the other 50 billion dollar fraud case

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missing_Iraq_billions_could_be_greatest_0216.html

regarding the just passed stimulus bill [updated]

here's what i said before

...i'd vote no on anything that comes out, it will cost more than you can imagine, won't fix the problem at hand, and cause more issues that will only need to be fixed later (see 9/11, iraq, katrina, etc)... *

http://tofubo.blogspot.com/2008/09/epic-bail-getty-chip-somodevilla-used.html

* not to be confused with republican obstructionism, they want to be described as the loyal opposition, but that would mean they had the best interests of the country at heart, and they fail there miserably

[update]

...in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy said that AIG had committed to paying the bonuses to employees of the financial-products unit and that the payments were "binding obligations," the Journal reported.
The $450 million in bonuses are over and above $121.5 million of incentive payments for 2008 that AIG...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/AIG-pay-450-mln-bonuses/story.aspx?guid={D69E1883-8A00-4F59-9DED-E701E15D9A59}&dist=hplatest

just saying

separated at birth



binkley on left, geithner on right

Who's Next - 1971 - #9 Won't Get Fooled Again

lyrics:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obamas_Justice_Department_backs_Bush_state_0209.html

video:



commentary:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/14271/#913926

another version of the lyrics:

http://washingtonindependent.com/29156/obama-administration-thanks-uk-for-concealing-evidence-of-us-sponsored-torture

one thing with all these lyrics sites, they all have different lyrics for the same song

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-no-my-armageddon-fantasies-are-best.html

should they think of reissueing the song, they won't even have to redo this line of the song: We Can Cut the Deficit in Half

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/pubpress/bolten_commentary.html

then is the same as now

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/22/obama-aims-to-cut-deficit-in-half-by-%E2%80%9913/

lucky us

another remix version

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/habeas-rights-at-bagram.html

the president of vice

slightly

from glenn:

Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that: (a) the U.S. learns exactly where Osama bin Laden is located in Pakistan; (b) there is ample evidence that bin Laden (i) perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and (ii) is in the advanced stages of planning new imminent attacks on the U.S.; and (c) the Pakistani Government is either unwilling or unable to apprehend bin Laden in order to extradite him to the U.S. for trial. Further suppose that efforts to compel the Pakistanis to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, China or Russia vetoes any actions).

What, if anything, is the U.S. (under current facts) permitted to do about Osama bin Laden, who -- we're assuming for purposes of these discussions -- clearly perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and is in the process of plotting new attacks? As far as I can tell, the options would be: (a) drop a bomb on him and kill him with no due process; (b) enter Pakistan, apprehend him, and bring him to the U.S. for a trial (i.e., rendition); or (c) do nothing, and just leave him be.

Those who are arguing that rendition is illegitimate in all cases (rather than in the torture-enabling and disappearance-causing forms used by Bush) have the obligation to answer that question specifically (and the same question would pertain to a common criminal -- say, a mass murderer -- who flees the U.S. to a country which refuses to comply with its extradition obligations to send the accused murderer to the U.S. for trial).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/02/renditions/index.html

from lkonstan:

Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that in 2007: (a) Afghanistan learns exactly where George W. Bush is located in the U.S.; (b) there is ample evidence that W. (i) illegally detained and tortured its citizens and (ii) is continuing these policies with the intention of doing so indefinitely; and (c) the U.S. government (both Dems and Republicans) is either unwilling or unable to apprehend W. in order to extradite him to the the Netherlands for trial. Further suppose that efforts to compel the U.S. to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, the U.S. vetoes any actions).

What, if anything, is Afghanistan (under current facts) permitted to do about Bush, who -- we're assuming for purposes of these discussions -- clearly committed war crimes and is continuing to do so? As far as I can tell, the options would be: (a) send a suicide bomber to the U.S.; (b) enter the U.S., apprehend him, and bring him to the Netherlands for a trial (i.e., rendition); or (c) do nothing, and just leave him be.

Those who are arguing that rendition is illegitimate in all cases... have the obligation to answer that question specifically (and the same question would pertain to a common criminal -- say, a mass murderer -- who flees Afghanistan to a country which refuses to comply with its extradition obligations to send the accused murderer to Afghanistan for trial).

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/02/renditions/permalink/02553e9904190abaf43f93438dd53b96.html