Chas Freeman Forced Out!

Chas Freeman has been forced to pull his name out of consideration for the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council. I knew it was too good to be true.

Pressure from pro-Israel members of Congress, AIPAC, and the Israeli leadership turned out to be too much. Once again Israel has shown that it can control American politics. We might as well call Benjamin Netanyahu the President of the United States. Because in many ways... he, along with the Israeli lobby groups in this Country, determine U.S. policy. Obama is nothing more than Israel's poodle. Members of Congress are like Prostitutes working for another Country.

It's absolutely amazing to me that even with a Democratic House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate, and even with a popular President, Progressives still don't hold any sway in this Country. They have no say in the formulation of policy nor in determining who works for the President. They (Progressives) don't even have a platform to make any demands, since no media infrastructure exists. The airwaves are dominated - more like clogged and polluted - by Right wing zealots, religious Conservatives, and "Neo-Con Lite" Democrats who repeat Right Wing talking points...allowing the Right to control the narrative on damn near every media outlet in the Country... so it doesn't matter who you listen to.

The Rethuglicans claim there was a conflict of interest... that Freeman had too many Saudi business dealings. What about the Bush's? George H.W. Bush and Skull & Bones Jr. were basically sleeping with Saudi royalty... One of the younger Bush brothers, Neil Bush, was neck deep involved with the Saudi's.

Bush exchanging saliva with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia


Remember how Bush wanted to sell U.S. ports to UAE interests? They didn't have much of a problem with all of Clinton's MANY overseas dealings. For them, they made an accommodation... because they can tolerate Neo-Con Lite. But when Chas Freeman comes along, now all of a sudden these Conservatives come out of the woodwork claiming a problem. Of course none of this was the real problem.... the problem was Israel and AIPAC. It seems to me, they gave some folks an ultimatum on Freeman. And Joe Lie-berman - Senator from the State of Israel - couldn't be more disingenuous. Where were these jackass Republicans when Bush was selling us out? Go and read up on the Bush's and The Carlisle Group and their connections with Saudi Arabia. Chas Freeman's dealings pale in comparison... it's not even close.

It's almost enough to make me sick to my stomach.

Obama better grow a backbone and a pair of testicles and learn how to fight for something. All this caving has to stop.

__________________________

NPR story on Chas Freeman's nomination


UPDATE

See Freeman's statement from Juan Cole's Blog

Supply-side Economics Never made any Sense

As we see the collapse of Wall Street, AIG, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers, we all must wonder what happened. We have been told that our economy was strong. Yet within the last seven to eight months we've seen 19 banks collapse and the kind of volatility in the stock market that makes us all queasy and seasick.

Within 20 years, we went from being the most prosperous nation on the earth to the nation carrying the most debt. Personally, I think we have to look back to the 1980s for the answers. This was the so-called Me Generation. It was all about nicer clothes, nicer cars and the biggest house in the gated community. It didn't matter if you obtained all of this through credit cards, six mortgages and a loan from Guido down the street. The bottom line was it was all about Me.

Some of this thinking came from supply-side economics. The theory behind supply-side economics: tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses will free up capital; the wealthy would spend more money; business and the wealthy would hire more people. This prosperity would trickle down to everyone. On the surface, this makes a lot of sense but upon further reflection we see it is a magician's trick. Before we get the hard data, let's just think about this. If you're a wealthy businessman who makes $10 million a year, for argument's sake, you pay 40% of what you make in income tax. This comes to $4 million. With tax cuts, your tax rate is changed from 40% to 35%. You take home an extra $500,000. What are you going to do to spur the economy? You already have a new car, maybe two or three. You have a house, possibly two. You already have a maid and someone to cut your grass. Most likely, you will do what most multimillionaires would do, which is to invest that $500,000. The logic for business is about the same. Businesses don't hire people just because there's extra money lying around. Extra money from tax cuts can be paid out as bonuses (remember upper management is very fond of bonuses and stock options) or distributed as increased dividends to stockholders. Therefore, in this example, it appears that supply-side economics lines the pockets of the rich.

With President Bush, President Clinton and President Reagan, we are able to look at two eras of supply-side economics. Squeezed in the middle is a more traditional economic approach. Real investment growth was greater in the period of 1993-2001 at the rate of 10.2%. President Reagan had a growth of 2.8%. President Bush has had a growth of 2.7%. Gross Domestic Product, a measurement of economic growth, increased at an average annual rate of 3.9% during the era of President Clinton. Reagan and Bush had rates of growth of 3.9% and 2.5% respectively. For me, the most important indicator of how we are doing is real average annual median income. With the tax increases during Clinton's presidency, real average annual median income grew at a rate of 2.0%. Reagan's presidency spurred an increase 1.4% and under President Bush the increase was only 0.3% (data from Center from American Progress).

There are multiple excuses that true supply-side believers will give us as to why supply-side economics did not work. They will claim that any change in the economy takes years to make an effect. This plainly contradicts the father of supply-side economics, Art Laffer, who stated that we would see changes in our economy "before the ink is dry" on the legislation for tax cuts. They will argue that there weren't enough government spending cuts. There's further data to support a more traditional economic approach. This approach includes higher wages, higher employment growth and results in decreased federal deficits. Such was the case during Clinton's years in office, as compared with either supply-side era. In spite of all this data, though, some still advocate tax cuts for the rich. Why? Why indeed.

Supply-side economics simply does not work for America. Maybe, this Me first, everything else second mentality helped cause the craziness that we're seeing on Wall Street. I'm just askin'.

Amy Goodman Talks With Author Craig Unger

Amy Goodman interviews Craig Unger about his new book "The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America’s Future”.

In the book, Unger goes into detail about the philosophical tensions between those supporting George H.W. Bush and those supporting George W. Bush. Unger's analysis basically supports what other observers have suggested... that the Neo-Conservatives in essence hijacked George W. in order to push the PNAC (Project For a New American Century) and Religious Right agendas. Unger spells out the clear differences between the two camps, and also points out Dick Cheney's flip flopping on Iraq and on how the U.S. should project power in the Middle East.

Read excerpts of the book here.

Watch/Hear Interview