Paul Craig Roberts: The Bitter Fruits of Deregulation

Excellent commentary by Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch (one of the online places I sneak off to visit when desperate for 'real journalism.')

Roberts - for those who don't know of him by name - was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a Contributing Editor of National Review.

In other words... he knows exactly what is happening, and why.

Here is one small portion of an excellent (if frightening) essay. I can't reprint it here in its entirety, but I wish I could. Please read it for yourself.

Exerpt from The Bitter Fruits of Deregulation

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

This crisis comes at the worst possible time. Gratuitous wars and military spending in pursuit of US world hegemony have inflated the federal budget deficit, which recession is further enlarging. Massive trade deficits, magnified by the offshoring of goods and services, cannot be eliminated by US export capability.

These large deficits are financed by foreigners, and foreign unease has resulted in a decline in the US dollar’s value compared to other tradable currencies, precious metals, and oil.

The US Treasury does not have $700 billion on hand with which to buy the troubled assets from the troubled institutions. The Treasury will have to borrow the $700 billion from abroad.

The dependency of Treasury Secretary Paulson’s bailout scheme on foreign willingness to absorb more Treasury paper in order that the Treasury has the money to bail out the troubled institutions is heavy proof that the US is in a financially dependent position that is inconsistent with that of America’s “superpower” status.

The US is not a superpower. The US is a financially dependent country that foreign lenders can close down at will.

Washington still hasn’t learned this. American hubris can lead the administration and Congress into a bailout solution that the rest of the world, which has to finance it, might not accept.

Currently, the fight between the administration and Congress over the bailout is whether the bailout will include the Democrats’ poor constituencies as well as the Republicans’ rich ones. The Republicans, for the most part, and their media shills are doing their best to exclude the ordinary American from the rescue plan.

A less appreciated feature of Paulson’s bailout plan is his demand for freedom from accountability. Congress balked at Paulson’s demand that the executive branch’s conduct of the bailout be non-reviewable by Congress or the courts: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion.” However, Congress substituted for its own authority a “board” that possibly will consist of the bailed out parties, by which I mean Republican and Democratic constituencies. The control over the financial system that the bailout would give to the executive branch would mean, in effect, state capitalism or fascism.

If we add state capitalism to the Bush administration’s success in eroding both the US Constitution and the power of Congress, we may be witnessing the final death of accountable constitutional government.

And after that... the bankrupting of the United States. Mission Accomplished?

False flag in the wind?

Former Reagan Administration officials are coming out of the woodwork, screaming bloody hell about Bush and Cheney. Former Assistant Treasurer to Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts (also known as the 'Father of Reaganomics,' wrote this breath-taking commentary for CounterPunch.

Thom Hartmann interviewed Roberts on Air America today and asked him about the piece - here is an excerpt:

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

Turns out Brzezinski testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this past February, and actually brought up the potential for a False Flag as provocation leading to war with Iran.

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote-unquote “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

There are some in the UK who believe that they were already used in a 'false flag operation' to try to gain their support in a wider war with Iran.

Coming soon: 'Domestic spying surge!'

Torture, secret prison camps, the suspension of habeas corpus, American war profiteers in Iraq, the abuse of our troops abroad -- and the wounded that return... this administration is a veritable cesspool of corruption and abuse of power. It is hard to single out a particular abuse and call it 'most infuriating' given the endless stinky bubbles burping to the surface of the Bushie oil slick.

Everyone has a hot button issue. If I had to pick one issue that continually makes my head explode, it would be the rampant use of domestic spying by this very obvious partisan and power-hungry administration -- and the lack of real excuses given for watching our every move.

A new commentary by Fred Kaplan in Slate, entitled "SPY SURGE: Prepare for more Domestic Spying," discuses an interesting section in the latest National Intelligence Estimate that appears to push for even more domestic surveillance.

Why am I not surprised?

I believe the direct assault on our forth amendment by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of all American citizens, without knowledge or consent, is the single most impeachable offense that has been committed by this administration:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Many conservative scholars agree. Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

It doesn't seem to matter (off the table, off the table, we're too busy, it's not worth the time.)

