He was upset a lot of the time with himself. . . . He'd made a mistake, obviously -- mistakes of 'appearance,' as he said, in going to the meetings [with federal regulators]. . . . But something like riding on a plane with Keating: He'd never given that a second thought -- his father-in-law knew Keating, after all. He had this sense of outrage over what some people were saying about him. . . . He felt more wounded by that whole experience than anything else that had ever happened in his life. He said to me one day, 'They've inflicted more pain on me than the North Vietnamese did' -- that was the essence of it. . . . [Virginia Sen. John W.] Warner and I tried pumping him up and saying, 'You'll get through this okay; it'll be okay.' But it was hard."
During the last half of 1989, McCain turned for advice to former Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, his predecessor, with whom his relationship had experienced ups and downs. McCain sent Goldwater a private note, asking whether the legend could recommend a way to handle the Keating controversy.
Goldwater, who had been reluctant to issue a public defense of McCain, was characteristically blunt, offering a bit of encouragement but little else. "I've been wracking my brain to come up with some advice to give you, but frankly, I can't find any," he wrote in a letter to McCain, a copy of which is in the Goldwater Papers collection at the Arizona Historical Foundation. "My suggestion is, sort of lay off it, you've explained it to everyone who would listen, and now I think your job is to get a hell of a lot of work done for Arizona that will stand out more predominantly, than what has happened to you with Mr. Keating. That's about it, John. Work your ass off. . . . I think you can do it."
By then, Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan had collapsed under crushing debt, to be taken over by the federal government, which covered Lincoln's losses at a cost of about $3 billion to American taxpayers. More than 20,000 bondholders had lost more than $200 million in savings. The outspoken critics of Keating's five senatorial friends had grown to include some of the regulators from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board whose initial concerns about Keating had gone unheeded.
Before the ethics committee hearings even began in late 1989, the regulators leveled accusations of improper conduct against the five senators, who had accepted a total of more than $1.3 million in campaign money from Keating. At the start of the hearings, the senators sat dourly alongside one another in a long row, a visual suggestive of co-defendants in a rogues' docket.
That image and the words "taxpayers' billions" had a damning effect: Although some of the targeted senators had yet to see it, three of them -- Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California and Donald W. Riegle Jr. of Michigan -- were already effectively finished in electoral politics, never again to run for public office. The committee determined in 1991 that the three had improperly interfered with the bank board's investigation of Lincoln, with Cranston receiving a sharply worded reprimand. The committee exonerated the fourth Democratic senator involved, Ohio's John Glenn, a revered former astronaut who had taken $200,000 in contributions from Keating. But while Glenn would win reelection once more, his career was never quite the same, the committee concluding that he had exercised "poor judgment" in meeting with regulators at Keating's behest.
It was the same decision that the panel reached about McCain. But, though the committee treated McCain and Glenn identically, their political fates could scarcely have been more different. Among the five senators, only McCain's career genuinely recovered -- and eventually thrived -- in the wake of the crisis.
'I Freely Admit My Errors'
Two days after the strategy meeting in his Washington office, McCain appeared at the Phoenix Sheraton Hotel before a thicket of cameras and Arizona reporters. Victoria Clarke planted herself a few feet away, and McCain told her to rub her nose if he sounded like he was on the verge of losing his temper.
McCain read from a prepared text that Jay Smith had helped to draft. "I will stand here and take your questions for as long as you have them," he told the media. "Anything you want to ask me."
A disarming speech followed, which included a swift admission: "I am not going to stand here and tell you -- or have the attitude -- that everything I have done is above reproach and without fault. Was I sufficiently sensitive to the appearance some of my actions were creating? Maybe not.
"I freely admit my errors. . . . I committed an error by not reimbursing American Continental for my travel on their corporate aircraft at the time of the travel, which members of Congress are required to do. This was wrong. I can honestly tell you that I did not do this intentionally. I had assumed all along that payment for the trips had been made. . . . John McCain may have made some poor judgments. But I have never used my office to aid any individual improperly."
McCain explained what had given him confidence in Keating's operations, citing written assurances from some of the financial world's sacred cows, including Alan Greenspan -- who in the years before becoming the Federal Reserve Board chairman, had served as a consultant to Keating -- and what was then known as Arthur Young & Co., one of the Big Eight accounting firms. And while the speech skirted over an issue of earlier letters McCain wrote to the Reagan White House in support of Keating's efforts to reduce federal restrictions impeding his investment plans, his implicit message was clear: Even the sharpies had been fooled by Keating -- there was plenty of fault to go around.
He quoted a Greenspan testimonial about Lincoln Savings and Loan's operations during the Fed chairman's days as a Keating adviser: " 'I believe that Lincoln . . . has demonstrated that it has the adequate capitalization, sound business plans, managerial expertise and the proper diversification to which the Board refers.' "
After the speech, McCain calmly answered questions until there were no more.
It was, even in the judgment of critics, a bravura performance. The Arizona Republic newspaper, which had earlier viewed McCain's Keating-related comments as defensive and unseemly, signaled its approval: "He freely owned up to error and carelessness, refused to blame his staff, and left the news conference with his reputation intact." The Republic's sister paper, the Phoenix Gazette, noted that he had checked his fury at the door.
The McCain team's public relations onslaught had just begun. Over the next six weeks, the senator became ubiquitous on TV news shows and in major publications, granting interviews to 21 media giants that included the three major networks' evening news shows, The Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, PBS's "The MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour," and ABC's "Nightline" and "This Week With David Brinkley."
"It wouldn't be successful if he was seen as ducking somebody . . . so he talked to virtually everybody," Smith remembers. It worked. Commentators and even some of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board regulators praised McCain for talking openly about his mistakes. By then, the subject of his apologies had grown to include his simple presence at the Keating Five meetings. In a November 1989 interview with PBS's Roger Mudd, he declared: "The appearance of five senators meeting with one regulator is clearly . . . wrong. . . . I made mistakes, and serious ones. But I did not abuse the power of my office."
In denying having done anything unethical while repeatedly emphasizing his regret about the "appearance" of having made a mistake, McCain was gambling that voters would discern a distinction. Seeing the risk in the strategy, Mudd observed that it was a "roll of the dice." McCain, he said, "has fully thrown himself on the mercy of public opinion."
McCain acknowledged he had troubles, observing that he was caught in the "crisis of my political life."
"Think you'll survive it?" Mudd asked.
"I hope so," McCain said.
Toward the end of the PBS report, in what became a pattern during his television appearances, McCain received a favorable nod from the commentator. "John McCain has been the only one talking," Mudd told viewers. "The other four senators who are involved . . . all have been following a policy of stonewalling the press."
The flattering contrast emerged as a familiar media refrain in the days ahead, politically deadly to the four silent senators but a boost to McCain's political resurrection. When John Glenn finally began speaking publicly about the controversy, he avoided expressing any McCain-like regrets, steadfastly insisting upon his forthrightness, though sounding defensive in the process: "I never acted in a more ethical, moral and legal way in my life," he said.
By then, after weeks of interviews, McCain had changed from being a once little-known junior senator from Arizona to a national media favorite, appreciated for his admissions and unpredictable candor about the Keating mess. Even Edwin J. Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, who had felt unduly pressured by the five senators at the first meeting about Keating, singled out the senator who kept issuing the same qualified mea culpa. "In the case of Senator McCain, he is the one who has apologized -- he said [that five senators meeting with the regulators] was wrong, basically," Gray said. "And I think he deserves a lot of credit for that."
Back in Washington, DeConcini, who would later decide against seeking election in 1994, took note of McCain's rise from the dead.
"John did some smart political things, in retrospect," DeConcini says. "He went back to Arizona, admitted to some mistakes of judgment; that was shrewd. . . . He didn't take an aggressive position like I did, and like Riegle and Cranston did in fighting. . . . Maybe I should have admitted to some mistakes in judgment in some way. . . . And perhaps I should have called Greenspan and spoken out about Greenspan's support [of Keating] like McCain did [in his press conference]. But my staff talked me out of it. . . . John benefited from doing some smart things."
Birth of Campaign Reform for McCain
In response to questions from television anchormen, the chastened McCain seized the mantle of a new cause. "I am all for campaign finance reform," he said in late 1989 on "Nightline." "I think it will come over time. I think it will take impetus."
"That was the birth of campaign reform for McCain," Jay Smith later observed.
No one close to McCain could remember him ever talking about the subject before. But with the fallout from the Keating scandal receding, and his priorities changing, the great reception he was receiving from pundits and television interviewers emboldened him. Over the next year, he linked the ills of campaign finance scandals to excessive government spending, arguing that one led to the other. He began excoriating pork-barrel spending and earmarks. It was all part of a package of reforms being pushed by a new brand of Republican crusader.
"He'd never really talked about earmarks either before Keating," Smith recalls. "His new message was, number one: The status quo is unacceptable. . . . He'd known he was going to be exonerated [by the Senate ethics committee], but he also knew that . . . there was still this appearance of impropriety out there for some people. . . . . He'd had no real reason until then to pay attention to issues like campaign finance. . . . I first heard him talk at length about reform during his 1992 reelection campaign."
