Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Jvl Bi-Weekly for 053107

I can be most easily reached through the following email address for suggesting new additions to the subscription list or to cancel your subscription to the Bi-Weekly:

channujames@yahoo.com

The Blog Address for the Bi-Weekly is: http://jvlbiweekly.blogspot.com

Please forward the Blog address for the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

Volume 6, No. 10

2 Articles, 16 pages

1. The Case of Mr. Guthrie, Bilking the Elderly & Many Others

2. "Are We Headed Toward Another Great Depression"?

1. THE CASE OF MR. GUTHRIE, BILKING THE ELDERLY & MANY OTHERS

BY

CHARLES DUHIGG

InfoUSA advertised lists of Elderly Opportunity Seekers, 3.3 million older people looking for ways to make money, and Suffering Seniors, 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimers disease. Oldies but Goodies contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.

As Mr. Guthrie sat home alone - surrounded by his Purple Heart medal, photos of eight children and mementos of a wife who was buried nine years earlier - the telephone rang day and night. After criminals tricked him into revealing his banking information, they went to Wachovia, the nations fourth-largest bank, and raided his account, according to banking records.

I loved getting those calls, Mr. Guthrie said in an interview. Since my wife passed away, I dont have many people to talk with. I didnt even know they were stealing from me until everything was gone.

Telemarketing fraud, once limited to small-time thieves, has become a global criminal enterprise preying upon millions of elderly and other Americans every year, authorities say. Vast databases of names and personal information, sold to thieves by large publicly traded companies, have put almost anyone within reach of fraudulent telemarketers. And major banks have made it possible for criminals to dip into victims accounts without their authorization, according to court records.

The banks and companies that sell such services often confront evidence that they are used for fraud, according to thousands of banking documents, court filings and e-mail messages reviewed by The New York Times.

Although some companies, including Wachovia, have made refunds to victims who have complained, neither that bank nor infoUSA stopped working with criminals even after executives were warned that they were aiding continuing crimes, according to government investigators. Instead, those companies collected millions of dollars in fees from scam artists. (Neither company has been formally accused of wrongdoing by the authorities.)

Only one kind of customer wants to buy lists of seniors interested in lotteries and sweepstakes: criminals, said Sgt. Yves Leblanc of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If someone advertises a list by saying it contains gullible or elderly people, its like putting out a sign saying Thieves welcome here.

In recent years, despite the creation of a national do not call registry, the legitimate telemarketing industry has grown, according to the Direct Marketing Association. Callers pitching insurance plans, subscriptions and precooked meals collected more than $177 billion in 2006, an increase of $4.5 billion since the federal do-not-call restrictions were put in place three years ago.

That growth can be partly attributed to the industrys renewed focus on the elderly. Older Americans are perfect telemarketing customers, analysts say, because they are often at home, rely on delivery services, and are lonely for the companionship that telephone callers provide. Some researchers estimate that the elderly account for 30 percent of telemarketing sales - another example of how companies and investors are profiting from the growing numbers of Americans in their final years.

While many telemarketing pitches are for legitimate products, the number of scams aimed at older Americans is on the rise, the authorities say. In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission estimated that 11 percent of Americans over age 55 had been victims of consumer fraud. The following year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shut down one telemarketing ring that stole more than $1 billion, spanned seven countries and resulted in 565 arrests. Since the start of last year, federal agencies have filed lawsuits or injunctions against at least 68 telemarketing companies and individuals accused of stealing more than $622 million.

Most people have no idea how widespread and sophisticated telemarketing fraud has become, said James Davis, a Federal Trade Commission lawyer. It shocks even us.

Many of the victims are people like Mr. Guthrie, whose name was among the millions that infoUSA sold to companies under investigation for fraud, according to regulators. Scam artists stole more than $100,000 from Mr. Guthrie, his family says. How they took much of it is unclear, because Mr. Guthries memory is faulty and many financial records are incomplete.

What is certain is that a large sum was withdrawn from his account by thieves relying on Wachovia and other banks, according to banking and court records. Though 20 percent of the total amount stolen was recovered, investigators say the rest has gone to schemes too complicated to untangle.

Senior executives at infoUSA were contacted by telephone and e-mail messages at least 30 times. They did not respond.

Wachovia, in a statement, said that it had honored all requests for refunds and that it was cooperating with authorities.

Mr. Guthrie, however, says that thieves should have been prevented from getting access to his funds in the first place.

I cant understand why they were allowed inside my account, said Mr. Guthrie, who lives near Des Moines. I just chatted with this woman for a few minutes, and the next thing I knew, they took everything I had.

Sweepstakes a Common Tactic

Investigators suspect that Mr. Guthries name first appeared on a list used by scam artists around 2002, after he filled out a few contest entries that asked about his buying habits and other personal information.

He had lived alone since his wife died. Five of his eight children had moved away from the farm. Mr. Guthrie survived on roughly $800 that he received from Social Security each month. Because painful arthritis kept him home, he spent many mornings organizing the mail, filling out sweepstakes entries and listening to big-band albums as he chatted with telemarketers.

I really enjoyed those calls, Mr. Guthrie said. One gal in particular loved to hear stories about when I was younger.

Some of those entries and calls, however, were intended solely to create databases of information on millions of elderly Americans. Many sweepstakes were fakes, investigators say, and existed only to ask entrants about shopping habits, religion or other personal details. Databases of such responses can be profitably sold, often via electronic download, through list brokers like Walter Karl Inc., a division of infoUSA.

The list brokering industry has existed for decades, primarily serving legitimate customers like magazine and catalog companies. InfoUSA, one of the nations largest list brokers and a publicly held company, matches buyers and sellers of data. The company maintains records on 210 million Americans, according to its Web site. In 2006, it collected more than $430 million from clients like Readers Digest, Publishers Clearinghouse and Condé Nast.

But infoUSA has also helped sell lists to companies that were under investigation or had been prosecuted for fraud, according to records collected by the Iowa attorney general. Those records stemmed from a now completed investigation of a suspected telemarketing criminal.

By 2004, Mr. Guthries name was part of a list titled Astroluck, which included 19,000 other sweepstakes players, Iowas records show. InfoUSA sold the Astroluck list dozens of times, to companies including HMS Direct, which Canadian authorities had sued the previous year for deceptive mailings; Westport Enterprises, the subject of consumer complaints in Kansas, Connecticut and Missouri; and Arlimbow, a European company that Swiss authorities were prosecuting at the time for a lottery scam.

