Today's Toles

Check it out:
Click here.

Only One of the Men Running has Balls

Finally someone is standing up in the house and taking the administration to task.

Note: this is important, there is a big difference between speaking to the press and standing up in the house and making such a declaration.

"In all of this, Vice-President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice-president and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest jury of the people -- injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office."

Breitbart.tv video here.

Added Note: The Republicans actually got on side with sending this to debate --they must have seen a way to embarrass the dems. But, the dems decided to send it off to the judicial review graveyard. To bad the party doesn't have Kucinich's balls.

Overvalued, Devalued Dollar

A recent article in Bloomberg has fired up a rant. Ready?

As regular readers will know, I am concerned with the state of the dollar. My simple point is that a weak dollar is a symptom of a weak economy. This concern is fueled by the apparent lack of concern from the Bush administration.

All is not well.

Right now the US is totally dependent on foreign countries (mostly China) purchasing debt. That deficit that pundits like Tony B. and Pat B. (the "B" Twins) don't care about does not involve some fantasy banking system, quite the contrary, it involves real countries buying real debt at prices they are happy with.

It is that last part that scares me.

What would happen if the total debt became large enough that China, Dubai and others decided to purchase a bit less of of the fresh version? I am not talking about a fictitious dooms-day scenario, but a very real possibility. If foreign countries decided to purchase a bit less American debt, the US would be faced with two options. One, raise the interest payed in order to sell debt, or two, cut spending.

The second is politically unpopular, the first, devastating. An increase in debt rate would be a de facto further devaluation of the dollar (again, weak economy, weak dollar). This means an immediate raise in the price of every import --including oil.

Does this sound like fiction? Well, in the past 6 years the US Dollar has gone from purchasing 1.56 Canadian Dollars to the current rate of 1.06 Canadian Dollars. The neighbors from the north have not suddenly become the most prosperous nation. No, their economy has been stable. It is the dollar that is now two thirds as valuable as it was not too long ago.

What does this mean? It means that a huge amount of the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is only being felt in the US. The price of oil has not gone up near as much elsewhere. The dollar has gone down.

Okay, time to tie this to the article in Bloomberg.

Quote:

The U.S. Treasury took two years to persuade the International Monetary Fund to police global currency markets -- and just two months to trash the initiative once the IMF adopted it.

Treasury officials recruited the IMF to be a currency cop as China and other countries meddle with exchange rates to gain a trade advantage. Instead, the international lending organization took aim at the dollar, calling it overvalued in an Aug. 1 report.

More,

IMF staff economists told U.S. officials in meetings ended July 27 that their research showed the dollar was 10 percent to 30 percent overpriced, according to an account included in the 54-page Aug. 1 report.

The Experts that the US hired to look into currency fixing have come to the conclusion that the current greenback is overvalued. This is frightening.

This means abysmal US dollar purchasing power on the international stage is being artificially supported.

Who is overvaluing it? Not the US. No, the dollar is being held aloft by the countries that are happy to buy debt at an inflated price. To a large degree it is being artificially buoyed by the very country the pols are upset with, China.

China doesn't need to buy US debt. They could spend some of their enormous pile of surplus cash on their own economy. They could, in very short order, raise both the level and the numbers of the Chinese middle class to the point where the average Chinese family had a car instead of a couple of bicycles. (What would this do to the price of oil?) But they "choose" to buy overvalued American debt.

By the way, what do you think the response was to the IMF ruling?

...on Aug. 2 an aide to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress that it's impossible to measure a currency's fair value.

So, to summarize. The US has asked the IMF to look into the Chinese currency because it is unfairly valued. But when the IMF looks at the unfair value of the greenback, the response is swift,

...it's impossible to measure a currency's fair value.

Where did I put my gin.

The American economy is not, as Karl Rove said on Meet The Press this last Sunday,

...dynamic and powerful, providing jobs and increases in real income for people.

After almost seven years of Bush/Cheney leadership, the American economy is weakened. It is not in serious trouble, but it is close. Overseas (and up north) the dollar now buys two-thirds of what it did less than a decade ago. The perception that all is well is part of the problem.

But all is not lost. I have a solution. It may sound simple, but that does not mean it lacks merit.

Stop borrowing.

That is the only way to regain control of the dollar. It is the only way to ensure that the dollar does not collapse.

How to stop borrowing? Simple. Spend less.