For the senator once regarded as a reliable party man, the moment marked the beginning of his subtle shift away from the orthodoxy of his party's establishment, his first steps toward staking out a reformist agenda that would at once begin to distance him from Keating while inexorably creating a rift between him and powerful Republicans who resented the casting of the issue as a moral litmus test. Sens. Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott maneuvered to derail a series of McCain attempts to change campaign financing rules, and for the first time, some Republicans and conservative pundits openly talked of the irritant that McCain was becoming.
But an ever more defiant McCain, having hitched his star to his reformer image, had made campaign finance a cause by then. After several failures to overcome Republican opposition, McCain and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin managed to win congressional approval of their campaign finance reform legislation in 2002. Best known as McCain-Feingold, the bill's most important provision banned unlimited and unregulated "soft money" contributions from individuals, corporations and labor unions to federal candidates and national political parties.
Its passage served to remind admirers and foes alike of McCain's outsider status. Some Republicans approved of it only grudgingly. President Bush expressed discomfort with parts of McCain-Feingold, but he signed it into law, which the Supreme Court upheld a year later.
Long before then, the specter of Keating and the scandal that threatened his career had been flipped to McCain's advantage, setting in motion a political climb that cast him as reformer, a maverick, a national figure and, eventually, a presidential contender in 2000. His campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express, would become the rolling symbol of his new identity.
"There was no doubt that campaign finance and being a maverick was a direct result of all that had happened to him," Cohen observes. "John wanted to see some changes, and people were suddenly listening to him, though not every Republican was always pleased with what they heard. John was not always a party guy, but I liked it. Many people liked it."
Costly Clashes
The Keating episode, and his crusade for campaign finance reform, set in motion a decade-long odyssey for McCain -- it saw him beset by seemingly crushing setbacks even as he steadily built for himself a winning image as a fierce and recalcitrant rebel. It propelled him as a national force even as it stiffened the opposition to him among conservatives.
That he had no definable political ideology made it easier to acquire the image of a reformer and iconoclast; he was answerable to nothing and no one in the largest sense. Unbound by a philosophy and so largely immune to charges of inconsistency, McCain's political outlook could afford to be thoroughly malleable, guided only by his instincts.
His acolytes touted him as a renegade who placed country above party and special interests -- just the right leader to reclaim the White House for Republicans, they argued. But, during the 1990s, his maverick image increasingly complicated his presidential ambitions. For every party leader who admired his independence, there was another prominent Republican voicing disdain for his go-it-alone style. Congressional Republicans who had done battle with him on campaign-finance and other issues made no secret of their opposition to him as a possible presidential candidate, and back home in Arizona, several key Republicans chafed against what they regarded as his attempts to dictate their political moves.
Even people who had stood by him since his earliest political days began abandoning him, sometimes not because of his reformist impulses but simply because his demanding nature so hurt or alienated them. He would expect fealty and they would say no. The crusader still sometimes exhibited his old prodigious temper, losing his cool behind closed doors with Republicans reluctant to do what he wanted, especially in Arizona. Their ranks included several of his longtime allies and key friends, whose estrangement he couldn't politically afford. In time, the widespread disaffection would spark the second crisis of his career, though he couldn't see the trouble brewing in the late 1990s, so busily was he preparing for his 2000 presidential run.
He had already suffered a falling out with his former top congressional aide in Arizona, Grant Woods, long viewed as his alter ego, a man who had begun to stake out his own promising future in Republican politics. Seen by many Arizonan observers as a reformer in the McCain image, Woods had risen to become Arizona's attorney general, a position from which, in the 1990s, he began investigating the state's Republican governor, Fife Symington, who would eventually be driven from office because of allegations of a financial scandal. As Woods recounts, a livid McCain asked him, "What the hell are you doing?"
"I've gotta do what I've gotta do," Woods remembers responding.
McCain made it clear that he didn't want him investigating a fellow Republican, Woods recalls. When Woods persisted, and defied McCain on a series of other issues, their relationship ended, with Woods shut out of McCain's inner circle. "It was kind of a military thing to him, a chain-of-command thing," Woods says. "I didn't follow the commands. He's a military guy, and you're supposed to salute the guy ahead of you on the command chart, and I wasn't saluting."
Perhaps the most costly clash for McCain came with Republican Jane Hull, who succeeded Symington as governor. As Woods and Smith remember, McCain never had forgiven Hull for supporting one of his Republican primary rivals during his first congressional race in 1982. "Dumb as a tree," he privately said of Hull, who, according to associates close to her, heard about McCain's insults from others and argued vociferously with him on occasions when she felt that his demands infringed on her prerogatives as governor.
McCain's grudge against Hull had long baffled Woods, who years earlier had urged his old boss to bury his contempt. "I would say to him, 'Why do you even care, John?' " Woods remembers. " 'You're talking about something that happened back in '82.' But John cared. I thought it was pretty petty and ludicrous. . . . He didn't show her the proper respect at times. I told him, 'If you don't stop doing this, you're going to have the same amount of supporters 20 years from now as you do today -- you won't add anybody.' " Woods warned McCain of the danger of alienating any prominent Arizona Republican. "It made absolutely no sense for him to keep doing it to somebody like Jane Hull. She was a strong personality herself, and she was a fellow governor of George W. Bush. And we saw what happened with that."
What happened was that, one afternoon in 1999, without warning McCain, Hull stunned the Republican political establishment by announcing her support of Bush for the 2000 presidential nomination. The moment marked the start of a new crisis. A series of other notable Arizona party operatives whom McCain had offended over the years followed Hull's lead.
Then, former congressman John Rhodes, a onetime House Republican leader whose seat McCain had captured in his first political race after Rhodes retired, issued his own endorsement of Bush, trying to soften the rejection for McCain by declaring he would support his fellow Arizonan for any office except the presidency.
Word of Arizona's disaffection toward its not-so-favorite son had spread. After he upset Bush in the New Hampshire primary, the nomination battle for McCain hinged on winning the South Carolina primary. Both the Bush and McCain forces waged fierce campaigns, with McCain irate over an anonymous smear effort alleging, among other things, that he had fathered a mixed-race child.
McCain questioned Bush's integrity and intellect. But nothing he did could stop his sliding fortunes, a trend that grew worse amid a push against him by leading Christian conservatives enamored of Bush and skeptical of McCain's commitment to their social causes. After losing South Carolina, McCain bitterly lashed out at them, referring to ministers Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, a co-founder of the Moral Majority, as "agents of intolerance." It was an act of political self-immolation. His campaign was finished.
The Downside of Ferocity
The Keating nightmare had infused McCain with tenacity and moral indignation. But it had taught him little, if anything, about patience and reconciliation. His old anger still competed with his new reformist politics for the attention of the public, the media and his colleagues.
The quandary had been a lifelong problem. More than 40 years earlier, his father, Jack McCain, had sought to lecture him, over lunch near the Naval Academy, on the importance of staying calm and not self-destructing when dealing with foes, especially those in superior military positions. The young rebel was fuming that afternoon again about a company commander whom he had come to regard as a mean-spirited, vindictive disgrace. His father, once a young renegade himself at the academy, but now a politically astute officer on his way to becoming a four-star admiral, warned him against taking on authority, preaching the merits of patience. McCain kept arguing the point with his father, refusing to back down. His war with Capt. R.G. Hunt, and half a century of more Hunts, would continue.
McCain's steel and ferocity had served him well at different points in his life -- in hostile schoolyards, in tough bars and in the Senate, when he was caught in the Keating fires and later in pushing campaign-finance reform. But all along, the ferocity had its downside, too, and five decades after his father's warnings, aware that he had no other choice if he ever wanted to capture the White House, the rebel at last embraced accommodation.
Although tensions between his office and the Bush White House remained, the newly accommodating McCain frequently lent the president his high-profile support and painstakingly emphasized, before conservative audiences, that he voted with him on the vast majority of issues. He gave full-throated support to the controversial Bush tax cuts, after first calling them unfair. He hugged the president at White House photo ops when Bush's poll numbers were falling and the administration was in need of all the political cover it could get.
By 2006, McCain had publicly set aside another longstanding grudge, delivering a commencement address at Liberty University and receiving a hug from another old antagonist, the university's co-founder Jerry Falwell, who died last year. His disinterest in ideology, his trust in his instincts and his comfort with the improvisational style of his own politics was proving successful in helping him make friends of former foes.
On his way to the 2008 nomination, McCain adroitly built a new coalition of Republican conservatives and moderates. As the general campaign has worn on, his nimbleness has not come without occasional costs, as some Republicans have joined Democrats in arguing that he has embraced new positions with an alarming alacrity, such as during the Wall Street bailout crisis, when his stances evolved almost daily, incorporating elements of both well-worn conservative and liberal dogmas.
But he might never have been here in the first place, so close to his dream, without having realized the benefits of all his accommodations, large and small, over the past eight years. "My father kind of gave McCain an unofficial endorsement when they finally got together," remembers Falwell's elder son, Jerry Falwell Jr. "He thought McCain would be the nominee in 2008. I think both of them discovered that they had some real personal chemistry, some real things in common. They were both mavericks, after all."
The moment represented just one more in a long line of conciliatory gestures from McCain, who was anxiously reaching out, sometimes with the help of surrogates, to soothe old enemies. Jane Hull was aboard the campaign now. And Grant Woods. And most of John Rhodes's longtime allies, too. In reaching for command, his father's way had become his own.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Financial World Crisis! This is a great beginning to understanding this SCAM!
