The Chicken Or The Egg, 'Six-of-One, Half-a-Dozen of the Other'?

What's responsible for the economic meltdown - Gramm-Leach-Bliley or the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933? Republicans, or do Democrats need to step up to plate for a share of the blame?



And whatever kind of game is Bill Clinton up to (and wouldn't you know that the Wall Street Journal would leap on it)?:

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress's 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day. Bill Clinton signed that "deregulation" bill into law, and he knows better.

In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."

One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as "the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess." Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him "a bill of goods"?

Mr. Clinton: "Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence.

"But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment."

We agree that Mr. Clinton isn't wrong about everything. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle -- oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.

As for the sins of "deregulation" more broadly, this is a political fairy tale. The least regulated of our financial institutions -- hedge funds -- have posed the least systemic risks in the current panic. The big investment banks that got into the most trouble could have made the same mortgage investments before 1999 as they did afterwards. One of their problems was that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns weren't diversified enough. They prospered for years through direct lending and high leverage via the likes of asset-backed securities without accepting commercial deposits. But when the panic hit, this meant they lacked an adequate capital cushion to absorb losses.

Meanwhile, commercial banks that had heavier capital requirements were struggling to compete with the Wall Street giants throughout the 1990s. Some of the deposit-taking banks that were allowed to diversify after 1999, such as J.P. Morgan and Bank of America, are now in a stronger position to withstand the current turmoil. They have been able to help stabilize the financial system through acquisitions of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.

Mr. Obama's "deregulation" trope may be good politics, but it's bad history and is dangerous if he really believes it. The U.S. is going to need a stable, innovative financial system after this panic ends, and we won't get that if Mr. Obama and his media chorus think the answer is to return to Depression-era rules amid global financial competition. Perhaps the Senator should ask the former President for a briefing.

Could This Be Why Hillary Won't Leave?

U.S. to Attack Iran; Bush and Cheney Plan to Solve Disputes with Iran "radically and resolutely"

ShortNews.com reports:

The Israeli Army Radio and the Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post have both quoted unnamed Israeli officials today as saying that the US President George W Bush plans to launch an attack on Iran within the next few months.

According to officials a senior member of the Bush entourage on his recent trip to Israel said that both Bush and his Vice president, Dick Cheney planned to solve disputes with Iran “radically and resolutely”.

The unnamed sources claim the only reason the US Administration has not attacked Iran earlier is because of reservations expressed from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The sources of this report is PressTV:

Israeli officials claim that US president George W. Bush intends to launch a military attack against Iran before the end of his term.

"George W. Bush intends to attack Iran within the next few months, before the end of his term", The Israeli Army Radio and the Jerusalem Post quoted unnamed Israeli officials as saying on Tuesday.

The officials claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage during Bush's trip to the occupied Palestine last week said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney believed they should solve the issue of Iran 'radically and resolutely'.

They, however, claimed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates' and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's reservations had so far prevented the administration from launching an attack on Iran.

Earlier, a news website close the Israeli intelligence agency revealed that during his visit to al-Quds Bush criticized Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert for not attacking Lebanon after the political defeat of Fuad Siniora's government in the recent crisis in Lebanon.

A "Clinton cohort" reports to Huffington Post that Hillary Clinton is asking key supporters (superdelegates) not to desert her during the next two weeks of campaigning, assuring them that she "won't embarrass them".

Could her subtext be, "You'll see why I haven't gotten out of the race (war with Iran), and I'll make the case that I'm the experienced 'war president', not Obama".

If true, how could she know?

Bill Clinton, as a former president, gets the same daily intelligence briefing that Bush gets. We've heard about plans for an imminent strike against Iran for a while, but what isn't available to the public, but is in daily briefings, is the most up-to-date information on U.S. military placement. If it was happening, if a military strike against Iran was operational, the Clintons would know about it.

Crazy? Or Crazy Like A Fox?

What Bill Clinton's Odd Denial of Previous Day's Comment ("They Played the Race Card On Me") May Be About....Because He Surely Did Say It

Here are Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd talking about on Pennsylvania primary day:



MSNBC's pundits have a habit of bending over backwards to give the Clintons every benefit of doubt (or ignore the obvious entirely), and Chuck Todd doesn't break with that tradition.

