Truthout: Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once declared that individuals captured by the US military in the aftermath of 9/11 and shipped off to the Guantanamo Bay prison facility represented the “worst of the worst.”

During a radio interview in June 2005, Rumsfeld said the detainees at Guantanamo, “all of whom were captured on a battlefield,” are “terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama Bin Laden’s] body guards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th hijacker, 9/11 hijacker.”

But Rumsfeld knowingly lied, according to a former top Bush administration official.

And so did then Vice President Dick Cheney when he said, also in 2002 and in dozens of public statements thereafter, that Guantanamo prisoners “are the worst of a very bad lot” and “dangerous” and “devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.”

Now, in a sworn declaration obtained exclusively by Truthout, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell during George W. Bush’s first term in office, said Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld knew the “vast majority” of prisoners captured in the so-called War on Terror were innocent and the administration refused to set them free once those facts were established because of the political repercussions that would have ensued.

“By late August 2002, I found that of the initial 742 detainees that had arrived at Guantanamo, the majority of them had never seen a US soldier in the process of their initial detention and their captivity had not been subjected to any meaningful review,” Wilkerson’s declaration says. “Secretary Powell was also trying to bring pressure to bear regarding a number of specific detentions because children as young as 12 and 13 and elderly as old as 92 or 93 had been shipped to Guantanamo. By that time, I also understood that the deliberate choice to send detainees to Guantanamo was an attempt to place them outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system.”

He added that it became “more and more clear many of the men were innocent, or at a minimum their guilt was impossible to determine let alone prove in any court of law, civilian or military.”

For Cheney and Rumsfeld, and “others,” Wilkerson said, “the primary issue was to gain more intelligence as quickly as possible, both on Al Qaeda and its current and future plans and operations but increasingly also, in 2002-2003, on contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and secret police forces in Iraq.”

“Their view was that innocent people languishing in Guantanamo for years was justified by the broader war on terror and the capture of the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks, or other acts of terrorism,” Wilkerson added. “Moreover, their detention was deemed acceptable if it led to a more complete and satisfactory intelligence picture with regard to Iraq, thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country.”

Click below for the full article.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/item/713:exbush-official-willing-to-testify-bush-cheney-knew-gitmo-prisoners-innocent

 

Daily Ticker: The Economic Argument Is Over — And Paul Krugman Won (Big Surprise, Some Keynesian Claims Victory)

For the past five years, a fierce war of words and policies has been fought in America and other economically challenged countries around the world.

On one side were economists and politicians who wanted to increase government spending to offset weakness in the private sector. This “stimulus” spending, economists like Paul Krugman argued, would help reduce unemployment and prop up economic growth until the private sector healed itself and began to spend again.

On the other side were economists and politicians who wanted to cut spending to reduce deficits and “restore confidence.” Government stimulus, these folks argued, would only increase debt loads, which were already alarmingly high. If governments did not cut spending, countries would soon cross a deadly debt-to-GDP threshold, after which growth would be permanently impaired. The countries would also be beset by hyper-inflation, as bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates. Once government spending was cut, this theory went, deficits would shrink and “confidence” would return.

This debate has not just been academic.

Those in favor of economic stimulus won a brief victory in the depths of the financial crisis, with countries like the U.S. implementing stimulus packages. But the so-called “Austerians” fought back. And in the past several years, government policies in Europe and the U.S. have been shaped by the belief that governments had to cut spending or risk collapsing under the weight of staggering debts.

Of course Keynesians are claiming victory.  When the bill comes due on the national debt, inflation goes wild, and a dollar crisis happens, what will they claim then?  What do you think about this writers victory claim?

Click below for the full article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/economic-argument-over-paul-krugman-won-150247189.html

Marketwatch: Modified mortgages show ‘alarming’ default trend

Troubled homeowners who received modified mortgages through a federal program are seeing high default rates, a troubling trend that officials inadequately understand, according to an investigator’s report released Wednesday.

The oldest permanent modifications made through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, which launched in 2009, were redefaulting at a rate of 46.1% as of March 31, according to the report from the special inspector general overseeing the Treasury Department’s efforts to shore up the U.S. financial system. HAMP’s permanent modifications from 2010 have redefault rates ranging from 28.9% to 37.6%.