The Iceland Syndrome
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, October 21, 2008; Page A17
Imagine this scenario: In a medium-size European country -- call it Country X -- the bank regulators hold an ordinary meeting. These being extraordinary times, the regulators discuss the health of various banks, including the country's largest -- call it Bank Y -- which is owned by an even larger Italian financial group. Last spring, Bank Y, which is perfectly healthy, transferred a large sum to its now somewhat-less-healthy Italian parent; since this is nothing unusual, the regulators drop the subject and move on.
The following day, the matter is reported in a marginal, far-right newspaper in somewhat different terms: "A billion dollars transferred to Italy! Country X's hard-earned money going abroad!" Within hours, as if on cue, everyone starts selling shares in Bank Y, whose stock price plunges. So does the rest of Country X's smallish stock market. So does Country X's currency. Within a few more hours, Country X is calling for an international bailout, the IMF is on the phone and the government is wobbling.
Except for that final sentence -- there was no international bailout or call to the International Monetary Fund, and the government is fine -- that is a brief description of something that happened last week to one of Poland's largest banks. A real meeting, followed by an unsubstantiated rumor in a dodgy newspaper, and a bunch of nervous investors started selling. Shares in the bank collapsed by the largest margin in its history; for one ugly day, they dragged down the rest of the Polish stock market and currency as well.
As I say, the story ended there. But it could have gone further, and, indeed, in several other countries it has. A month ago, in the first round of this crisis, panicky rumors brought down banks. Now, with trillions of nervous dollars sloshing around the international markets, panicky rumors are bringing down countries.
The case of Iceland, which in recent weeks has nationalized its three major banks, shut its stock exchange and halted trading in its currency, is by now well known. Less well known is the speed with which the Icelandic disease is spreading. Consider Hungary, once the destination of choice for investors who wanted an Eastern European head office with a 19th-century facade and a pastry shop next door: The currency is in free fall and so is the stock market, flummoxing those previously well-fed investors. (One of them told a Hungarian financial Web site: "I haven't got a clue as to when and how this would end, I'm just staring into empty space.") Or Ukraine, whose central bank governor declared his banking system "normal and reliable" on Monday of last week. By Tuesday of last week, Ukraine had desperately requested " systemic support" from the IMF.
So far, most of these crises have been explained away: The banks of Iceland had debts larger than Iceland's gross domestic product, Hungary's finances were long mismanaged, and Ukraine, whose president just called for the third election in as many years, is badly governed. But the speed with which some of these defaults are happening, coupled with the paranoia inherent in the political culture of small countries, has led many to suspect political manipulation as well.
To put it another way: If you wanted to destabilize a country, wouldn't this be an excellent time to do it? If Country X's stock market can crash after the publication of a single article in an obscure newspaper, think what might happen if someone conducted a systematic campaign against Country X. And if you can imagine this, so can others.
All governments have enemies, internal and external, or at least are faced with elements that do not wish them well: the political opposition, the country next door, the former imperial power. For someone, there will always be the temptation to bring down the government, destabilize the country and thus create political chaos.
Even when there hasn't been political meddling, someone else will suspect that it has occurred, anyway. Here, then, is a prediction: Political instability will follow economic instability like night follows day. Iceland is not alone. Serbia, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, South Korea and Argentina are all in financial trouble; so, too, are Russia and Brazil.
And here's a final, unpleasant thought: Pakistan. This is a country with 25 percent inflation and a currency in free fall; a country with a jihadist insurgency on its border with Afghanistan, permanent hostility on its border with India, nuclear weapons and a tradition of street demonstrations in response to suspect newspaper articles. Dozens of people, with all kinds of agendas, have an interest in using financial markets to destabilize Pakistan, and Afghanistan along with it. Eventually, one of them will.
applebaumletters@washpost.com
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, October 21, 2008; Page A17
Imagine this scenario: In a medium-size European country -- call it Country X -- the bank regulators hold an ordinary meeting. These being extraordinary times, the regulators discuss the health of various banks, including the country's largest -- call it Bank Y -- which is owned by an even larger Italian financial group. Last spring, Bank Y, which is perfectly healthy, transferred a large sum to its now somewhat-less-healthy Italian parent; since this is nothing unusual, the regulators drop the subject and move on.
The following day, the matter is reported in a marginal, far-right newspaper in somewhat different terms: "A billion dollars transferred to Italy! Country X's hard-earned money going abroad!" Within hours, as if on cue, everyone starts selling shares in Bank Y, whose stock price plunges. So does the rest of Country X's smallish stock market. So does Country X's currency. Within a few more hours, Country X is calling for an international bailout, the IMF is on the phone and the government is wobbling.
Except for that final sentence -- there was no international bailout or call to the International Monetary Fund, and the government is fine -- that is a brief description of something that happened last week to one of Poland's largest banks. A real meeting, followed by an unsubstantiated rumor in a dodgy newspaper, and a bunch of nervous investors started selling. Shares in the bank collapsed by the largest margin in its history; for one ugly day, they dragged down the rest of the Polish stock market and currency as well.
As I say, the story ended there. But it could have gone further, and, indeed, in several other countries it has. A month ago, in the first round of this crisis, panicky rumors brought down banks. Now, with trillions of nervous dollars sloshing around the international markets, panicky rumors are bringing down countries.
The case of Iceland, which in recent weeks has nationalized its three major banks, shut its stock exchange and halted trading in its currency, is by now well known. Less well known is the speed with which the Icelandic disease is spreading. Consider Hungary, once the destination of choice for investors who wanted an Eastern European head office with a 19th-century facade and a pastry shop next door: The currency is in free fall and so is the stock market, flummoxing those previously well-fed investors. (One of them told a Hungarian financial Web site: "I haven't got a clue as to when and how this would end, I'm just staring into empty space.") Or Ukraine, whose central bank governor declared his banking system "normal and reliable" on Monday of last week. By Tuesday of last week, Ukraine had desperately requested " systemic support" from the IMF.
So far, most of these crises have been explained away: The banks of Iceland had debts larger than Iceland's gross domestic product, Hungary's finances were long mismanaged, and Ukraine, whose president just called for the third election in as many years, is badly governed. But the speed with which some of these defaults are happening, coupled with the paranoia inherent in the political culture of small countries, has led many to suspect political manipulation as well.
To put it another way: If you wanted to destabilize a country, wouldn't this be an excellent time to do it? If Country X's stock market can crash after the publication of a single article in an obscure newspaper, think what might happen if someone conducted a systematic campaign against Country X. And if you can imagine this, so can others.
All governments have enemies, internal and external, or at least are faced with elements that do not wish them well: the political opposition, the country next door, the former imperial power. For someone, there will always be the temptation to bring down the government, destabilize the country and thus create political chaos.
Even when there hasn't been political meddling, someone else will suspect that it has occurred, anyway. Here, then, is a prediction: Political instability will follow economic instability like night follows day. Iceland is not alone. Serbia, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, South Korea and Argentina are all in financial trouble; so, too, are Russia and Brazil.
And here's a final, unpleasant thought: Pakistan. This is a country with 25 percent inflation and a currency in free fall; a country with a jihadist insurgency on its border with Afghanistan, permanent hostility on its border with India, nuclear weapons and a tradition of street demonstrations in response to suspect newspaper articles. Dozens of people, with all kinds of agendas, have an interest in using financial markets to destabilize Pakistan, and Afghanistan along with it. Eventually, one of them will.
applebaumletters@washpost.com
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Republicans are pushing the irrational theory ...and the IGNORANT Americans will suck it up!
Republicans are pushing the irrational theory that Democrats are "cheating" their way to the White House because for them, the real reason for a possible Republican defeat would be irrational.
"We could lose, I suppose, if they cheat us out of it" and Other Tales of Republican Delusion
by georgia10
Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 06:31:13 AM PDT
The black guy can't win. The black guy with the middle name "Hussein" can't win. The black guy with the middle name "Hussein" who has "most liberal voting record" in the Senate just can't win. So if and when the terrorist-loving, radical ideology-embracing, "he doesn't see America like you and I see America" skinny black guy from Chicago wins the presidency, the only logical explanation is that he stole it.
So goes the perverted "logic" of the panicked right these days, as the entire right-wing noise machine roars up into another faux frenzy this week regarding alleged "voter fraud."
As McCain's numbers having nose-dived in the last week, some Republicans have dived head-first into the realm of conspiracy theories in order to sow the seeds of speculation that Democrats are going to "steal" this election. This week has provided some news items which they are using as kinder for their tinfoil bonfire.
ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), is an organization which has been registering voters in low-income areas. Volunteers at some chapters (who are paid per registration) have been found guilty of submitting to ACORN fake voter registrations. That, obviously, is a crime.
ACORN is obligated by law to turn over all voter registration forms, even the fake ones, but it flags those it believes are suspicious (Mickey Mouse, John Q. Public, etc.) While the why of the situation remains unclear, ACORN's Nevada office was raided this week in connection with a voter registration fraud probe.
Ben Smith at Politico, like many others across the blogosphere, puts the ACORN story into perspective:
The key distinction here is between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, one of which is truly dangerous, the other a petty crime.
The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.
The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there's virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don't even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
In other words, what is occurring (and what isn't unique to this election) is isolated incidents of voter registration fraud. Fraud is also being committed on ACORN, an organization that is being tricked into paying volunteers for these fake registrations (clarification: ACORN pays its volunteers by the hour, not per registration). Voter fraud has not occurred. Mickey Mouse isn't show up to vote, even if he did "fill out" a registration form. And if someone registered more than once? They can only vote once at the polling booth once their name is checked off.