Let's look at the story as it unfolded on Monday.



CNN reports:

Former President Bill Clinton denied Tuesday he had accused Senator Barack Obama's campaign of "playing the race card" during an interview Monday.

Bill Clinton is facing tough questions Tuesday over an interview with a Delaware radio station.

A recording of the former president making the comment is posted on the WHYY Web site.

It says he made the comment in a telephone interview with the Philadelphia public radio station Monday night.

Clinton was asked whether his remarks comparing Obama's strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"No, I think that they played the race card on me," said Clinton, "and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along."

"We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist."

After the phone interview, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: "I don't think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?"

But outside a Pittsburgh campaign event Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant "when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?"

Clinton responded: "When did I say that and to whom did I say that?"



"You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your games today," Clinton added.

"I said what I said -- you can go back and look at the interview, and if you will be real honest you will also report what the question was and what the answer was. But I'm not helping you."

Clinton did not respond when asked what he meant when he charged that the Obama campaign had a memo in which they said they had planned to play the race card.

Meanwhile, at a Pittsburgh press availability on Tuesday, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use "the race card."

"Hold on a second,'' he said. "So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it?"



"You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.''

Clinton commented just before the South Carolina primary that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Question for Bill Clinton: Is your knowledge of these memos (the "memos from the campaign and everything" that you spoke about with Susan Phillips in the WHYY interview that you claim "show that they planned to do it all along") connected to the break-in of Obama campaign offices in Allentown on April 19, 2008, where laptops and cell phones were stolen?

The memo on the subject of race from Amaya Smith, S. Carolina press secretary for Obama for America lists news accounts of events during the campaign, and nothing else.

Proving Ann Coulter Wrong

It's remarkably easy, but irritating. Because nobody should have to waste their time doing it. And if anyone has to do it more than once, you have to ask yourself why Coulter, a known fabricator, is given air time to lie and confuse people.

Knowing Coulter's casual relationship with facts and truth, could there be any other reason for Republicans and Corporate Media to keep putting her (and Limbaugh and Drudge and Hannity) on the air and in print if not to keep us on the left occupied, correcting the record?

When it comes to appointing minorities (women, blacks, hispanics, asians of either gender) to government posts, Democrats have been responsible for the "mosts" and most of the "firsts" - But specifically with regard to black people in general, and black women specifically:

Patricia Roberts Harris, appointed Ambassador to Luxembourg (first black woman to serve as ambassador) by Lyndon B. Johnson; appointed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Secretary of Health and Human Services by Jimmy Carter.

Robert C. Weaver, appointed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (first black ever to serve in a Presidential cabinet) by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Thurgood Marshall, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court (first black ever to serve on the USSC) by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Rodney Slater, appointed Secretary of Transportation by Bill Clinton.

Ron Brown, appointed Secretary of Commerce by Bill Clinton.

Hazel O'Leary, appointed Secretary of Energy (first woman, first black, to hold the post) by Bill Clinton.

Jesse Brown, appointed Secretary of Veterans Affairs by Bill Clinton.

Mike Espy, appointed Secretary of Agriculture by Bill Clinton.

Lee Brown, appointed Drug Policy Coordinator and elevated to a cabinet post by Bill Clinton.

Togo D. West, Jr., appointed first as Secretary of the Army by Bill Clinton and then Secretary of Veterans Affairs by Bill Clinton.

With the exception of two 'tokens' in the current Bush administration (Powell and Rice, one moderate and one neocon who are used by Bush as window-dressing and whose counsel was and is ignored in matters of policy) and Bush41's appointment of Clarence Thomas and elevation of Colin Powell to chair the Joint Chiefs, Republican administrations are remarkably absent of 'color.'

The Clinton Administration's Top Yenta Has Something to Say About Libby & Cheney

At Salon.com, Sidney Blumenthal writes, "How Libby became Cheney's bitch pawn."


Ok, try as I might to hide it, I'm not a big Sidney Blumenthal fan. It may be why I find his contribution to the Libby trial gabfest so deliciously ironic:

"The vice president knew the intelligence for the Iraq war was cooked. So he launched his aide to smear the man who took the information public."