This administration is poised to collect record revenues (here), all they have to do to get out of this quagmire is spend less than they bring in.

Basic fiscal responsibility.

Simple.

Rant over.

Time for the last plymouth of the night. Cheers.

Saddam is Not a Threat --NSA Brent Scowcroft, 1996

This 1996 interview with Bush Senior's National Security Adviser is a great follow up of the now famous Cheney 1994 interview (Here). Once again this clearly supports that fact that a mistake was made when Iraq was made a priority over Afghanistan.

Cheney in 1994: a Different Bird.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan's Dish for this must see tidbit.

Yes, that is Cheney detailing, very specifically all of the bad things that have happened since the US unilaterally went into Iraq. Thing is, it is from 1994. He was explaining the very good reasons that George Bush senior didn't overthrow Saddam after liberating Kuwait. The big question is, "What happened to him?" "Where did this guy go?"

It is my opinion that the Cheney in this interview was not speaking from the heart: he was following the party line. It was not until he could seize the reigns of power that the real Dick emerged. Now that he has his hands firmly on the puppet strings he is free to be, do and speak as he pleases. We are not the better for it.
Click here to see the video on YouTube.com

The Republican Debate: The return of McCain?

This debate offered little other than the tired, slow-pitch questions coupled with pat, predictable answers and wired pseudo-attacks. That said, McCain did come out with a few duzzies reminiscent of the old McCain, the McCain that has given him non-partisan support over the years.

My two favorites:

I will veto every single bill that comes across my desk (with pork) and make the authors of those pork-barrel projects famous.

Look, I would be very careful that everyone understood that there is only one president. (A great dig at Bush/Cheney)

Ron Paul, again, went straight to the people with his return to old school conservatism message. But will the people pay attention? Not likely, the people will read the reports in the media and Ron P.'s message does not get coverage. I did like his Bush Cheney zinger:

...most people (in Washington), behind the scenes, think the Vice President is more powerful than the President. Philosophically, I think that this is the case.

We'll see what the big media has to say, but other than the above moments I saw nothing worth getting up early Sunday morning.

My Cheney-NTY Reference Rant

Note: The following contains long quotes. This is because the information is important.

Does this ring bells for anybody else? (From Larry King --July 31, 2007)

CHENEY: The real test is whether or not the strategy that was put in place for this year will, in fact, produce the desired results.

KING: Will those results be in place on that day in '09 when you leave?

CHENEY: I believe so. I think we're seeing already, from others -- don't take it from me. Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in "The New York Times," not exactly a friendly publication -- but a piece by Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq.

Mr. Cheney on Meet The Press in the 2002 run up to the war.

BILL MOYERS: [V.O.] Quoting anonymous administration officials, the Times reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminum tubes. And there on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: [Meet the Press, 9/8/02] There’s a story in the New York Times this morning. This is -- and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but --

JONATHAN LANDAY: Now, ordinarily information like the aluminum tubes wouldn't appear in the news. It was top intelligence. And the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But it appeared that morning in the New York Times, and therefore, they were able to talk about it.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: [Meet the Press, 9/8/02] It’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring, through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.

So, veep Cheney is saying, once again, it must be true; it is in the New York Times. Of course later the executive branch was credibly accused of planting the story in the Time so that Cheney could make his assertion the next day.

Was the Larry King Show assertion as wired as the MTP one was in 2002? I think so. Tough to say otherwise. Though I suspect the press manipulation was more Machiavellian this time. O'Hanlon/Pollack wrote their piece after a quick, 8 day visit to Iraq where the twosome saw a carefully orchestrated view of Iraq: visiting a "cleansed" neighborhood and interviewing from a pool of hand picked and well placed soldiers and civilians.

There was no mention of deals. Well, they mentioned them on CNN. I loved that Anderson Cooper followed LK with an interview with Michael Ware, an Australian reporter who has lived in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Now, many will disagree with Ware's politics but no credible person would disagree with his knowledge. Few civilians know more about what is going on over there.

And note the lack of opinion in the exchange with Anderson. The facts are:

COOPER: On the other hand, we have got Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September.

What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.

The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.

And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias.

Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created. And another thing to remember, Anderson, yes, sectarian violence is down, but let's have a look at that. More than two million people have fled this country. Fifty thousand are still fleeing every month, according to the United Nations. So, there's less people to be killed.