But pesky facts like that mean little to certain Republicans who see McCain's plunging numbers and who are looking for any reason--other than the failure of conservatism--to blame for a possible crushing electoral defeat.
FOX "News" has graced the nation with almost wall-to-wall coverage of ACORN's "voter fraud", even dragging out former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (yes, that Kenneth Blackwell, of Ohio voter suppression fame) to cast the outcome of the Ohio election into doubt. Republicans have released ads linking Obama to ACORN's alleged misconduct. And even John McCain's top surrogate has entered the fray, proclaiming that if Obama wins Indiana, the only explanation for such a victory would be cheating:
WASHINGTON - The only way Barack Obama can win in Indiana is to cheat, one of John McCain's stand-ins said Thursday.
He said votes have already been cast by "people who don't exist" and that a national voter-registration effort is "trying to steal the election in Indiana."
In an interview before headlining the Indiana Republican Party's fund-raising dinner in Indianapolis Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Hoosiers are too smart to vote for Obama.
Democrats, he said, "can't win fairly out here."
Asked if Democrats could win without cheating, Graham said, "No. They can't win fairly out here 'cause their agenda is so far removed from the average Hoosier.
"We could lose, I suppose, if they cheat us out of it," Graham said of Indiana's 11 electoral votes. "I think the only way we lose a state like North Carolina or Indiana is to get cheated out of it."
When the reporter calls him out on the distinction between "voter registration fraud" and "voter fraud," Graham palinizes his response:
Asked to identify non-existent people who have voted in the presidential election, Graham said: "Have you been following the ACORN investigation out there? They're registering people who don't exist." He said there are multiple registrations going on. "One lady registered 11 times. I'm saying that the dynamic out here of voter fraud is something we're concerned about."
News Hounds brings us the Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's rational take on the matter:
"There has been no fraudulent voting...The people who claim this is a huge problem can never produce any instances where anyone voted fraudulently. They have registered fraudulently.
"Anyone who is registering someone who is not a real person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," McCaskill said, but she did not accept the accusation that the apparently bogus registrations were "clogging" the system.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the New York Times reports that thousands of voters are being cheated out of their votes because of bureaucratic bungling:
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately.
Republicans are pushing the irrational theory that Democrats are "cheating" their way to the White House because for them, the real reason for a possible Republican defeat would be irrational.
This was, after all, supposed to be the age of the "permanent Republican majority." America is a "conservative country" we've been told. Indeed, as this screencap from John McCain's "Strategy Briefing" demonstrates, the entire McCain campaign was premised on the idea that voters do not think Obama is "one of them":
But that screencap is from many months ago, before the full brunt of the failure of conservative policies has come to the foreground with the resounding "thud" of a stock market collapse. In this atmosphere, maybe having a "liberal" president who favors reasonable regulation and stringent oversight isn't a bad thing after all. And maybe, when voters are worried about how to pay for health care, voting for the Republican who touts the ability of the "market" to deal with the problem doesn't seem that appealing anymore.
The middle class is being cheated. And they know--as much as Republicans would like for them to forget--which party has been in power for the last eight years. And as they flock to a candidate who promises them change from failed Republican policies, panicked Republicans flock to conspiracy theories.
Blaming a possible Democratic victory on "voter fraud" is much easier than acknowledging that a resounding Democratic victory would be a wholesale rejection of Republican governance. And it's easier than admitting that voters--yes, Senator Graham, maybe even voters in Indiana and North Carolia--like what the liberal black guy from Chicago is saying about the middle class.
So let them wrap themselves in tin foil. Let them revel in nuttery now. They can use that tin foil to wipe their eyes if and when--as the polls suggest--they will be wallowing in defeat in November.
::
"We could lose, I suppose, if they cheat us out of it" and Other Tales of Republican Delusion
by georgia10
Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 06:31:13 AM PDT
The black guy can't win. The black guy with the middle name "Hussein" can't win. The black guy with the middle name "Hussein" who has "most liberal voting record" in the Senate just can't win. So if and when the terrorist-loving, radical ideology-embracing, "he doesn't see America like you and I see America" skinny black guy from Chicago wins the presidency, the only logical explanation is that he stole it.
So goes the perverted "logic" of the panicked right these days, as the entire right-wing noise machine roars up into another faux frenzy this week regarding alleged "voter fraud."
As McCain's numbers having nose-dived in the last week, some Republicans have dived head-first into the realm of conspiracy theories in order to sow the seeds of speculation that Democrats are going to "steal" this election. This week has provided some news items which they are using as kinder for their tinfoil bonfire.
ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), is an organization which has been registering voters in low-income areas. Volunteers at some chapters (who are paid per registration) have been found guilty of submitting to ACORN fake voter registrations. That, obviously, is a crime.
ACORN is obligated by law to turn over all voter registration forms, even the fake ones, but it flags those it believes are suspicious (Mickey Mouse, John Q. Public, etc.) While the why of the situation remains unclear, ACORN's Nevada office was raided this week in connection with a voter registration fraud probe.
Ben Smith at Politico, like many others across the blogosphere, puts the ACORN story into perspective:
The key distinction here is between voter fraud and voter registration fraud, one of which is truly dangerous, the other a petty crime.
The former would be, say, voting the cemeteries or stuffing the ballot boxes. This has happened occasionally in American history, though I can think of recent instances only in rare local races. Practically speaking, this can most easily be done by whoever is actually administering the election, which is why partisan observers carefully oversee the vote-counting process.
The latter is putting the names of fake voters on the rolls, something that happens primarily when organizations, like Acorn, pay contractors for new voter registrations. That can be a crime, and it messes up the voter files, but there's virtually no evidence these imaginary people then vote in November. The current stories about Acorn don't even allege a plan to affect the November vote.
In other words, what is occurring (and what isn't unique to this election) is isolated incidents of voter registration fraud. Fraud is also being committed on ACORN, an organization that is being tricked into paying volunteers for these fake registrations (clarification: ACORN pays its volunteers by the hour, not per registration). Voter fraud has not occurred. Mickey Mouse isn't show up to vote, even if he did "fill out" a registration form. And if someone registered more than once? They can only vote once at the polling booth once their name is checked off.
But pesky facts like that mean little to certain Republicans who see McCain's plunging numbers and who are looking for any reason--other than the failure of conservatism--to blame for a possible crushing electoral defeat.
FOX "News" has graced the nation with almost wall-to-wall coverage of ACORN's "voter fraud", even dragging out former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (yes, that Kenneth Blackwell, of Ohio voter suppression fame) to cast the outcome of the Ohio election into doubt. Republicans have released ads linking Obama to ACORN's alleged misconduct. And even John McCain's top surrogate has entered the fray, proclaiming that if Obama wins Indiana, the only explanation for such a victory would be cheating:
WASHINGTON - The only way Barack Obama can win in Indiana is to cheat, one of John McCain's stand-ins said Thursday.
He said votes have already been cast by "people who don't exist" and that a national voter-registration effort is "trying to steal the election in Indiana."
In an interview before headlining the Indiana Republican Party's fund-raising dinner in Indianapolis Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Hoosiers are too smart to vote for Obama.
Democrats, he said, "can't win fairly out here."
Asked if Democrats could win without cheating, Graham said, "No. They can't win fairly out here 'cause their agenda is so far removed from the average Hoosier.
"We could lose, I suppose, if they cheat us out of it," Graham said of Indiana's 11 electoral votes. "I think the only way we lose a state like North Carolina or Indiana is to get cheated out of it."
When the reporter calls him out on the distinction between "voter registration fraud" and "voter fraud," Graham palinizes his response:
Asked to identify non-existent people who have voted in the presidential election, Graham said: "Have you been following the ACORN investigation out there? They're registering people who don't exist." He said there are multiple registrations going on. "One lady registered 11 times. I'm saying that the dynamic out here of voter fraud is something we're concerned about."
News Hounds brings us the Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's rational take on the matter:
"There has been no fraudulent voting...The people who claim this is a huge problem can never produce any instances where anyone voted fraudulently. They have registered fraudulently.
"Anyone who is registering someone who is not a real person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," McCaskill said, but she did not accept the accusation that the apparently bogus registrations were "clogging" the system.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the New York Times reports that thousands of voters are being cheated out of their votes because of bureaucratic bungling:
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
Still, because Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, any heightened screening of new applications may affect their party’s supporters disproportionately.
Republicans are pushing the irrational theory that Democrats are "cheating" their way to the White House because for them, the real reason for a possible Republican defeat would be irrational.
This was, after all, supposed to be the age of the "permanent Republican majority." America is a "conservative country" we've been told. Indeed, as this screencap from John McCain's "Strategy Briefing" demonstrates, the entire McCain campaign was premised on the idea that voters do not think Obama is "one of them":
But that screencap is from many months ago, before the full brunt of the failure of conservative policies has come to the foreground with the resounding "thud" of a stock market collapse. In this atmosphere, maybe having a "liberal" president who favors reasonable regulation and stringent oversight isn't a bad thing after all. And maybe, when voters are worried about how to pay for health care, voting for the Republican who touts the ability of the "market" to deal with the problem doesn't seem that appealing anymore.