Meanwhile... you can imagine that if the Bushies consider it open season on their more famous political enemies - to the point where former Surgeon General Richard Carmona wasn't even allowed to attend the Special Olympics because the Kennedys endorse it - oh just imagine how the the vast majority of Americans who oppose the war are hanging in the partisan, political wind.

With all of our recent and persistent noise about ending the war and impeachment, are we to illogically believe that this administration bears us no ill will?

Perhaps this is at the heart of my endless frustration with Congress. Our Constitution was devised to protect us, the people, from abuse of government power. I expected our representatives in this government to stand up for us - and the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect - and call off these very obvious partisan dogs of war.

At the very least, I expect them to verify that this domestic spying is not being abused for partisan purposes.

Now that the war is going badly, and people are starting to notice that we never went after Al Qaeda where they really live, do the Bushies suddenly decide to step up action against Pakistan?

If they really wanted to stop Al Qaeda, they've known for some time exactly where to find them:

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

The Bush Administration has known for some time that Bin Laden was in Pakistan. And many recent news reports have claimed that we are in fact much less 'safe' since our invasion of Iraq than we were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Even the military has soured on the surge, as shown in a recent poll by Military.com. One comment jumped out at me, because it made me realize again, how badly these troops have been misused in this war - this war they thought would protect the homeland from any future attacks of terrorism:

"Or we pull out, use the money for the war to bolster our forces and anti-terrorism capabilities and be ready to respond when [enemies] show themselves," writes "userArmy."

So if this was indeed about fighting terrorism at all: the obvious choice for any administration would be to redeploy and pressure Pakistan to give Bin Laden up. We pressured Afghanistan... and surely we would be justified in demanding that Pakistan stop harboring terrorists hell bent on attacking us within our country.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq, our claim that we are 'only waging a war on Terror' would be much, much stronger. As things currently stand, we are viewed the world over as an invading force.

But of course... I'm talking of reason, I'm speaking of rounding up the actual terrorists that attacked us, and forgetting all about the OIL. And because we citizens are wising up to the real motivations behind this war, we must be watched. And I'm hoping that is the least of it. Conservative and former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts wrote a harrowing commentary in Counterpunch:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

And the government is spying on us?

In his commentary in Slate, Fred Kaplan revisits reports about the National Security Agency's "data-mining" technologies, and the intrusive "Total Information Awareness" network the Pentagon was originally advocating - without any proof that this assault on privacy was even effective. Apparently all previous domestic spying was for naught, because if recent reports can be believed, Al Qaeda is once again operating on our soil:

Most of the report (which I analyzed here) concerns an alleged resurgence of al-Qaida. But toward the end, the authors mention a small but expanding number of "violent Islamic extremists inside the United States" who are "becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."

Kaplan has also noticed a slight modification in what - and who - they're now monitoring:

The report also notes dangers posed by "non-Muslim terrorist groups," "single-issue groups," and "even small numbers of alienated people" who might "find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack—all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader."

Small numbers of alienated people? Single-issue groups? Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I'm guessing they're not talking about the KKK or skin heads. Or even the nation's most vocal homophobic and racist haters - because these can be found all over the radio dial, and even on TV. So who are they talking about?

And honestly: couldn't such vague and sweeping language include nearly every angry citizen in the United States? How about every citizen calling for impeachment? Or every citizen who wants the United States to withdraw from Iraq?

Small numbers of alienated people? What does that mean? Alienated from what -- from Bush? I'd like a little clarification.

One thing is perfectly clear. We were told that we were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq as a justification for the continuation of this escalating war. We were told that we had to fight them 'over there, so they wouldn't fight us over here.' We have known for some time that Bin Laden was probably in Pakistan, and that Al Qaeda was in fact rebuilding there. Finally the government admits as much. And their idea of a solution?

Spy on the American people again. 'Spy on us here so you don't have to fight them over there.' Yes, we get it.