(In 2005, HMSs director was found not guilty on a technicality. Arlimbow was shut down in 2004. Those companies did not return phone calls. Westport Enterprises said it has resolved all complaints, complies with all laws and engages only in direct-mail solicitations.)

Records also indicate that infoUSA sold thousands of other elderly Americans names to Windfall Investments after the F.B.I. had accused the company in 2002 of stealing $600,000 from a California woman.

Between 2001 and 2004, infoUSA also sold lists to World Marketing Service, a company that a judge shut down in 2003 for running a lottery scam; to Atlas Marketing, which a court closed in 2006 for selling $86 million of bogus business opportunities; and to Emerald Marketing Enterprises, a Canadian firm that was investigated multiple times but never charged with wrongdoing.

The investigation of Windfall Investments was closed after its owners could not be located. Representatives of Windfall Investments, World Marketing Services, Atlas Marketing and Emerald Marketing Enterprises could not be located or did not return calls.

The Federal Trade Commissions rules prohibit list brokers from selling to companies engaged in obvious frauds. In 2004, the agency fined three brokers accused of knowingly, or purposely ignoring, that clients were breaking the law. The Direct Marketing Association, which infoUSA belongs to, requires brokers to screen buyers for suspicious activity.

But internal infoUSA e-mail messages indicate that employees did not abide by those standards. In 2003, two infoUSA employees traded e-mail messages discussing the fact that Nevada authorities were seeking Richard Panas, a frequent infoUSA client, in connection with a lottery scam.

This kind of behavior does not surprise me, but it adds to my concerns about doing business with these people, an infoUSA executive wrote to colleagues. Yet, over the next 10 months, infoUSA sold Mr. Panas an additional 155,000 names, even after he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in Nevada and was barred from operating in Iowa.

Mr. Panas did not return calls.

Red flags should have been waving, said Steve St. Clair, an Iowa assistant attorney general who oversaw the infoUSA investigation. But the attitude of these list brokers is that its not their responsibility if someone else breaks the law.

Millions of Americans Are Called

Within months of the sale of the Astroluck list, groups of scam artists in Canada, the Caribbean and elsewhere had the names of Mr. Guthrie and millions of other Americans, authorities say. Such countries are popular among con artists because they are outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

The thieves would call and pose as government workers or pharmacy employees. They would contend that the Social Security Administrations computers had crashed, or prescription records were incomplete. Payments and pills would be delayed, they warned, unless the older Americans provided their banking information.

Many people hung up. But Mr. Guthrie and hundreds of others gave the callers whatever they asked.

I was afraid if I didnt give her my bank information, I wouldnt have money for my heart medicine, Mr. Guthrie said.

Criminals can use such banking data to create unsigned checks that withdraw funds from victims accounts. Such checks, once widely used by gyms and other businesses that collect monthly fees, are allowed under a provision of the banking code. The difficult part is finding a bank willing to accept them.

In the case of Mr. Guthrie, criminals turned to Wachovia.

Between 2003 and 2005, scam artists submitted at least seven unsigned checks to Wachovia that withdrew funds from Mr. Guthries account, according to banking records. Wachovia accepted those checks and forwarded them to Mr. Guthries bank in Iowa, which in turn sent back $1,603 for distribution to the checks creators that submitted them.

Within days, however, Mr. Guthries bank, a branch of Wells Fargo, became concerned and told Wachovia that the checks had not been authorized. At Wells Fargos request, Wachovia returned the funds. But it failed to investigate whether Wachovias accounts were being used by criminals, according to prosecutors who studied the transactions.

In all, Wachovia accepted $142 million of unsigned checks from companies that made unauthorized withdrawals from thousands of accounts, federal prosecutors say. Wachovia collected millions of dollars in fees from those companies, even as it failed to act on warnings, according to records.

In 2006, after account holders at Citizens Bank were victimized by the same thieves that singled out Mr. Guthrie, an executive wrote to Wachovia that the purpose of this message is to put your bank on notice of this situation and to ask for your assistance in trying to shut down this scam.

But Wachovia, which declined to comment on that communication, did not shut down the accounts.

Banking rules required Wachovia to periodically screen companies submitting unsigned checks. Yet there is little evidence Wachovia screened most of the firms that profited from the withdrawals.

In a lawsuit filed last year, the United States attorney in Philadelphia said Wachovia received thousands of warnings that it was processing fraudulent checks, but ignored them. That suit, against the company that printed those unsigned checks, Payment Processing Center, or P.P.C., did not name Wachovia as a defendant, though at least one victim has filed a pending lawsuit against the bank.

During 2005, according to the United States attorneys lawsuit, 59 percent of the unsigned checks that Wachovia accepted from P.P.C. and forwarded to other banks were ultimately refused by other financial institutions. Wachovia was informed each time a check was returned.

When between 50 and 60 percent of transactions are returned, that tells you at gut level that somethings not right, said the United States attorney in Philadelphia, Patrick L. Meehan.

Other banks, when confronted with similar evidence, have closed questionable accounts. But Wachovia continued accepting unsigned checks printed by P.P.C. until the government filed suit in 2006.

Wachovia declined to respond to the accusations in the lawsuit, citing the continuing civil litigation.

Although Wachovia is the largest bank that processed transactions that stole from Mr. Guthrie, at least five other banks accepted 31 unsigned checks that withdrew $9,228 from his account. Nearly every time, Mr. Guthries bank told those financial institutions the checks were fraudulent, and his money was refunded. But few investigated further.

The suit against P.P.C. ended in February. A court-appointed receiver will liquidate the firm and make refunds to consumers. P.P.C.s owners admitted no wrongdoing.

Wachovia was asked in detail about its relationship with P.P.C., the withdrawals from Mr. Guthries account and the accusations in the United States attorneys lawsuit. The company declined to comment, except to say: Wachovia works diligently to detect and end fraudulent use of its accounts. During the time P.P.C. was a customer, Wachovia honored all requests for returns related to the P.P.C. accounts, which in turn protected consumers from loss.

Prosecutors argue that many elderly accountholders never realized Wachovia had processed checks that withdrew from their accounts, and so never requested refunds. Wachovia declined to respond.

The banks statement continued: Wachovia is cooperating fully with authorities on this matter.

Some Afraid to Seek Help

By 2005, Mr. Guthrie was in dire straits. When tellers at his bank noticed suspicious transactions, they helped him request refunds. But dozens of unauthorized withdrawals slipped through. Sometimes, he went to the grocery store and discovered that he could not buy food because his account was empty. He didnt know why. And he was afraid to seek help.