The middle class is being cheated. And they know--as much as Republicans would like for them to forget--which party has been in power for the last eight years. And as they flock to a candidate who promises them change from failed Republican policies, panicked Republicans flock to conspiracy theories.
Blaming a possible Democratic victory on "voter fraud" is much easier than acknowledging that a resounding Democratic victory would be a wholesale rejection of Republican governance. And it's easier than admitting that voters--yes, Senator Graham, maybe even voters in Indiana and North Carolia--like what the liberal black guy from Chicago is saying about the middle class.
So let them wrap themselves in tin foil. Let them revel in nuttery now. They can use that tin foil to wipe their eyes if and when--as the polls suggest--they will be wallowing in defeat in November.
::
Iceland First?
"...Japan is ready to take leadership in contributing to support countries by providing funds."
"...died a quick death in the face of U.S. opposition..."
"The loans would be funded by 200 billion yen ($2 billion) contributed by IMF member countries plus loans from the foreign currency reserves of Middle Eastern oil exporters as well as the likes of Japan and China, the paper said.
China, which has pledged to cooperate with other countries to tackle the current crisis, has been repeatedly urged by Washington to play a greater role in international financial policy-making commensurate with its economic power..."
Japan stands ready to help the International Monetary Fund ride to the rescue of countries struck down by the global credit crisis, Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa said "If there's something the IMF can do, I want them to do it flexibly. Japan will cooperate with that, including providing funds for it," Nakagawa told reporters in Washington on Thursday.
He was speaking on the eve of a meeting of finance ministers and central bank chiefs from the Group of Seven (G7) rich nations, whose support will be crucial if the plan is to work.
"The impact of the credit crisis is spreading to the world. To minimize the chain-reaction, Japan is ready to take leadership in contributing to support countries by providing funds. And I will call for other countries' cooperation at the G7 meeting tomorrow," Nakagawa said.
"Japan alone has $995 billion in official foreign currency reserves. China has $2 trillion, the world's largest stockpile."
The Nikkei newspaper reported that Japan would propose making trillions of dollars in currency reserves held by Asian and Middle Eastern governments available to support IMF-led bailouts.
Japan alone has $995 billion in official foreign currency reserves. China has $2 trillion, the world's largest stockpile. The Nikkei said the IMF program would be available to smaller emerging countries but not to members of the G7 -- the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Italy -- or to other large nations.
"What the IMF should think about is not G7 or G8 countries, but about contingencies that may arise in newly emerging economies and other areas at this time of financial crisis, credit crunch and the dollar's exchange rate," Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano said in Tokyo.
The G8 is made up of the Group of Seven plus Russia.
Japan also took the diplomatic initiative during the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, proposing the creation of an Asian Monetary Fund to help the region recover from a meltdown that plunged several countries into a deep recession.
The plan died a quick death in the face of U.S. opposition.
Iceland First?
Prime Minister Taro Aso, speaking in Tokyo, said Japan would propose at Friday's G7 meeting that Iceland be helped via the IMF -- an idea that the north Atlantic island has so far resisted.
However, Prime Minister Geir Haarde warned this week that Iceland faced the risk of national bankruptcy because of the crisis, which has forced the government to seize control of the country's three biggest banks.
Under the Japanese plan, the IMF would ask the borrowing country to draw up a plan to revitalise its financial sector including writing off its bad assets, the Nikkei said.
It was not clear how -- or if -- this would differ from the conditions the IMF usually sets in return for an emergency loan.
The loans would be funded by 200 billion yen ($2 billion) contributed by IMF member countries plus loans from the foreign currency reserves of Middle Eastern oil exporters as well as the likes of Japan and China, the paper said.
China, which has pledged to cooperate with other countries to tackle the current crisis, has been repeatedly urged by Washington to play a greater role in international financial policy-making commensurate with its economic power.
But Beijing has given no indication that it is willing to mobilize its reserves in the way that Japan -- its big regional political rival -- is suggesting.
The Group of 20 countries, which brings together key rich and developing economies, will meet in Washington on Saturday during the IMF/World Bank annual meetings and could provide a forum to air the Japanese proposal.
The IMF said it was ready to lend to countries hit by the global credit crunch and had activated an emergency financing mechanism first during the Asian financial crisis a decade ago.
IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn told a news conference it would provide financial assistance not only to emerging and developing nations, but also to Western countries.
"Nobody knows if some ... advanced economies will not also be in need of some help by the IMF," he said, adding that funds would be made available quickly to countries in need. "Very quickly means two weeks at most," he added.
The Fund already sent a mission to Iceland.
Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions
"...died a quick death in the face of U.S. opposition..."
"The loans would be funded by 200 billion yen ($2 billion) contributed by IMF member countries plus loans from the foreign currency reserves of Middle Eastern oil exporters as well as the likes of Japan and China, the paper said.
China, which has pledged to cooperate with other countries to tackle the current crisis, has been repeatedly urged by Washington to play a greater role in international financial policy-making commensurate with its economic power..."
Japan stands ready to help the International Monetary Fund ride to the rescue of countries struck down by the global credit crisis, Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa said "If there's something the IMF can do, I want them to do it flexibly. Japan will cooperate with that, including providing funds for it," Nakagawa told reporters in Washington on Thursday.
He was speaking on the eve of a meeting of finance ministers and central bank chiefs from the Group of Seven (G7) rich nations, whose support will be crucial if the plan is to work.
"The impact of the credit crisis is spreading to the world. To minimize the chain-reaction, Japan is ready to take leadership in contributing to support countries by providing funds. And I will call for other countries' cooperation at the G7 meeting tomorrow," Nakagawa said.
"Japan alone has $995 billion in official foreign currency reserves. China has $2 trillion, the world's largest stockpile."
The Nikkei newspaper reported that Japan would propose making trillions of dollars in currency reserves held by Asian and Middle Eastern governments available to support IMF-led bailouts.
Japan alone has $995 billion in official foreign currency reserves. China has $2 trillion, the world's largest stockpile. The Nikkei said the IMF program would be available to smaller emerging countries but not to members of the G7 -- the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Italy -- or to other large nations.
"What the IMF should think about is not G7 or G8 countries, but about contingencies that may arise in newly emerging economies and other areas at this time of financial crisis, credit crunch and the dollar's exchange rate," Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano said in Tokyo.
The G8 is made up of the Group of Seven plus Russia.
Japan also took the diplomatic initiative during the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis, proposing the creation of an Asian Monetary Fund to help the region recover from a meltdown that plunged several countries into a deep recession.
The plan died a quick death in the face of U.S. opposition.
Iceland First?
Prime Minister Taro Aso, speaking in Tokyo, said Japan would propose at Friday's G7 meeting that Iceland be helped via the IMF -- an idea that the north Atlantic island has so far resisted.
However, Prime Minister Geir Haarde warned this week that Iceland faced the risk of national bankruptcy because of the crisis, which has forced the government to seize control of the country's three biggest banks.
Under the Japanese plan, the IMF would ask the borrowing country to draw up a plan to revitalise its financial sector including writing off its bad assets, the Nikkei said.
It was not clear how -- or if -- this would differ from the conditions the IMF usually sets in return for an emergency loan.
The loans would be funded by 200 billion yen ($2 billion) contributed by IMF member countries plus loans from the foreign currency reserves of Middle Eastern oil exporters as well as the likes of Japan and China, the paper said.
China, which has pledged to cooperate with other countries to tackle the current crisis, has been repeatedly urged by Washington to play a greater role in international financial policy-making commensurate with its economic power.
But Beijing has given no indication that it is willing to mobilize its reserves in the way that Japan -- its big regional political rival -- is suggesting.
The Group of 20 countries, which brings together key rich and developing economies, will meet in Washington on Saturday during the IMF/World Bank annual meetings and could provide a forum to air the Japanese proposal.
The IMF said it was ready to lend to countries hit by the global credit crunch and had activated an emergency financing mechanism first during the Asian financial crisis a decade ago.
IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn told a news conference it would provide financial assistance not only to emerging and developing nations, but also to Western countries.
"Nobody knows if some ... advanced economies will not also be in need of some help by the IMF," he said, adding that funds would be made available quickly to countries in need. "Very quickly means two weeks at most," he added.
The Fund already sent a mission to Iceland.
Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Gambler's Anonymous ? McCain?
Yesterday's New York Times front-page investigative story about John McCain's long time ties to the nation's gambling industry ("For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling"), jogged my memory about an unsettling bit of information I was given by Ross Perot in 1995.
In November 1995, my wife and fellow author, Trisha, and I, interviewed Perot for several days for an unauthorized biography (Citizen Perot: His Life & Times, Random House, 1996). During one of our conversations, outside of the 'on the record' taped interviews, Perot discussed with us how he had utilized private investigators to uncover information about other people. Perot never used, from what I could determine, any of the personal details he assembled about others. Rather, he was merely a collector of information, never knowing when it might come in useful.
I discussed this with my editor, Bob Loomis. Without independent reporting, much of it was no more than informed gossip. Perot had passed along personal details about Barbara Walters family, Clinton chief of staff Leon Penneta, and business tycoon Peter Ueberroth, someone Perot had seriously considered as a vice-presidential candidate in his own 1992 presidential run.