Isn't that exactly what Sidney did to the women in boss Bill Clinton's life? Characterizing them as "bimbos," "trailer park trash," and "crazed stalkers" for key members of the media? To hear Sidney tell it, poor Bill was an innocent victim of "Girls Gone Wild."

But that was then, this is now, and while what Sidney Blumenthal has to say about the Cheney-Libby-Wilson-Plame affair has merit, I can't help but wonder where Sidney has been all these years. Come to think of it, where have all of the Democrats been?

Sidney isn't saying anything new or that hasn't been known and written about (by me and many others) since the story first broke over three years ago. But even more importantly than where have Sidney and Democrats been, where are the Democrats now?

Yes, Bush and Cheney pulled a scam on the American people that escaped the notice of the Republican-controlled Congress. But there is more than enough blame to go around for failing to smell the fishy intelligence that Cheney and Bush based taking the nation to war.

The intelligence was cooked, but where were our Democrats in exposing that fact?

Yes, Bush and Cheney made getting to the facts difficult and confusing, but not impossible. The same classified intelligence that Bush saw was made available to all members of Congress, according to Bob Woodward in "State of Denial." Very few members of Congress took advantage of that opportunity, according to Woodward, and actually went to the secured room where the intelligence was available. I'd like to know which ones did and which ones didn't. I'd like to know why they didn't and why they haven't been confronted in their home districts with that revelation.

I also find it impossible to believe that Hillary Clinton wasn't aware of the facts before she voted yes to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq. As a former president, her husband gets daily classified intelligence briefings. Would Bill Clinton have let his wife cast the most important vote of her short Senate life without the benefit of that intelligence and his counsel?

I didn't get to see any classified information, yet what I did see (news in alternative media, UN weapons' inspectors' interviews, reports, broadcasting from international news organizations, etc.) led me to distrust the Bush-Cheney basis for a preemptive war. I was hardly alone in that distrust. While mainstream media in the U.S. was beating the drums for war, hiring retired generals, preparing martial art and music, alternative media provided forums for those who had been in positions to know the truth of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities.

Those who have followed alternative media are about three years ahead of where mainstream media is today. We knew that once Bush started the war, WMD wouldn't be found and a civil war was inevitable. We knew that as the war got out of control, all calls for reevaluating U.S. involvement in Iraq would be met with "Maybe we shouldn't have gone in, but we're there now." We knew that Bush wouldn't be pulling American troops out of Iraq, that he never had any intention of leaving Iraq as a sovereign nation (as evidenced by the U.S. dictating to the Iraqis the terms of their constitution and the building of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq), and that his plan is to expand the war to Iran and Syria.

Why weren't Democrats asking questions?

Democrats have failed the American people almost as badly as Bush-Cheney and the GOP have. As the minority party, their power was in asking questions that would have framed Bush's true intentions for all to see. Democrats should have been asking the questions that the media weren't.

And now, on the eve of yet another "war of choice," the majority party Democrats have fallen silent again.

There seems to be a casual 'gentlemen's agreement' around this upcoming non-binding resolution. Senate Republicans (I've taken to calling them 'Reluctantcans') don't really want to be bothered with this headache, and are approaching it as something of an ultimatum to Bush: Bush's 'surge' would be his last chance to make good in Iraq. But Republicans are stuck on how much time they will give him, and therein lies the slippery slope: "Another 3-months 6-months 18-months, oh what the hell, we'll be in another campaign season soon enough and nobody wants to talk about bringing troops home in a campaign season....Bush will be gone in two years, let's just let it ride and the next president will figure it out."

Republicans are living in a dream world and hoping for a miracle that is never going to happen. Each day that they delay acting like clear-thinking non-partisan adults, bringing the troops home, is another day closer to Bush's certain escalation and expansion of the war to Iran, Syria and beyond. Bush has been planning this war with Iran for years, another fact from Woodward's book.

If a non-binding resolution is the best we can hope for from any of our Senators and Congressmen and -women, to keep Bush-Cheney from escalating and expanding this war throughout the region, we had better start looking now for new candidates in both parties for 2008.