I didnt want to say anything that would cause my kids to take over my accounts, he said. Such concerns play into thieves plans, investigators say.

Criminals focus on the elderly because they know authorities will blame the victims or seniors will worry about their kids throwing them into nursing homes, said C. Steven Baker, a lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission.

Frequently, the victims are too distracted from dementia or Alzheimers to figure out somethings wrong.

Within a few months, Mr. Guthries children noticed that he was skipping meals and was behind on bills. By then, all of his savings - including the proceeds of selling his farm and money set aside to send great-grandchildren to college - was gone.

State regulators have tried to protect victims like Mr. Guthrie. In 2005, attorneys general of 35 states urged the Federal Reserve to end the unsigned check system.

Such drafts should be eliminated in favor of electronic funds transfers that can serve the same payment function but are less susceptible to manipulation, they wrote.

But the Federal Reserve disagreed. It changed its rules to place greater responsibility on banks that first accept unsigned checks, but has permitted their continued use.

Today, just as he feared, Mr. Guthries financial freedom is gone. He gets a weekly $50 allowance to buy food and gasoline. His children now own his home, and his grandson controls his bank account. He must ask permission for large or unusual purchases.

And because he cant buy anything, many telemarketers have stopped calling.

Its lonelier now, he said at his kitchen table, which is crowded with mail. I really enjoy when those salespeople call. But when I tell them I cant buy anything now, they hang up. I miss the good chats we used to have.

Back to Top

2. "ARE WE HEADED FOR ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION"?

My talks with Elaine Meinel Supkis

By Mike Whitney

"The blue collar class which is the backbone of any society, is so oppressed and crushed under debts here in the US, they see no hope, being hired for a lifetime in some industry, they have been told, they must fend for themselves and be rootless, moving from job to job across the country or if displaced, removing themselves entirely via crime or death. No longer being asked to be part of a specific community, they are told; they must be more flexible and move from region to region, a leaf in a thunderstorm in the gutter of life". Elaine Meinel Supkis

Question: I've been getting get more and more e-mails from people who are worried that the policies of the Bush administration will bring about a severe economic downturn or, perhaps, even another Great Depression. Do you believe that the problems in the real estate market, the falling dollar, the massive current account deficit, or the shaky hedge fund industry are likely to cause major meltdown?

E.M.S. : Great Depressions like the one that hit in 1929 are very rare. They usually happen only after two great empires exhaust their finances. WWI involved two of the biggest industrial powers in a massive death-struggle that didn't destroy their industries but wrecked their currencies and beggared their workers. Russia was a major empire but a minor industrial power so when the workers there revolted, the loss of this sector's industrial base had much less impact than the collapse of Germany's currency and its huge war debts.

This chart is from one of my most dog-eared books, one of the greatest works explaining relative power and why empires collapse, 'The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers' by Paul Kennedy. This chart shows how England, the leading nation in the world, supposedly the richest, spent the most money during that grinding, depressing stalemate of a war.

Germany spent $3.9 billion less than England. Inflation since 1913 has been ferocious. This probably would represent well over several trillion dollars in today's currency. Even today, no nation can take a financial hit that big and stay solvent. Europe's industrial production fell 30% and the US, fattened off of billions of dollars of loans to all parties in Europe, lived high and mighty during the 1920's. But with industrial production lagging, Europe spiralled downwards. The US cheerfully gave everyone more and more loans and the promise of being repaid was fantastic! Why, these were basically AAA subprime loans.

Then Germany couldn't pay and kept asking for better terms. This was OK with the US but not with bankrupt England or France. So they demanded full payments and Germany defaulted. This triggered the Great Depression. Even though the US was now the world's largest manufacturing power, our currency was mostly for home use so the British had to keep the pound strong. Trying to do this made things worse.

And so it is today: our empire won't retreat from its distant borders but these same borders are bankrupting us for we never recovered from the Vietnam War, we literally papered over the mess which remained and continues to poison our nation. The military/industrial complex is not making us rich, it is making us poorer. And the paper being laid over all this is the same paper the Germans used in 1924 to paper over their own bankruptcy: printed money.

When an empire does what we are doing today, society falls apart. And if this happens, there is no easy way out. Individuals can avoid the worst by avoiding debts but outside of that simple thing, there is no other answer. Of course, the true answer is a strong working class that believes in unity and not underselling each other. Alas, the USA has a long and tragic history of slavery. And the legacy of this culture divides the nation and half loves slavery and enables wretched working conditions and thinks the road to wealth is via cheap labor.

Germany has an advantage here: their recent attempt at slavery, the Nazi empire, was a total disaster and they don't want a repeat. I only wish the USA felt the same way. For no nation gets very rich for very long if the working class is poor and can't work their way into the middle class.

Question: Would you explain what is meant by “reserve currency” and how it serves the greater political interests of the United States? Do you think that preserving “dollar hegemony” was an important part of the decision to go to war with Iraq?

E.M.S.: It may sound trite but thinking about great banking matters as if it is one's own bank account no matter how small, works. Namely, it is dangerous for anyone to live life where everything is juggled and there isn't a penny to spare. Then something bad happens and boom. You go bankrupt. This is why savings accounts matter and why inflation is so deadly. No one in their right mind keeps a savings account because it can't grow, it shrinks!

The Federal Reserve was set up to maintain a reserve funds that supposedly wouldn't be touched by politicians. But alas, this is a fiction. Just like your own bank account, if one is married and sharing an account and one party keeps raiding it and spending it on guns and cars or fur coats or whatever, it runs out of funds and then something bad happens like a hurricane hits, and the cupboard is bare.

In the case of empires, a way to gage solvency is, how big is their own reserves compared to the size of these same currency reserves held by potentially hostile rivals? In the case of the USA, we send dollars out as fast as we can print them. If too many people getting this flood of money, around $800 billion a year now!!!!!! If they don't keep a big chunk in bank vaults, the value of the dollar drops. So they keep it in reserve, in case of a 'rainy day'. Like 9/11.

And if we think of these funds as boats, then China has Noah's Ark, Japan has an aircraft carrier, Europe has a holiday cruise liner, Russia has a very fancy yacht and the USA has a rowboat made out of an old bathtub. That is leaking.

China has $1.3 trillion in its reserves and is therefore, King of the Mountain. Japan has $900 billion and is no longer holding new currency so all the red ink in trade is no longer staying away, it is floating back home to here, as inflation. Europe has about $600 billion and Russia, $330 billion. The USA has only $66 billion and the numbers released today by the Federal Reserve shows that number is DROPPING. Yikes.