From our interviews with Perot about the Vietnam POW/MIA issue, it was clear there was no love lost between Perot and a number of public officials who opposed his efforts to keep looking for soldiers he believed had been left behind and were alive. On Perot's most disliked list was George Herbert Bush, who as Reagan's vice-president had shut the door to any further government probe on the matter. Richard Armitage, George W. Bush's ex-deputy Secretary of State, had earned Perot's eternal animosity because of his conclusion that there were no MIAs left in Southeast Asia. And the final person to earn Perot's enmity was John McCain, who as a decorated war hero, and then Senator, had also closed the door to any further MIA investigations.
Bob Loomis and I decided that I should not report Perot's personal details about these men and women, with two exceptions. Regarding Ueberroth, I wrote in Citizen Perot that one Perot campaign insider had concluded that "Ueberroth was the perfect match," but that "Perot and Mort Meyerson (Perot's top business executive at EDS) personally made inquiries about him and eventually opted for a stand-in candidate."
And as for Armitage, Perot's information was so detailed, including even surveillance photos of Armitage in supposedly compromising situations, I did report it. And Armitage was generous in giving me extensive interviews that helped explain the background and put into context Perot's one man war on him.
I am only reporting now Perot's rumor/information about McCain because of today's New York Times story. Perot told me that McCain had a gambling problem and he had uncovered details that McCain was bailed out in the late 1980s from a big gambling debt by his wife, Cindy.
If true, it raises a question as to whether McCain's gambling might ever have put him in a situation where he was pressed to repay his debt through Senatorial favors.
An enterprising reporter has to ask Ross Perot if he will acknowledge what he shared with me 14 years ago, and if so, if he will now provide the evidence to back up the assertion. Perot hasn't talked to me since I published my unauthorized biography, so unfortunately, I am not the person to ask. And some reporter should ask McCain, directly, if he has ever had a gambling debt that his wife had to pay off. American voters have a right to know.
Gerald Posner
Posted September 29, 2008 | 02:00 PM (EST)
Huffington Post
In November 1995, my wife and fellow author, Trisha, and I, interviewed Perot for several days for an unauthorized biography (Citizen Perot: His Life & Times, Random House, 1996). During one of our conversations, outside of the 'on the record' taped interviews, Perot discussed with us how he had utilized private investigators to uncover information about other people. Perot never used, from what I could determine, any of the personal details he assembled about others. Rather, he was merely a collector of information, never knowing when it might come in useful.
I discussed this with my editor, Bob Loomis. Without independent reporting, much of it was no more than informed gossip. Perot had passed along personal details about Barbara Walters family, Clinton chief of staff Leon Penneta, and business tycoon Peter Ueberroth, someone Perot had seriously considered as a vice-presidential candidate in his own 1992 presidential run.
From our interviews with Perot about the Vietnam POW/MIA issue, it was clear there was no love lost between Perot and a number of public officials who opposed his efforts to keep looking for soldiers he believed had been left behind and were alive. On Perot's most disliked list was George Herbert Bush, who as Reagan's vice-president had shut the door to any further government probe on the matter. Richard Armitage, George W. Bush's ex-deputy Secretary of State, had earned Perot's eternal animosity because of his conclusion that there were no MIAs left in Southeast Asia. And the final person to earn Perot's enmity was John McCain, who as a decorated war hero, and then Senator, had also closed the door to any further MIA investigations.
Bob Loomis and I decided that I should not report Perot's personal details about these men and women, with two exceptions. Regarding Ueberroth, I wrote in Citizen Perot that one Perot campaign insider had concluded that "Ueberroth was the perfect match," but that "Perot and Mort Meyerson (Perot's top business executive at EDS) personally made inquiries about him and eventually opted for a stand-in candidate."
And as for Armitage, Perot's information was so detailed, including even surveillance photos of Armitage in supposedly compromising situations, I did report it. And Armitage was generous in giving me extensive interviews that helped explain the background and put into context Perot's one man war on him.
I am only reporting now Perot's rumor/information about McCain because of today's New York Times story. Perot told me that McCain had a gambling problem and he had uncovered details that McCain was bailed out in the late 1980s from a big gambling debt by his wife, Cindy.
If true, it raises a question as to whether McCain's gambling might ever have put him in a situation where he was pressed to repay his debt through Senatorial favors.
An enterprising reporter has to ask Ross Perot if he will acknowledge what he shared with me 14 years ago, and if so, if he will now provide the evidence to back up the assertion. Perot hasn't talked to me since I published my unauthorized biography, so unfortunately, I am not the person to ask. And some reporter should ask McCain, directly, if he has ever had a gambling debt that his wife had to pay off. American voters have a right to know.
Gerald Posner
Posted September 29, 2008 | 02:00 PM (EST)
Huffington Post
Monday, September 15, 2008
Lou Dobbs...MR PHONY!! Where is the ECONOMIC GURU?
Lou Dobbs:
NO PRESS CONFERENCE FOR PALIN….
OBAMA HAS BEEN ABSWERING THE PRESS FOR 19 MONTSH
LAST TUESDAY…. OBAMA TOOK QUESTIONS!
.
ECONOMIC GURU!
YOU were the one ASLEEP at the SWITCH!
MOUTH!
Like I have asked you before, where were you when the banks were ripping the AMERICAN PEOPLE OFF?
Mouthing off about the illegals and NOTHING ABOUT THE EMPLOYERS HIRING THEM! PHONY MEDIA! HANK POULSEN IS OK WITH YOU!
HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN IN THE APPOINTED OFFICE?
DO you think ALL AMERICANS are as STUPID AS MOST OF YOUR LISTENERS?
PLEASE...YOU ARE SUCH A MISLEADING PUNDIT AND A LIAR!
YES A LIAR! YOU PHONY MOUTH! HEY...those CASUALTIES IN IRAQ....HOW MANY TODAY....MOUTH. Since you measure “SUCCESS” as YOU and MCCAIN agree but Petreaus does not.
YOU ARE ONNLY CONCERNED WITH CASUALTIES...YOU KNOW THE SURGE IS WORKING...
WELL
What did GENERAL PETRAEUS JUST SAY?
HUH?
I wonder what you would have done if one of Obama;'s girls came on NATIONAL stage UNWED, UNDER AGE, and PREGNANT?
I WONDER WHERE YOUR MOUTH WOULD BE?
MR DOBBS....MR ECONOMIC GURU,,,,MR INDEPENDENT PHIONY!
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE!
NO PRESS CONFERENCE FOR PALIN….
OBAMA HAS BEEN ABSWERING THE PRESS FOR 19 MONTSH
LAST TUESDAY…. OBAMA TOOK QUESTIONS!
.
ECONOMIC GURU!
YOU were the one ASLEEP at the SWITCH!
MOUTH!
Like I have asked you before, where were you when the banks were ripping the AMERICAN PEOPLE OFF?
Mouthing off about the illegals and NOTHING ABOUT THE EMPLOYERS HIRING THEM! PHONY MEDIA! HANK POULSEN IS OK WITH YOU!
HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN IN THE APPOINTED OFFICE?
DO you think ALL AMERICANS are as STUPID AS MOST OF YOUR LISTENERS?
PLEASE...YOU ARE SUCH A MISLEADING PUNDIT AND A LIAR!
YES A LIAR! YOU PHONY MOUTH! HEY...those CASUALTIES IN IRAQ....HOW MANY TODAY....MOUTH. Since you measure “SUCCESS” as YOU and MCCAIN agree but Petreaus does not.
YOU ARE ONNLY CONCERNED WITH CASUALTIES...YOU KNOW THE SURGE IS WORKING...
WELL
What did GENERAL PETRAEUS JUST SAY?
HUH?
I wonder what you would have done if one of Obama;'s girls came on NATIONAL stage UNWED, UNDER AGE, and PREGNANT?
I WONDER WHERE YOUR MOUTH WOULD BE?
MR DOBBS....MR ECONOMIC GURU,,,,MR INDEPENDENT PHIONY!
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE!
Friday, September 12, 2008
BANKRUPTCY JUDGE ...PRE MARITAL SEX! ABSTINENCE ONLY?
This is from 'THE' BANKRUPTCY JUDGE in Western District of Tennessee!
Her INTERPRETATION:
I was confused by your December 1, 2006, editorial. I have no way of knowing whether the U.S. bishops listened in any systematic way either to homosexual or to married Catholics before issuing their three statements on the subjects, but I find it hard to believe that they are not listening all the time as they go about their pastoral ministries. The bishops are aware of the views articulated today in favor of homosexual unions and the choice of married Catholics to use artificial contraception. They have said clearly that these views do not respect the natural order of things and are therefore impoverished. Wouldn't it be derelict of them not to say that?
The bishops argue that "engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage is a serious violation of the law of love of God and of neighbor." It is our culture's failure to respect the bonds of marriage that is their focus. Marriage is the lifelong public commitment of two persons, intended for the procreation of children, and supported by the laws and customs of the surrounding community. This, the bishops insist, is the only appropriate context for sexual activity. Marriage is one of the most difficult commitments one can make. As such, it requires public support to be successful. The evidence concerning the effects of a less rigorous understanding of marriage is overwhelming.
JENNIE D. LATTA
Memphis, Tenn.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
I wonder what she thinks of all the CORRUPT Bankruptcies she has presided over and HOW did she resolve the CORRUPTION? Just look at ALL the CORRUPTION that has been allowed for YEARS, YEARS to continue with their CORRUPT behavior with the ability to file BANKRUPTCY ibn the first place!