And those who stay increasingly are in ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. They have been segregated.

Hmmmm.

Anderson directly asked about the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed piece.

COOPER: Well, the vice president also referred to this "New York Times" op-ed written by -- by Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, who returned from Iraq. They were applauding the military progress and the Iraqi security forces' ability to hold areas and keep insurgents out.

How much have the Iraqi troops themselves actually improved?

WARE: Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops. They are standing up, to a greater degree, in certain pockets.

But, honestly, Anderson, it is a myth to believe that the Iraqi forces have been rid of their sectarian or militia ties. No matter how much any commander wants to tell you, the minute the American forces turn their backs, these guys revert to form, be that Sunni or Shia lines, Kurdish ethnic lines, or be it militia lines.

So, there is still no sense of unity. And, without America to act as the big baby-sitter, this thing is not going to last. So, all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real. But the report is very one-dimensional. It doesn't look at what's being done to achieve this and what long-term sustainability there is.

I mean, these guys, unfortunately, were only in the country for eight days. And they point to a success story of a neighborhood in Baghdad called Ghazaliya. They say it's peaceful. We could walk around in a Sunni area.

Yes, that's because it's divided. And the Iraqi army troops won't let the Shia in. And the Shia army troops, just last week, there was an incident where the Iraqi commander of those troops went to remove all the furniture from a Sunni's house. And, when a fellow Shia protested, he arrested that Shia.

To summarize, despite the backward steps that are building a foundation for continued and better armed conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shias there is great progress being made because Dick Cheney and the NYT says there is.

My point? History will show that Vice President Dick Cheney was as truthful Tuesday night on Larry King as he was on MTP in 2002. The big difference is that this time few actually believe his words.

To quote his superior, "Fool me once. Shame on... shame on you... fool me. Ya can't get fooled again." (punctuation mine --if you can suggest a better way to punctuate this, let me know)

Gonzales Mea Culpa, Sort of.

Alberto Gonzales has sent a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. explaining his misstatements during his testimony. Apparently there was a simple little error in his abbreviated reference to the "program".

What?!? He and his handlers/cronies (I assume veep Cheney can be included in this group) don't get it. They don't seem to realize that the issue is no longer just whether or not they conspired to have a medicated official approve a policy that said official was opposed to, the issue now includes his bizarre testimony earlier this week. By suddenly answering the panel's simple question via email he hopes to get a pass on recent events. Insane? Perhaps. Incompetent? Politically. But I fear the adjective that will ultimately stick is unethical --and folks, that is the absolute worst thing that can be said about an Attorney General. An Attorney General without ethics ultimately leads a justice department astray, both by direct action and by setting the wrong example for others to follow.

The court scandals of the past few years are too many to list. The culture of politics over ethics that seems to pervade the department cannot exist, or be seen to exist, at the top.

Alberto's recent testimony clearly placed political agenda over ethics and this needs to be addressed along with the accusations of impropriety over the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
More on The Associated Press via The Washington Post

The President of the United States of America doesn’t get it.

The President of the United States of America is the one man in the world who is supposed to get it. We don’t need to know what is in his head and his heart, we only need to know that he is able to pilot the USS USA through rough seas. To do this, he has to get it.

What is "it"? Who knows.

But when you have the “the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government” ref committing perjury (yes, he has been given a week to rescind his statement) and when you have the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. stating, "This attorney general has a severe credibility problem," and then under oath and during the proceedings, “I don't trust you", you have a symptom of a far greater threat.

And then you find out that this unabashed liar has the full support of the white house… Am I the only one waiting for someone to shout, “April Fools”! Bush Jr. holds a press con ref to extol the virtues of his friend Al. Mr. Cheney does an interview ref apparently and explicitly to state that Al has not lied under oath.

It is clear to me that Messrs Bush et al. (pun intended) are simply no longer competent to captain America and need to stop. Stop everything. Imagine they have a three party parliament (no, I am not saying that this is a better system, there is too much evidence to the contrary) and a minority government that is unable to pass legislation. It is only for another 17 months or so. Remember, a ship will not hit an iceberg if it is not moving. As for the security of the nation? I do not propose that everything stops, just the president and his outclassed (by nearly every one --bus drivers, cafeteria workers, my sister...) executive branch. Congress and the Senatorial committees can take over for a while. I guarantee it will not be worse.

My point? The President does not get it.