Question: President Bush has said that he intends to make his tax cuts “permanent” even though they have produced enormous deficits. At the same time the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates below the real rate of inflation and increased the money supply to approximately 10% per annum. Are these policies designed to maintain a healthy economy with a potential for strong growth or are they the means for transferring wealth from working people to the “very rich”?

E.M.S.: How do they 'transfer' wealth? Through unfair taxes. Under Reagan, American workers, worried about the eventual baby boomer retirement event horizon, decided to double taxes on Social Security. This pile of money was instantly, less than a year later, leaped upon and devoured by our corrupt government. They instantly gave unfair tax cuts to the upper incomes and basically used SS excess funds to pay for the government.

This worked OK until Bush took over. He and the GOP have run up debts so high, they added half a trillion a year in red ink and over the last six years, this is nearly $3 trillion and our national debt stands at nearly $9 trillion. During the last major money crisis, the 1972 collapse of the Bretton Woods concord, we had a national debt of not even $1 trillion. We have not had 900% inflation so I would say, this debt that the GOP rang up consisted of taking taxes out of the hides of the working class and handing it on a golden platter to the rich who, incidentally, buy bonds.

But no more! Today, the chief buyer of bonds is the Treasury itself. Next is China!

Question: Will you explain how the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve are causing the stock market to soar and what the potential dangers are for the global economic system?

E.M.S.: Oh, that is so simple! In 2003, interest rates were dropped to 1% despite inflation of +5%. Instantly, the value of all assets shot upwards as bankers moved money along as fast as possible since the Fed undercut their own interest rates! So mortgages were below the rate of inflation. But this didn't make enough money so banks and other entities offered loans to bad risks who had to pay a higher rate. As inflation rages, they need to give loans to worse and worse customers who pay over 11% interest!

Alas, the fly in this ointment is exactly that: risky customers can't pay back loans! They go bankrupt and everyone acts like a good little domino and over they fall, one after another. Right now,the crashing sound of dominoes falling is like the hissing of waves on a distant shore but it is rapidly approaching. We can certainly hear it coming.
Question: Last week, reports showed that US manufacturing unexpectedly rose in March. However, the Financial Times said that, “The rise in the ISM index is impossible to square with either the regional surveys released over the past few weeks or our medium-term yield-driven model. We think it is quite likely that in their next iterations the ISM will drop sharply.” Do you think the government is deliberately falsifying data on manufacturing to make the economy look stronger than it really is? Could they be doing this in areas as well, such as money supply, inflation, employment, and GDP?

E.M.S.: Do alligators bite? Of course, they lie all the time. Some things were sacred and they didn't lie about them. The M3 data that shows how much money the Fed prints as well as how much is in circulation, etc, just last year, they announced, 'No one is really interested in these numbers and they are too hard to compile.' Like a drunken, gambling spouse declaring there is no need to balance the check books or look into the bank accounts, so it is here. Many people yelled about the M3 numbers being suppressed but to no avail, of course.

Onwards! Since they are lying about basic bank accounting, they have to lie about everything else or people will figure out, something smells rotten in Denmark, DC.

They redrew the rules for figuring out inflation so it no longer tracks inflation. This is so they can cheat retirees and have fake interest rates and thus, steal from granny and gramps and starve school children while lining their own pockets.

Question: Do you believe that the extraordinary “police-state” measures enacted by the Bush administration (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, repeal of habeas corpus, NSA “surveillance” of American citizens without court order) are intended to address the threat of terrorism or the social disorder that may arise in response to an economic collapse?

E.M.S.: They planned this for a long, long time. Do note that the 'war on drugs' was launched as we lost the Vietnam War. Thanks to inflation and a collapsing currency as well as a sudden hike in oil prices due to the US hitting the Hubbert Oil Peak here in 1972, there was great unrest. I saw some of this right up close. Once, when the lights went out in NYC during a thunderstorm of all things, riots and looting spread like wildfire. My community was nearly burned to the ground and all the businesses destroyed.

This, the rulers fear a lot. But no number of police can stop it if it happens. I have seen up close when a whole city revolts. More than once, including in Europe in 1968. The new, right wing French President will learn this the hard way next year. There will be riots and insurrections there.

Question: Can you explain--in simple “layman’s” terms--the effect of Japan’s low interest “carry trade” on the U.S. stock market? Is this practice inflating the value of securities in foreign markets? What are the risks? How is it affecting the euro?

E.M.S.: Europe lends money for more than 5% interest. So does the USA now although the financiers are getting worried about this and are egging on the Fed to lower rates back down to 1%. This is pure insanity. Japan has near zero inflation because they have decided to utterly destroy the purchasing power of the people in Japan who are living worse and worse off if they are below the top 20%. Many are now homeless. It is pathetic.

The world's #2 economic power that holds the world's #2 FOREX reserves can't give pay raises to anyone earning below $10 an hour because this will 'cause inflation' and so they get to live on the street and starve. Great. Anyone can eliminate inflation by enslaving the workers. Then they get cut out of the profits entirely and can't buy things and thus, can't cause inflation!

This is the plan being readied for us! We get to live in shanties while the rich live in palaces. And we won't buy anything while they have a zillion servants earning practically nothing. Sort of like England, circa 1914.

Bush and his gangsters hosted the Queen of England who loves him because he is making her very rich via Carlyle. And the royals of England didn't care if they starved their subjects who lived like savages under the rule of the royals. We are sliding backwards, not moving forwards here.

Question: Consumer spending is 70% of US- GDP, and yet, workers wages have not kept pace with the real rate of inflation. This has led to increased borrowing on the part of the American consumer. Now that housing prices have flattened out; consumers can no longer draw on their home equity for their spending. This has resulted in a huge spike in credit card spending. For example, “first-quarter profits at MasterCard surged 70% to a record $214.9 million following a 19% jump in transactions.” (Peter Schiff) As the weary American consumer is forced to curtail his spending, GDP will shrink and foreign investment will dry up. Are we likely to see “capital flight” from American markets or are foreign investors still confident in America’s resilience?

E.M.S.: In most places, housing prices are falling by 30%! All the people who responded to ads about getting cheap loans are now discovering they can't use their homes as ATM machines and simply re-finance over and over again. The house is supposed to be an asset: if you have to sell it to pay bills or move because of a job situation, if the debt is greater than the selling price, you go bankrupt. And this is happening all over the place now. And it will impact on buying.