“The number of homeowners who have redefaulted on a HAMP permanent mortgage modification is increasing at an alarming rate,” the report said. “Treasury’s data shows that the longer a homeowner remains in HAMP, the more likely he or she is to redefault out of the program.”

Unfortunately, Treasury officials have an insufficient understanding of factors behind failures, according to the report.

“Better knowledge of the characteristics of the loan, the homeowners, the servicer, or the modification, more prone to redefault will increase Treasury’s understanding of the underlying problems that cause redefaults and provide Treasury an opportunity to address these issues proactively,” the inspector general said.

HAMP mortgages are modified to lower monthly payments by cutting interest rates and extending terms, among other actions. Servicers and borrowers receive incentive payments through the program.

Unsuccessful modifications have a “devastating effect,” according to the report.

“Redefaulted HAMP modifications on already struggling homeowners when any amounts previously modified suddenly come due,” according to the report. “When the homeowner cannot pay it, they lose their home to foreclosure.”

When Treasury launched HAMP, officials said the program could help 3 million to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. However, as of March 31, only about 2 million HAMP modifications had been started, and 54% of these have been cancelled, according to the report.

Click below for the full article.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/04/24/modified-mortgages-show-alarming-default-trend/

The Week: As his library opens, Was George W. Bush the worst president ever?

George W. Bush holds one of his last news conferences in January 2009.

 

The dedication of the George W. Bush library gives loyalists of the former president a chance to highlight what they see as the positive legacy of his eight years in office.

But even among supporters there is a sense he’ll never be given historical vindication.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleisher told NBC News: “I’m increasingly doubtful, just because I think the lens of history is not changing. A lot of us used to say President Bush will look good and he’ll be vindicated in the public eye. But realistically speaking, I don’t see a lot of the people who write history all of a sudden changing their mind about George W. Bush.”

As Jill Lawrence points out, the polling of historians seems to back this up.

Nearly 60 percent of the historians and political scientists in a 2006 Siena College survey rated Bush’s presidency a failure and two-thirds said he did not have a realistic chance of improving his standing.

A 2010 Siena ranking of presidential scholars rated Bush as one of the nation’s five worst presidents. A similar 2009 C-SPAN ranking put Bush in the bottom eight.

Click below for the full article.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243205/was-george-w-bush-the-worst-president-ever

Washington Post: Governments may push workers out of employer health care and into health exchange

In a quest to save money, political leaders in Washington state are exploring a proposal that would shift some government workers out of their current health plans and onto the insurance exchange developed under President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Lawmakers believe the change, which could affect thousands of part-time state employees and education workers, would save the state $120 million over the next two years. It would consequently push more health care costs onto the federal government because many of the low-income workers would likely qualify for federal subsidies.

Washington state appears to be the first major government to seriously explore the possibility of pushing public employees into the exchange, but it probably won’t be the last. Rick Johnson, who advises state and local governments on health care policy at the New York-based consulting firm Segal Company, said he expects it will be an option some state and local governments will explore in the years to come.

“I can see that as one of the solutions out there,” Johnson said.

A spokeswoman with the Department of Health and Human Services declined comment.

Because the federal law requires employers to provide coverage for those working at least 30 hours a week, states are exploring various ways to manage their part-time employees.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/governments-may-push-workers-out-of-employer-health-care-and-into-health-exchange/2013/04/24/fed10f26-acb4-11e2-9493-2ff3bf26c4b4_story.html

Yahoo News: House GOP report slams Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama on Benghazi

Seven months after the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, House Republicans released a new report on Tuesday that implies then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled lawmakers about her role in drawing down security assets in the war-torn country. The 43-page report also accuses President Barack Obama of failing to anticipate violence against Americans on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The assault on the facility, carried out by as-yet unidentified assailants, claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. It also sparked a firestorm of political controversy in the United States because top Obama aides linked it—wrongly—to anger in the Muslim world at an Internet video ridiculing Islam.

Republican staff from the House committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Intelligence produced the report, which accuses the Obama administration of trying to “cover up” the reality of the attack.

The White House countered that the document raises questions “that have already been asked and answered in great detail.”

The document, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News, implies that Clinton misled lawmakers under oath by denying that she played a role in denying requests from American officials in Libya for more security.

The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable, signed by Clinton, acknowledging requests from Stevens’ predecessor for more security “but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.”