Her INTERPRETATION:
I was confused by your December 1, 2006, editorial. I have no way of knowing whether the U.S. bishops listened in any systematic way either to homosexual or to married Catholics before issuing their three statements on the subjects, but I find it hard to believe that they are not listening all the time as they go about their pastoral ministries. The bishops are aware of the views articulated today in favor of homosexual unions and the choice of married Catholics to use artificial contraception. They have said clearly that these views do not respect the natural order of things and are therefore impoverished. Wouldn't it be derelict of them not to say that?
The bishops argue that "engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage is a serious violation of the law of love of God and of neighbor." It is our culture's failure to respect the bonds of marriage that is their focus. Marriage is the lifelong public commitment of two persons, intended for the procreation of children, and supported by the laws and customs of the surrounding community. This, the bishops insist, is the only appropriate context for sexual activity. Marriage is one of the most difficult commitments one can make. As such, it requires public support to be successful. The evidence concerning the effects of a less rigorous understanding of marriage is overwhelming.
JENNIE D. LATTA
Memphis, Tenn.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
I wonder what she thinks of all the CORRUPT Bankruptcies she has presided over and HOW did she resolve the CORRUPTION? Just look at ALL the CORRUPTION that has been allowed for YEARS, YEARS to continue with their CORRUPT behavior with the ability to file BANKRUPTCY ibn the first place!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
McCain, Are you sure you want to go there?
McCAin should try to learn how to use a computer, just so he can keep up with Osama Bin Laden.
McCain should be aware that there are many Russians that live in this country and are aware of his deceit with the Leader of Georgia and their lobbyists.
Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.
Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.
What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.
Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.
McCain should be aware that there are many Russians that live in this country and are aware of his deceit with the Leader of Georgia and their lobbyists.
Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record
By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.
Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.
What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.
Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Add forgery to the list of Bush's crimes
Add forgery to the list of Bush's crimes
Yet another smoking gun that points the way to impeachment
Suskind explains the plot:
"In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”
"The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil."
John W. Dean, who served as Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel, drew the connection on MSNBC between the new allegations and those that brought down Richard Nixon in 1974 just weeks after the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Articles of Impeachment.
John W. Dean being interviewed by Keith Olberman stated:
"I don‘t think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government—that‘s where they‘ve got a problem.
"That‘s where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. ... "
Yet another smoking gun that points the way to impeachment
Suskind explains the plot:
"In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”
"The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil."
John W. Dean, who served as Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel, drew the connection on MSNBC between the new allegations and those that brought down Richard Nixon in 1974 just weeks after the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Articles of Impeachment.
John W. Dean being interviewed by Keith Olberman stated:
"I don‘t think people are looking at it too narrowly or Suskind is when I read his book. What happens when you tie that with a criminal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371, which nailed countless people in Watergate for misusing the agencies and departments of government—that‘s where they‘ve got a problem.
"That‘s where Nixon had a problem for telling the CIA to block the FBI for part of the Watergate investigation. Yes, it was obstruction but it was also defrauding the government. This is their real problem with that statute. ... "
Friday, July 25, 2008
Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble
Peak Oil or Oil Bubble? - The Oil Bubble ArgumentWritten by FrugalTrader on Jul 24, 2008 filed under Ed Rempel
This is a guest post from Ed Rempel (CFP and CMA). For those of you joining us recently, Ed has written a number of controversial articles for MDJ in the past. Today’s article is a continuation from yesterdays post with a counter argument that it’s not peak oil but an oil bubble.. Make sure to participate in the poll at the end.
In his 1998 book, “The Roaring 2002’s”, demographics expert Harry Dent predicted that the large block of baby boomers in their peak earning years would cause one financial bubble after another. Since then, we had the tech bubble, a real estate bubble in the US, nearly an income trust bubble in Canada, Chinese stock market bubble, and now what looks like an oil and resources bubble.
Just like the unlimited potential of the internet that led to the tech bubble, there are real explanations for oil’s rise, but they do not explain a price increase from $10 to $145/barrel.
Arguments in favour of a Oil Bubble
1. Index futures for oil and resources have been created in the last couple of years and have resulted in massive speculation that has driven much of the oil price rise. Many institutional investors are allocating a portion of their assets to commodities primarily through the futures market, which has created incremental “investment demand”. Commodity index futures are about 80% oil. Because of the comparatively high price inelasticity of both oil supply and demand, relatively small disruptions in supply or increments in demand can have outsized effects on price.
According to a May 19, 2008 report titled “Blame It on Your Pension Fund” from Probability Analytics Research in Chicago, open interest in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude and Brent Crude oil contracts traded have more than tripled over the last 5 years, rising by 1.3 million. At 1,000 barrels per contract, this represents incremental demand of 1.3 billion barrels of oil, or about 53% of the increase in world oil “consumption” over that period. Index speculators would not necessarily have accounted for all of that increase in open interest, but Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management), in testimony before a Senate subcommittee on May 20, 2008, estimated that over the last 5 years, index speculators through the futures market increased their net exposure to petroleum products by the equivalent of 848 million barrels of oil, an impact roughly equivalent to the 920 million barrel increase in demand from China over that period.
In a tight market for physical oil, how large a price impact could the incremental investment demand from commodity indexers have had? Probability Analytics Research estimated the equilibrium oil price without investment demand is $60-75 per barrel, with investment demand adding roughly $60 to the price of oil.
2. Demand is not out-pacing supply. In the last 12 months, world oil demand is up only 2%, while supply is up 2.5%. Meanwhile, the price has nearly doubled. How can this be anything other than pure speculation?
3. Most oil experts assume the proper oil price should be between $60-90/barrel. Almost all oil analysts assume a price of $80-90/barrel when valuing oil company shares. The $60-70 range is often quoted by Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi as being a realistic price for oil, since that is the marginal cost of production for alternative energy sources. In fact, OPEC, which controls 40% of the world’s oil, states that there is “no justification for oil above $80/barrel” and that “fundamentals do not support a price above $80/barrel”.
4. Anecdotal evidence is that the long-awaited demand reductions resulting from high oil prices may have begun. The widely-used quote is: “The cure for $145 oil is $145 oil.” Airlines—choking on $4 per gallon jet fuel prices—are slashing capacity. Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks are collapsing in the U.S., while small cars and hybrids are flying off the lot. Public transportation use is increasing. Many are changing jobs to be closer to home, or moving closer to their job. Oil demand is starting to drop off throughout the OECD. Demand responses take time, but we may have reached a tipping point. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, has calculated that in the past, over periods of less than 5 years, oil consumption in the OECD dropped by only 2% to 9% when oil prices doubled. But over longer periods, consumption dropped by 60%.
5. Oil supply increases may be on the way. Six years is not a long time in the context of the time it takes to develop an oil field. The last doubling of oil prices has occurred in the last year or so. No supply response over that time frame could have been reasonably expected. The largest new field for years was just discovered in Brazil and is estimated to contain 5-8 billion barrels.
6. Huge amounts of oil are thought to exist off-shore. George Bush just lifted an executive ban that has existed since 1990 on off-shore oil drilling. If the legislative ban is also lifted, then off-shore drilling can finally start. Drilling is banned in many other regions rich with oil or gas resources due to long-term energy strategies and environmental concerns.
7. Oil-producing countries do not necessarily have the incentive to increase production as rapidly as oil-consuming nations may want. They may believe that they will maximize the long-term value of their oil reserves by developing them more slowly.
8. Oil price subsidies in many countries will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Higher gas prices in these countries would result in lower demand. The latest jump in oil prices is making subsidies much more costly, and strains on governmental budgets are forcing some nations to lift subsidies. On May 24, Indonesia raised fuel prices by +30%, followed shortly by Taiwan (+13%) and Sri Lanka (+24%). China has just recently increased its gas prices, since the subsidies that amounted to about 1% of GDP.
9. Many European geologists, especially in Russia, still believe in the abiogenic theory. Oil is widely considered to be a fossil fuel in the West, but this belief is far from unanimous world-wide. The abiogenic theory states that oil is created by carbon released by microbes that migrates upward from the earth’s mantle. It has been popularized in the West recently by Thomas Gold, professor at Cornell University. If it is correct, then not only can oil be continuously created, but there may be far more oil in the earth than most believe. Oil companies have not drilled in areas most likely to contain abiogenic oil. Most geologists consider oil to be a fossil fuel, but the abiogenic theory has not been proven false.
10. Governments have not responded with official policies and have not officially expressed concern. Peak Oil has been discussed endlessly in the press and in the financial industry. Governments must know what is going on and are not concerned.
11. Alternative fuel sources will reduce our need for oil. Humans are adaptive. There are many fuel sources available now and high oil prices will make alternative sources much more viable.
12. Peak Oil is being a marketed. Most of the strongest proponents of Peak Oil are in the investment industry working for companies that have made huge amounts of money from rising oil prices.
13. Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble. Those that believe this is a bubble include OPEC, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi, Richard Rainwater (Texas oil billionaire), and George Soros (legendary hedge fund manager).
What is your opinion?
Many readers of MDJ are well-read in many issues, so your opinions here would be very interesting. What is your opinion? Which are we currently witnessing?