Last year, Americans took out half a trillion in extra loans on the house! The surge in MasterCard (gads, Snidely Whiplash!) charges is because banks are no longer giving loans to people who are too deep in debt. The money that flowed there is flowing into the stock market just like it always does during the first half of an inflationary binge.

The second half is when the stocks collapse like they did in 1974. Then we see a 5 year bear market. Housing markets ALWAYS take 5+ years to recover from a bubble. But this last bubble launched by 1% Fed interest rates will take 20 years to recovery in most places.

Question: You have stated in your blog that the Federal Reserve is “buying back its own debt”. Would you explain how this works and whether it is intended to confuse the public about the real value of their currency?
(In your blog you say: “The US is the fulcrum for world trade. As the yen goes down (the yuan is so low, even as it gains, it is very minimal), the euro goes up. This is crushing the dollar because the US is printing money like mad to keep commerce flowing at home since it is bleeding red ink in trade and in government spending. Most of the bonds issued by our own government are bought by our own government. The only entity to buy much of that on the open market today is China. Japan is selling its hoard of US bonds.)

E.M.S.: Yes, aside from forcing Social Security to buy government bonds, the Treasury sells them to the Feds. This is Peter selling to Paul who then gives it back to Peter only it shrinks in value during this time. The Fed and Treasury can play this game to infinity. The only country to nearly reach that upper limit was Germany in 1924. They added more and more zeros to the money they printed every hour, day and night until they ran out of room on the bills. Literally! Then they simply cancelled the money! Bang. It was gone. Forever.

If no one stops us, we will do this just the same way.

Question: Wall Street reacts with wild enthusiasm every time two mega-corporations merge. These mergers always seems to generate boatloads of new credit from maximizing leverage and “creative financing”.. You say in your blog that this is “also a sign of impending collapse. For every pfennig of this is debt-loaded and is seeking a stable currency and high interest rates.” What do you think are the hidden dangers of these mergers?

E.M.S.: That happened in Germany, too. Everyone merged as money moved faster and faster and inflated more and more. Bubbles inflate because currency inflates. They are one and the same. And mergers are caused by money bubbles.

Question: What do you think the real rate of inflation is?

E.M.S.: Inflation is around 10% now. How do we know? The Federal Reserve just demanded banks hold 10% of their currency rather than rush it out the door. This reserve ratio is always a good indicator of inflation. In China, it was raised to 11% last week. Japan sets theirs at 0%, of course. They are insane.

Question: Is there a chance that the dollar could collapse?

E.M.S.: I hate to say this but I have a whole book of dead currencies my family has collected this last 180 years. From 1848 to today, in the USA, Germany, China, Japan, etc. Many 'pay the holder in gold' bonds. All worth something as historic documents but all ended up being worthless. Hope springs ever eternal and bad money is like winter: it always is around the corner.

Question: In 1966, Alan Greenspan wrote an article called “Gold and Economic Freedom” in which he described the events leading up to the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. In his essay he says:

“When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.

The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.”

Hasn’t the Federal Reserve created similar “speculative imbalances” today through its increases in the money supply, its low interest rates, and the massive liquidity it pumped into the housing bubble? And, haven’t the deregulatory policies of the Fed exacerbated our current account deficit---forcing US exports to compete with countries that artificially lower the prices of their manufactured goods by manipulating their currencies?

If the economic policies of the Federal Reserve and the Bush administration are deliberate, than how can we say that the destruction of the dollar and the subsequent crushing of the American middle class are accidental?

Greenspan’s essay proves that he fully understood the implications of “excess credit” and “excessive paper reserves” and yet he persisted with the same destructive policies for 6 years. So---Is the housing bubble merely the “unintended consequence” of the Fed's policies or is it the clearly calculated goal?

E.M.S.: Hahaha. The preacher telling us how to avoid the evils of drug abuse and hanging out with prostitutes comes to mind, doesn't it? The very moralists warning us about our sins are usually the worst sinners.

I'll never forget Congress praising Greenspan and telling him they should stuff him and use him as a scarecrow for this would mean no one would ever question him about finances! Well, I say, hang him high. He is a criminal. He destroyed our economic might. Treason, it is! And all those people who betrayed us in order to make a mighty empire on our backs and bank accounts should be held accountable! There is no excuse for this mess! It was fixable. But alas, too many people are making too much money off of it the way it is now and they won't stop no matter what. Just like their latest imperial wars: endless.

I wish I could say something happy here but history is a bitch who laughs at us all. We should listen to her.

Back to Top

Monday, May 14, 2007

The JvL Bi-Weekly for 051507

I can be most easily reached through the following email address:

channujames@yahoo.com

The Blog Address for the Bi-Weekly is: http://jvlbiweekly.blogspot.com

Please forward the Blog address for the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested

Tuesday, May 15th, 2007

Volume 6, No. 9

5 Articles

1. Foreclosures Surge on Mortgage Woes

2. Who Will Stop The US Shadow Army in Iraq?

3. The Kennedy Myth Rises Again

4. A Democratic Sellout on Bush's Mercenaries

5. Office Holding Liars

1. FORECLOSURES SURGE ON MORTGAGE WOES

(Filings were up 35 percent in the first quarter; Detroit and Las Vegas get hammered.)

BY

LES CHRISTIE

Foreclosure filings surged during the first quarter of 2007, as home price increases slowed or even reversed and borrowers fell behind on payments once their adjustable rates began resetting at much higher levels.

The number of filings climbed 27 percent in the first quarter compared with the fourth quarter of 2006 and 35 percent from a year earlier, according to a report released Wednesday by RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosure properties.

Where Foreclosures Are Climbing:

See listings in cities where foreclosures are increased the quickest last quarter:

Riverside, Calif., Las Vegas, Miami, Fla., Los Angeles, Denver, Atlanta, Detroit, Dallas, Cleveland, Chicago

There were more than 430,000 foreclosure filings nationwide, one for every 264 households. The filings include everything from default notices to auction sale notices to actual bank repossessions.

Nevada had the highest foreclosure rate - there was one for every 75 households. The Las Vegas area had undergone a boom in speculative real estate investing during the red-hot housing market years of 2004 and 2005 and, as prices have dropped, the speculators are taking bad beatings.

Colorado recorded the second-highest foreclosure rate with one filing for every 111 households.

The state has long been among the leading foreclosure locales, a situation that some attribute to a Wild West, mostly unregulated mortgage broker industry before a new law went into effect last year requiring brokers to register with the state. Many homeowners there had been saddled with unaffordable loans in recent years.