That clashes with Clinton’s Jan. 23, 2013, testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations panel. In that appearance, she declared that she felt responsible for the security of all State Department employees. “But the specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department,” she said. “I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.”

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/house-gop-report-slams-hillary-obama-benghazi-213149551–politics.html;_ylt=Al.qMX0c6jYx.TsWdLDl4e.8Cu9_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxZ2k0cmFmBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDZjgwNmNiMzMtMWFjMi0zOGI0LTg2ZjgtZDdiMjExZmM0MjRmBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2U4OTlmYTIzLWFjODEtMTFlMi1hZWZlLTJhZDdmNWIyNzU2MQ–;_ylg=X3oDMTNucXYwZWlvBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNjk5MGRlMTctNDM4OC0zNWRhLWJkMWUtZDczZTViNmM0ZWVkBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x1LXMtZ292ZXJubWVudARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdANRRV9UZXN0;_ylv=3

Reuters: Catholic Church withdraws subpoena to Obama on birth control

Scaling down a legal fight with the White House, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has agreed to drop a request for documents about the government’s requirement of insurance coverage for birth control, a court filing on Monday said.

The archdiocese sent a subpoena to President Barack Obama’s administration in February asking for documents from White House staff, including Obama himself, for use in a church lawsuit against the contraception mandate.

Citing the burden involved and calling a subpoena of the president’s office inappropriate, the White House asked a federal judge to toss out the subpoena on April 4.

A notice filed in U.S. District Court in Washington late on Monday said the archdiocese agreed to withdraw its subpoena. It did not say why.

A lawyer for the archdiocese declined to comment on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Justice Department, which represented the White House in court, had no immediate comment.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-usa-courts-obama-idUSBRE93M17H20130423

Marketwatch: The slowdown is more than a soft patch, Goldman Sachs got it wrong before they got it right

For months, economists and the media have proclaimed that we are in full-recovery mode. While the markets were at record highs, unemployment had not improved, economic growth was stagnant and most corporate earnings had little to do with an increase in sales and revenue and were based on moves like laying-off thousands of people and shedding non-performing assets.

Last week, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — one of those bullish outfits projecting enthusiasm — reversed its earlier upbeat message, saying that consumer spending is slowing down, which will likely have a negative impact on future growth. The significance is that most analysts and economists are coming to grips with the fact that the economic data doesn’t support stock-market valuations at these levels.

What economists and analysts failed to connect is the contrast between reality and the stock market — the low consumer spending, paltry economic growth, weak hiring by companies and reckless quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve while the stock market soared.

So, let’s look at everything Goldman Sachs (and many others) missed, and the chain of economic events.

The importance of consumption on the overall economy should not be overlooked. While in the economic cycle, it is production that comes first, as it provides the income necessary for individuals to consume, it is ultimately consumption that completes the cycle by creating the demand.

Despite repeated bailouts, programs, and interventions, economic growth remains mired at sub-par rates as consumers struggle in a low growth/high unemployment economy. Businesses, which have been pressured by poor sales, higher taxes and increased government regulations, have learned to do more with less. Higher productivity has led to less employment and higher levels of profits.

The dark side of that equation is that less employment means higher competition for jobs which suppresses wage growth. Lower wage growth and incomes means less consumption, which reduces the aggregate end demand. In turn, lower demand for products and services puts businesses on the defensive to “do more with less” in order to protect profit margins. Wash, rinse and repeat. This is why deflationary economic environments are so greatly feared by the Fed as that relationship between production and consumption is incredibly difficult to break.

I don’t believe that the current slowdown is just a “soft patch,” but is instead the end of the expansionary cycle that began in 2009. That belief is simply based on the fact that economies do not grow indefinitely but cycle between expansions and contractions.

In the current economic environment, where the consumer is caught in a balance sheet deleveraging cycle, economic contractions occur more frequently than they do under more normal economic conditions. This is not an indictment of fiscal or monetary policies, but simply a statement about the cycles of an economy.

So where does that leave us now and the remainder of 2013?

At some point, despite the ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve, the stock market will revert to the underlying fundamental story which has been slowly deteriorating over time. The question that remains to be answered is simply how long can the Fed’s artificial intervention programs continue to elevate asset prices?

Click below for the full article.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-current-slowdown-is-more-than-a-soft-patch-2013-04-23?siteid=yhoof2