A. The beginning of Peak Oil.
B. An oil bubble.
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/peak-oil-or-oil-bubble-the-oil-bubble-argument.htm
This is a guest post from Ed Rempel (CFP and CMA). For those of you joining us recently, Ed has written a number of controversial articles for MDJ in the past. Today’s article is a continuation from yesterdays post with a counter argument that it’s not peak oil but an oil bubble.. Make sure to participate in the poll at the end.
In his 1998 book, “The Roaring 2002’s”, demographics expert Harry Dent predicted that the large block of baby boomers in their peak earning years would cause one financial bubble after another. Since then, we had the tech bubble, a real estate bubble in the US, nearly an income trust bubble in Canada, Chinese stock market bubble, and now what looks like an oil and resources bubble.
Just like the unlimited potential of the internet that led to the tech bubble, there are real explanations for oil’s rise, but they do not explain a price increase from $10 to $145/barrel.
Arguments in favour of a Oil Bubble
1. Index futures for oil and resources have been created in the last couple of years and have resulted in massive speculation that has driven much of the oil price rise. Many institutional investors are allocating a portion of their assets to commodities primarily through the futures market, which has created incremental “investment demand”. Commodity index futures are about 80% oil. Because of the comparatively high price inelasticity of both oil supply and demand, relatively small disruptions in supply or increments in demand can have outsized effects on price.
According to a May 19, 2008 report titled “Blame It on Your Pension Fund” from Probability Analytics Research in Chicago, open interest in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude and Brent Crude oil contracts traded have more than tripled over the last 5 years, rising by 1.3 million. At 1,000 barrels per contract, this represents incremental demand of 1.3 billion barrels of oil, or about 53% of the increase in world oil “consumption” over that period. Index speculators would not necessarily have accounted for all of that increase in open interest, but Michael Masters (Masters Capital Management), in testimony before a Senate subcommittee on May 20, 2008, estimated that over the last 5 years, index speculators through the futures market increased their net exposure to petroleum products by the equivalent of 848 million barrels of oil, an impact roughly equivalent to the 920 million barrel increase in demand from China over that period.
In a tight market for physical oil, how large a price impact could the incremental investment demand from commodity indexers have had? Probability Analytics Research estimated the equilibrium oil price without investment demand is $60-75 per barrel, with investment demand adding roughly $60 to the price of oil.
2. Demand is not out-pacing supply. In the last 12 months, world oil demand is up only 2%, while supply is up 2.5%. Meanwhile, the price has nearly doubled. How can this be anything other than pure speculation?
3. Most oil experts assume the proper oil price should be between $60-90/barrel. Almost all oil analysts assume a price of $80-90/barrel when valuing oil company shares. The $60-70 range is often quoted by Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi as being a realistic price for oil, since that is the marginal cost of production for alternative energy sources. In fact, OPEC, which controls 40% of the world’s oil, states that there is “no justification for oil above $80/barrel” and that “fundamentals do not support a price above $80/barrel”.
4. Anecdotal evidence is that the long-awaited demand reductions resulting from high oil prices may have begun. The widely-used quote is: “The cure for $145 oil is $145 oil.” Airlines—choking on $4 per gallon jet fuel prices—are slashing capacity. Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks are collapsing in the U.S., while small cars and hybrids are flying off the lot. Public transportation use is increasing. Many are changing jobs to be closer to home, or moving closer to their job. Oil demand is starting to drop off throughout the OECD. Demand responses take time, but we may have reached a tipping point. Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago, has calculated that in the past, over periods of less than 5 years, oil consumption in the OECD dropped by only 2% to 9% when oil prices doubled. But over longer periods, consumption dropped by 60%.
5. Oil supply increases may be on the way. Six years is not a long time in the context of the time it takes to develop an oil field. The last doubling of oil prices has occurred in the last year or so. No supply response over that time frame could have been reasonably expected. The largest new field for years was just discovered in Brazil and is estimated to contain 5-8 billion barrels.
6. Huge amounts of oil are thought to exist off-shore. George Bush just lifted an executive ban that has existed since 1990 on off-shore oil drilling. If the legislative ban is also lifted, then off-shore drilling can finally start. Drilling is banned in many other regions rich with oil or gas resources due to long-term energy strategies and environmental concerns.
7. Oil-producing countries do not necessarily have the incentive to increase production as rapidly as oil-consuming nations may want. They may believe that they will maximize the long-term value of their oil reserves by developing them more slowly.
8. Oil price subsidies in many countries will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Higher gas prices in these countries would result in lower demand. The latest jump in oil prices is making subsidies much more costly, and strains on governmental budgets are forcing some nations to lift subsidies. On May 24, Indonesia raised fuel prices by +30%, followed shortly by Taiwan (+13%) and Sri Lanka (+24%). China has just recently increased its gas prices, since the subsidies that amounted to about 1% of GDP.
9. Many European geologists, especially in Russia, still believe in the abiogenic theory. Oil is widely considered to be a fossil fuel in the West, but this belief is far from unanimous world-wide. The abiogenic theory states that oil is created by carbon released by microbes that migrates upward from the earth’s mantle. It has been popularized in the West recently by Thomas Gold, professor at Cornell University. If it is correct, then not only can oil be continuously created, but there may be far more oil in the earth than most believe. Oil companies have not drilled in areas most likely to contain abiogenic oil. Most geologists consider oil to be a fossil fuel, but the abiogenic theory has not been proven false.
10. Governments have not responded with official policies and have not officially expressed concern. Peak Oil has been discussed endlessly in the press and in the financial industry. Governments must know what is going on and are not concerned.
11. Alternative fuel sources will reduce our need for oil. Humans are adaptive. There are many fuel sources available now and high oil prices will make alternative sources much more viable.
12. Peak Oil is being a marketed. Most of the strongest proponents of Peak Oil are in the investment industry working for companies that have made huge amounts of money from rising oil prices.
13. Many oil industry insiders believe this is a bubble. Those that believe this is a bubble include OPEC, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi, Richard Rainwater (Texas oil billionaire), and George Soros (legendary hedge fund manager).
What is your opinion?
Many readers of MDJ are well-read in many issues, so your opinions here would be very interesting. What is your opinion? Which are we currently witnessing?
A. The beginning of Peak Oil.
B. An oil bubble.
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/peak-oil-or-oil-bubble-the-oil-bubble-argument.htm
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Free Market! Isn't that the American Way?
BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!! JEBB IS OUT OF OFFICE!!!
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
NOW WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD LISTEN TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS TO SAY? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!! THE ROOSTERS ARE COMING HOME!!
NO REGULATION! KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT! NO OVERSIGHT!
Remember, 2000, BUSH GAVE TAX CUTS TO SUV PURCHASES AND VEHICLES OVER A SPECIFIC TONAGE! BUSH PROMOTES DRILLING!!!
For the last 20 years, we have heard how the FREE MARKET, is the way to prosperity with little or no oversight of government involvemnet.
This is also the approach to the Health Care system in America. The reason the Finanacial Industry is so CRITICAL, is becuase this has effected the GLOBAL MARKET, not isolating or subjecting to just the effect to AMERICANS as the Health Care System does.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress
H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)
RELATED BILLS: S.2525
TITLE(S):
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
STATUS: Floor Actions
10/31/98 Public Law 105-338 (11/12/98 CR D1205)
10/20/98 Measure presented to President (10/21/98 CR H11704)
10/20/98 Enrolled Measure signed in Senate (CR S12718)
10/19/98 Enrolled Measure signed in House (CR H11546)
10/07/98 Measure passed Senate (CR S11812)
10/07/98 Measure considered in Senate (CR S11811-11812)
10/07/98 Measure called up by unanimous consent in Senate (CR S11811)
10/05/98 Measure passed House, amended, roll call #482 (360-38) (CR H9494)
10/05/98 Measure considered in House (CR H9486-9494)
10/05/98 Measure called up under motion to suspend rules and pass in House (CR H9486)
STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions
Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions
Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions
Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.
STATUS: Congressional Record Page References
10/01/98 Introductory remarks on Measure (CR E1857)
10/05/98 Full text of Measure as passed House printed (CR H9486-9487)
COMMITTEE(S):
COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House International Relations
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***
COSPONSORS(1):
Rep Cox - 09/29/98
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
An Act
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.
(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.
(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.
(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--
(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.
Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress
H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)
RELATED BILLS: S.2525
TITLE(S):
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
STATUS: Floor Actions
10/31/98 Public Law 105-338 (11/12/98 CR D1205)
10/20/98 Measure presented to President (10/21/98 CR H11704)
10/20/98 Enrolled Measure signed in Senate (CR S12718)
10/19/98 Enrolled Measure signed in House (CR H11546)
10/07/98 Measure passed Senate (CR S11812)
10/07/98 Measure considered in Senate (CR S11811-11812)
10/07/98 Measure called up by unanimous consent in Senate (CR S11811)
10/05/98 Measure passed House, amended, roll call #482 (360-38) (CR H9494)
10/05/98 Measure considered in House (CR H9486-9494)
10/05/98 Measure called up under motion to suspend rules and pass in House (CR H9486)
STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions
Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions
Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions
Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.
STATUS: Congressional Record Page References
10/01/98 Introductory remarks on Measure (CR E1857)
10/05/98 Full text of Measure as passed House printed (CR H9486-9487)
COMMITTEE(S):
COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House International Relations
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***
COSPONSORS(1):
Rep Cox - 09/29/98
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
An Act
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.
(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.
(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.
(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--
(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.
(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.
Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)