Numerically, California had more filings than any other state at 80,595. That accounted for nearly one of every five foreclosures in the nation and was more than double the number from a year ago.

Florida filings also climbed precipitously to 45,156, up 52 percent for the quarter and 55 percent over last year.

Among metro areas, Detroit got hammered the most. It recorded 16,351 foreclosures during the quarter, one for every 51 households, five times the national average. Vegas was a close second with one per 57 households.

Three central California cities were also hit hard. Riverside/ San Bernardino, Sacramento and Stockton took third, fourth and fifth place.

Foreclosures are expected to continue to increase all year as many of the numerous adjustable-rate mortgages written during 2004 and 2005 hit the dates of their first resets, when their interest rates can increase by three percentage points or more.

The resets may turn barely affordable loans into totally unaffordable ones for borrowers, forcing them to go into default.

Many homeowners -- some consumer advocates claim as many as 2.4 million - are in danger of losing their homes over the next couple of years.

Back to Top

2. WHO WILL STOP THE US SHADOW ARMY IN IRAQ?

DON'T LOOK TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
BY

JEREMY SCAHILL

The Democratic leadership in Congress is once again gearing up for a great sellout on the Iraq war. While the wrangling over the $124 billion Iraq supplemental spending bill is being headlined in the media as a "showdown" or "war" with the White House, it is hardly that. In plain terms, despite the impassioned sentiments of the antiwar electorate that brought the Democrats to power last November, the congressional leadership has made clear its intention to keep funding the Iraq occupation, even though Sen. Harry Reid has declared that "this war is lost."

For months, the Democrats' "withdrawal" plan has come under fire from opponents of the occupation who say it doesn't stop the war, doesn't defund it, and ensures that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond President Bush's second term. Such concerns were reinforced by Sen. Barack Obama's recent declaration that the Democrats will not cut off funding for the war, regardless of the president's policies. "Nobody," he said, "wants to play chicken with our troops."

As the New York Times reported, "Lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable" for (partial) withdrawal, which the White House has said would "guarantee defeat." In other words, the appearance of a fierce debate this week, presidential veto and all, has largely been a show with a predictable outcome.

The Shadow War in Iraq

While all of this is troubling, there is another disturbing fact which speaks volumes about the Democrats' lack of insight into the nature of this unpopular war – and most Americans will know next to nothing about it. Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq – and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military "contractors" who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war.

The 145,000 active-duty U.S. forces are nearly matched by occupation personnel that currently come from companies like Blackwater USA and the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which enjoy close personal and political ties with the Bush administration. Until Congress reins in these massive corporate forces and the whopping federal funding that goes into their coffers, partially withdrawing U.S. troops may only set the stage for the increased use of private military companies (and their rent-a-guns) which stand to profit from any kind of privatized future "surge" in Iraq.

From the beginning, these contractors have been a major hidden story of the war, almost uncovered in the mainstream media and absolutely central to maintaining the U.S. occupation of Iraq. While many of them perform logistical support activities for American troops, including the sort of laundry, fuel and mail delivery, and food-preparation work that once was performed by soldiers, tens of thousands of them are directly engaged in military and combat activities. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are now some 48,000 employees of private military companies in Iraq. These not-quite GI Joes, working for Blackwater and other major U.S. firms, can clear in a month what some active-duty soldiers make in a year. "We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense," said House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha. "How in the hell do you justify that?"

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman estimates that $4 billion in taxpayer money has so far been spent in Iraq on these armed "security" companies like Blackwater – with tens of billions more going to other war companies like KBR and Fluor for "logistical" support. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of the House Intelligence Committee believes that up to 40 cents of every dollar spent on the occupation has gone to war contractors.

With such massive government payouts, there is little incentive for these companies to minimize their footprint in the region and every incentive to look for more opportunities to profit – especially if, sooner or later, the "official" U.S. presence shrinks, giving the public a sense of withdrawal, of a winding down of the war. Even if George W. Bush were to sign the legislation the Democrats have passed, their plan "allows the president the leeway to escalate the use of military security contractors directly on the battlefield," Erik Leaver of the Institute for Policy Studies points out. It would "allow the president to continue the war using a mercenary army."

The crucial role of contractors in continuing the occupation was driven home in January when David Petraeus, the general running the president's "surge" plan in Baghdad, cited private forces as essential to winning the war. In his confirmation hearings in the Senate, he claimed that they fill a gap attributable to insufficient troop levels available to an overstretched military. Along with Bush's official troop surge, the "tens of thousands of contract security forces," Petraeus told the senators, "give me the reason to believe that we can accomplish the mission." Indeed, Gen. Petraeus admitted that he has, at times, been guarded in Iraq not by the U.S. military, but "secured by contract security."

Such widespread use of contractors, especially in mission-critical operations, should have raised red flags among lawmakers. After a trip to Iraq last month, Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey observed bluntly, "We are overly dependent on civilian contractors. In extreme danger – they will not fight." It is, however, the political rather than military uses of these forces that should be cause for the greatest concern.

Contractors have provided the White House with political cover, allowing for a backdoor near doubling of U.S. forces in Iraq through the private sector, while masking the full extent of the human costs of the occupation. Although contractor deaths are not effectively tallied, at least 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq and at least another 7,700 injured. These numbers are not included in any official (or media) toll of the war. More significantly, there is absolutely no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations, nor is there any effective law – military or civilian – being applied to their activities. They have not been subjected to military courts martial (despite a recent congressional attempt to place them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice), nor have they been prosecuted in U.S. civilian courts – and, no matter what their acts in Iraq, they cannot be prosecuted in Iraqi courts. Before Paul Bremer, Bush's viceroy in Baghdad, left Iraq in 2004 he issued an edict, known as Order 17. It immunized contractors from prosecution in Iraq which, today, is like the Wild West, full of roaming Iraqi death squads and scores of unaccountable, heavily-armed mercenaries, ex-military men from around the world, working for the occupation. For the community of contractors in Iraq, immunity and impunity are welded together.

Despite the tens of thousands of contractors passing through Iraq and several well-documented incidents involving alleged contractor abuses, only two individuals have been ever indicted for crimes there. One was charged with stabbing a fellow contractor, while the other pled guilty to the possession of child-pornography images on his computer at Abu Ghraib prison. While dozens of American soldiers have been court-martialed – 64 on murder-related charges – not a single armed contractor has been prosecuted for a crime against an Iraqi. In some cases, where contractors were alleged to have been involved in crimes or deadly incidents, their companies whisked them out of Iraq to safety.

As one armed contractor recently informed the Washington Post, "We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night." According to another, U.S. contractors in Iraq had their own motto: "What happens here today, stays here today."

Funding the Mercenary War

"These private contractors are really an arm of the administration and its policies," argues Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has called for a withdrawal of all U.S. contractors from Iraq. "They charge whatever they want with impunity. There's no accountability as to how many people they have, as to what their activities are."

Until now, this situation has largely been the doing of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House. No longer.

While some congressional Democrats have publicly expressed grave concerns about the widespread use of these private forces and a handful have called for their withdrawal, the party leadership has done almost nothing to stop, or even curb, the use of mercenary corporations in Iraq. As it stands, the Bush administration and the industry have little to fear from Congress on this score, despite the unseating of the Republican majority.

On two central fronts, accountability and funding, the Democrats' approach has been severely flawed, playing into the agendas of both the White House and the war contractors. Some Democrats, for instance, are pushing accountability legislation that would actually require more U.S. personnel to deploy to Iraq as part of an FBI Baghdad "Theater Investigative Unit" that would supposedly monitor and investigate contractor conduct. The idea is: FBI investigators would run around Iraq, gather evidence, and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions in U.S. civilian courts.

This is a plan almost certain to backfire, if ever instituted. It raises a slew of questions: Who would protect the investigators? How would Iraqi victims be interviewed? How would evidence be gathered amid the chaos and dangers of Iraq? Given that the federal government and the military seem unable – or unwilling – even to count how many contractors are actually in the country, how could their activities possibly be monitored? In light of the recent Bush administration scandal over the eight fired US attorneys, serious questions remain about the integrity of the Justice Department. How could we have any faith that real crimes in Iraq, committed by the employees of immensely well-connected crony corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton, would be investigated adequately?

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively monitor 126,000 or more private contractors under the best of conditions in the world's most dangerous war zone, this legislation would give the industry a tremendous PR victory. Once it was passed as the law of the land, the companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations. Yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Not surprisingly, then, the mercenary trade group with the Orwellian name of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) has pushed for just this Democratic-sponsored approach rather than the military court martial system favored by conservative Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. The IPOA called the expansion of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act – essentially the Democrats' oversight plan – "the most cogent approach to ensuring greater contractor accountability in the battle space." That endorsement alone should be reason enough to pause and reconsider.

Then there is the issue of continued funding for the privatized shadow forces in Iraq. As originally passed in the House, the Democrats' Iraq plan would have cut only about 15 percent or $815 million of the supplemental spending earmarked for day-to-day military operations "to reflect savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of contracts in the military departments."

As it stood, this was a stunningly insufficient plan, given ongoing events in Iraq. But even that mild provision was dropped by the Democrats in late April. Their excuse was the need to hold more hearings on the contractor issue. Instead, they moved to withhold – not cut – 15 percent of total day-to-day operational funding, but only until Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submits a report on the use of contractors and the scope of their deployment. Once the report is submitted, the 15 percent would be unlocked. In essence, this means that, under the Democrats' plan, the mercenary forces will simply be able to continue business-as-usual/profits-as-usual in Iraq.

However obfuscated by discussions of accountability, fiscal responsibility, and oversight, the gorilla of a question in the congressional war room is: Should the administration be allowed to use mercenary forces, whose livelihoods depend on war and conflict, to help fight its battles in Iraq?

Rep. Murtha says, "We're trying to bring accountability to an unaccountable war." But it's not accountability that the war needs; it needs an end.

By sanctioning the administration's continuing use of mercenary corporations – instead of cutting off all funding to them – the Democrats leave the door open for a future escalation of the shadow war in Iraq. This, in turn, could pave the way for an array of secretive, politically well-connected firms that have profited tremendously under the current administration to elevate their status and increase their government paychecks.

Blackwater's War

Consider the case of Blackwater USA.

A decade ago, the company barely existed; and yet, its "diplomatic security" contracts since mid-2004, with the State Department alone, total more than $750 million. Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration's well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the U.S. ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, setting up a "command and control" center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the company has invested its lucrative government pay-outs in building an impressive private army. At present, it has forces deployed in nine countries and boasts a database of 21,000 additional troops at the ready, a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world's largest private military facility – a 7,000 acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. It recently opened a new facility in Illinois ("Blackwater North") and is fighting local opposition to a third planned domestic facility near San Diego ("Blackwater West") by the Mexican border. It is also manufacturing an armored vehicle (nicknamed the "Grizzly") and surveillance blimps.

The man behind this empire is Erik Prince, a secretive, conservative Christian, ex-Navy SEAL multimillionaire who bankrolls the president and his allies with major campaign contributions. Among Blackwater's senior executives are Cofer Black, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA; Robert Richer, former deputy director of operations at the CIA; Joseph Schmitz, former Pentagon inspector general; and an impressive array of other retired military and intelligence officials. Company executives recently announced the creation of a new private intelligence company, Total Intelligence, to be headed by Black and Richer.

For years, Blackwater's operations have been shrouded in secrecy. Emboldened by the culture of impunity enjoyed by the private sector in the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater's founder has talked of creating a "contractor brigade" to support U.S. military operations and fancies his forces the "FedEx" of the "national security apparatus."

As the country debates an Iraq withdrawal, Congress owes it to the public to take down the curtain of secrecy surrounding these shadow forces that undergird the U.S. public deployment in Iraq. The president likes to say that defunding the war would undercut the troops. Here's the truth of the matter: Continued funding of the Iraq war ensures tremendous profits for politically-connected war contractors. If Congress is serious about ending the occupation, it needs to rein in the unaccountable companies that make it possible and only stand to profit from its escalation.

Back to Top

3. THE KENNEDY MYTH RISES AGAIN
BY

JOHN PILGER

On 5 June 1968, just after midnight, Robert Kennedy was shot in my presence at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He had just acknowledged his victory in the California primary. "On to Chicago and let's win there!" were his last public words, referring to the Democratic Party's convention that would nominate a presidential candidate. "He's the next President Kennedy!" said the woman standing next to me. She then fell to the floor with a bullet wound to the head. (She lived.)

I had been travelling with Kennedy through California's vineyards, along unsurfaced roads joined together by power lines sagging almost to porch level, and strewn with the wrecks of Detroit's fantasies. Here, Latino workers vomited from the effects of pesticide and the candidate promised them that he would "do something." I asked him what he would do. "In your speeches," I said, "it's the one thing that doesn't come through." He looked puzzled. "Well, it's based on a faith in this country ... I want America to go back to what she was meant to be, a place where every man has a say in his destiny."

The same missionary testament, of "faith" in America's myths and power, has been spoken by every presidential candidate in memory, more so by Democrats, who start more wars than Republicans. The assassinated Kennedys exemplified this. John F. Kennedy referred incessantly to "America's mission in the world" even while affirming it with a secret invasion of Vietnam that caused the deaths of more than two million people. Robert Kennedy had made his name as a ruthless counsel for Senator Joe McCarthy on his witch-hunting committee investigating "un-American activities." The younger Kennedy so admired the infamous McCarthy that he went out of his way to attend his funeral. As attorney general, he backed his brother's atrocious war and when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, he used his name to win election as a junior senator for New York. By the spring of 1968 he was fixed in the public mind as a carpetbagger.

As a witness to such times and events, I am always struck by self-serving attempts at revising them. The extract from British and prime minister-in-waiting Chancellor Gordon Brown's book Courage: Eight Portraits that appeared in the New Statesman of 30 April is a prime example. According to the prime minister-to-be, Kennedy stood at the pinnacle of "morality," a man "moved to anger and action mostly by injustice, by wasted lives and opportunity denied, by human suffering. [His were] the politics of moral uplift and exhortation." Moreover, his "moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence."

In truth, Robert Kennedy was known in the United States for his lack of moral courage. Only when Senator Eugene McCarthy led his principled "children's crusade" against the war in Vietnam early in 1968 did Kennedy change his basically pro-war stand. Like Hillary Clinton on Iraq today, he was an opportunist par excellence. Travelling with him, I would hear him borrow from Martin Luther King one day, then use the racist law-and-order code the next.

No wonder his "legacy" appeals to the Washington-besotted Brown, who has sought and failed to present himself as a politician with enduring moral roots, while pursuing an immoral agenda that has bankrolled a lawless invasion that has left perhaps a million people dead. As if to top this, he wants to spend billions on a Trident nuclear weapon.

Moral courage, Brown wrote of his hero, no doubt seeking to be associated with him, "is the one essential quality for those who seek to change a world that yields only grudgingly and often reluctantly to change."

A man with Blair as his literal partner in crime could not have put it better. All the world is wrong, bar them and their acolytes. "I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will [walk down] the road history has marked for us ... building a new world society ..." That was Robert Kennedy, quoted by Brown, celebrating a notion of empire whose long trail of blood will surely follow him to Downing Street.

4. A DEMOCRATIC SELLOUT ON BUSH'S MERCENARIES

BY

JEREMY SCAHILL AND TOM ENGELHARDT

Let's be clear about what it is – when it comes to "withdrawal" from Iraq – that the president will veto this Wednesday. Section 1904(b) of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon, H.R. 1591, passed by the House and Senate, mandates that the secretary of defense "commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days." If you've been listening to network TV news shows or reading your local newspaper with less than an eagle eye, you might well be under the impression that – just as the phrasing above seems to indicate – a Democrat-controlled Congress has just passed a bill that mandates a full-scale American withdrawal from Iraq. (Reporters and commentators regularly speak of the Democrats' insistence that "American troops be withdrawn from Iraq.") But that's only until you start reading the exceptions embedded in the bill.

Here are the main ones. According to H.R. 1591, the secretary of defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:

3. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe, with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone"), which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.

2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisers and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom – see above – would undoubtedly need "guarding").

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the president) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this striking point Jeremy Scahill has much to say – and he should know. He's the author of the surprise national bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which will shake you to your combat boots when it comes to the nature of the mercenary age – sorry, the age of "private security contractors" – that we've now entered. No personal library that claims to make sense of our messy, bloody planet should be without his book.

Back to Top

5. OFFICE HOLDING LIARS

BY

CHARLEY REESE

It's been said often that while everyone is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts. Today, we hear misstatements all the time. Some of them are deliberate lies. Some of them are just mistakes.

A House committee has just exposed the terrible fact that Army officials fabricated a story about the death of Pat Tillman and lied through their teeth. The Army knew from Day One that Tillman died from so-called friendly fire, but it was five weeks before Army officials got around to telling the family.

In the meantime, the Army falsified a citation to give him a Silver Star at his memorial service, which was turned into a media event – conveniently timed, his family now believes, to distract attention from the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison.

Tillman did not die fighting the enemy. He died of American bullets. The girl from West Virginia, Jessica Lynch, hailed as a female Rambo, in fact was knocked unconscious in a vehicle wreck before she ever had a chance to fire a shot. She woke up in an Iraqi hospital. To her credit, as soon as she recovered from her serious injuries, she always told the truth. The story had been spread by a "government source" that she had fought heroically until the last bullet.

Lies and faulty memories (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified under oath 71 times that he could not recall or recollect) should not be tolerated even by this pathologically tolerant society. Mistakes can be forgiven, but deliberate lies are hostile acts. The liar is trying to subvert your mind and manipulate you into a position favorable to him. Calling a man a liar was once an act that would prompt a duel, but today people seem to shrug it off.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recently misstated some information about Saddam Hussein in his attempt to defend the president's position. He said, for example, that Saddam fired "at our planes every day in defiance of U.N. resolutions." Not true. The no-fly zones were never authorized or approved by the Security Council. They were imposed by George H.W. Bush.

After the end of Gulf War I, the CIA grossly miscalculated the damage done to Saddam's army. Consequently, the CIA urged the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rise up in rebellion and finish off Saddam's government. When Saddam's army began to slaughter both the Shi'ites and the Kurds, an embarrassed U.S. hurriedly imposed the no-fly zones.

Graham said Hussein sent checks to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. This is a partial truth. Saddam had been sending checks to the families of all Palestinians killed in the struggle for independence before the suicide-bombing tactic was taken up. He was not subsidizing terror. He was subsidizing the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation.

The members of the House and Senate have great resources available to them. Not only do they have large staffs, but there are also the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, the great Library of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office. It seems they should have no excuse for not getting their facts straight.

The problem is that most of them, most of the time, concentrate on getting re-elected. In the 18th and 19th century, a contemptuous description of such people was "officeholders." Seems mild, but it was meant to separate the statesmen from the politicians with no agenda but their own political welfare.

It's impossible to have a legitimate debate about anything if the participants lie, don't know the basic facts of the issue or deliberately distort their opponents' position. Self-government is the most difficult of all the forms of government, and it requires honesty on everyone's part to function.

Back to Top