Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Gaddafi assets worth $200 million
What's even more amazing is that he couldn't buy his way out of trouble in the end. LA Times:
Moammar Kadafi secretly salted away more than $200 billion in bank accounts, real estate and corporate investments around the world before he was killed, about $30,000 for every Libyan citizen and double the amount that Western governments previously had suspected, according to senior Libyan officials.Read the rest of this post...
The new estimates of the deposed dictator's hidden cash, gold reserves and investments are "staggering," one person who has studied detailed records of the asset search said Friday. "No one truly appreciated the scope of it."
If the values prove accurate, Kadafi will go down in history as one of the most rapacious as well as one of the most bizarre world leaders, on a scale with the late Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire or the late Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
Perry now a birther?
Just when you thought Perry couldn't flounder any more, he goes birther. How did he possibly raise so much cash with this level of silliness? PARADE via ThinkProgress:
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?Read the rest of this post...
I have no reason to think otherwise.
That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?
You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
And?
That came up.
And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.
And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
Police arrest 130 OWS supporters in Chicago
Heaven forbid the police ever arrest the people that actually caused the economic recession. That might make too much sense. Besides, who would then be around to buy corporate sponsored naming rights for public places like subway stations or public bike programs?
Apparently it's a lot more convenient to give corporate crooks and swindlers a free ride with tax breaks and no charges, so they can then turn around and dish out millions to slap their names all over public places. Anyone want to talk about how less corrupt the US is compared to other parts of the world?
Apparently it's a lot more convenient to give corporate crooks and swindlers a free ride with tax breaks and no charges, so they can then turn around and dish out millions to slap their names all over public places. Anyone want to talk about how less corrupt the US is compared to other parts of the world?
Anti-Wall Street demonstrators of the Occupy Chicago movement stood their ground in a downtown park in noisy but peaceful defiance of police orders to clear out, prompting 130 arrests early Sunday, authorities said.Read the rest of this post...
Occupy Chicago spokesman Joshua Kaunert vowed after the arrests that protests would continue in the Midwest city.
"We're not going anywhere. There are still plenty of us," Kaunert told The Associated Press after the arrests, which took police more than an hour to complete.
GOP says Occupy Iraq, not Wall Street
Don't hold your breath waiting for the GOP to congratulate Obama on his handling of the wars in Libya or Iraq. They don't like Occupy Wall Street but they love Occupy Iraq so much they don't ever want to see the end of it.
According to GOP mythology it was 'the surge' that reduced the violence in Iraq. Nonsense. What really ended the violence was the US public voting for Democrats in the 2006 mid terms. It was the GOP losses in the mid terms that forced Bush to finally sack Rumsfeld and other incompetents and to at last start running the Iraq war in the way that the professional military had advised from the start. And it was that same GOP defeat in the mid-terms that started to convince the Iraqi insurgents fighting against the US occupation that the invaders might actually leave of their own accord.
Make no mistake about it, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the agreement to withdraw US forces from Iraq is merely fulfilling the commitment made by the Bush administration. Factions within the government were attempting to negotiate an extension of the occupation up to the last minute. But even the idea that the US must abide by its commitments to other countries has become a point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats think that the US should honor its obligations and Republicans think it should ignore any that they consider inconvenient.
John McCain had hoped that the US would stay in Iraq for '100 years' and slammed today's announcement:
What I would like to see is a journalist asking McCain what he proposes Obama should have done instead. Should he have ignored the Iraqi parliament and kept the troops anyway? Should he have allowed the troops to be stationed in Iraq without immunity from Iraqi laws? How is it possible to build democracy in a country by ignoring the results of the elections that take place? But no, the establishment media never seem to ask such questions of McCain, to expose the fact that he is full of it might appear partisan.
Of course Iran is going to be a bigger influence on Iraq after the US withdrawal. Iran has been the biggest influence in Iraq since the 2005 elections. Unlike the neo-con clique that plotted the US invasion, the Iranian regime realized that their country would benefit from a second US-Iraq war regardless of the outcome. Chalabai's Iraqi National Congress was known in intelligence circles as an Iranian front throughout the 1990s.
Iran will have a greater influence in Iraq than the US regardless of how many US troops are stationed there because of the simple fact that the two countries are next to each other and both have majority Shi'ia populations. The US is an English speaking country with a largely Christian population and a capital 6200 miles from Baghdad.
The best way for the US to counter Iran's growing influence is to support the emergence of strong democratic Islamic powers that can protect legitimate US interests without the need for US occupation. As the operation in Libya has proved, the US can achieve results that further US interests without feeling the need to lead the fighting in every war that comes along.
Contrary to what McCain and the other Republicans imagine, the rising powers in the Middle East are Turkey and Egypt. Iran's influence grew under Bush but is now shrinking under Obama. The US withdrawal will actually reduce the Iranian influence in Iraq as factions that previously attempted to play one foreign power off against another seek to eliminate foreign interference completely. Meanwhile Iranian influence in Syria is only as strong as the embattled Syrian regime. Should Assad fall, the Iranian regime will be too busy fighting for its own survival to worry much about regional power status.
Read the rest of this post...
According to GOP mythology it was 'the surge' that reduced the violence in Iraq. Nonsense. What really ended the violence was the US public voting for Democrats in the 2006 mid terms. It was the GOP losses in the mid terms that forced Bush to finally sack Rumsfeld and other incompetents and to at last start running the Iraq war in the way that the professional military had advised from the start. And it was that same GOP defeat in the mid-terms that started to convince the Iraqi insurgents fighting against the US occupation that the invaders might actually leave of their own accord.
Make no mistake about it, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the agreement to withdraw US forces from Iraq is merely fulfilling the commitment made by the Bush administration. Factions within the government were attempting to negotiate an extension of the occupation up to the last minute. But even the idea that the US must abide by its commitments to other countries has become a point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats think that the US should honor its obligations and Republicans think it should ignore any that they consider inconvenient.
John McCain had hoped that the US would stay in Iraq for '100 years' and slammed today's announcement:
Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the President: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is a consequential failure of both the Obama Administration — which has been more focused on withdrawing from Iraq than succeeding in Iraq since it came into office — as well as the Iraqi government.
What I would like to see is a journalist asking McCain what he proposes Obama should have done instead. Should he have ignored the Iraqi parliament and kept the troops anyway? Should he have allowed the troops to be stationed in Iraq without immunity from Iraqi laws? How is it possible to build democracy in a country by ignoring the results of the elections that take place? But no, the establishment media never seem to ask such questions of McCain, to expose the fact that he is full of it might appear partisan.
Of course Iran is going to be a bigger influence on Iraq after the US withdrawal. Iran has been the biggest influence in Iraq since the 2005 elections. Unlike the neo-con clique that plotted the US invasion, the Iranian regime realized that their country would benefit from a second US-Iraq war regardless of the outcome. Chalabai's Iraqi National Congress was known in intelligence circles as an Iranian front throughout the 1990s.
Iran will have a greater influence in Iraq than the US regardless of how many US troops are stationed there because of the simple fact that the two countries are next to each other and both have majority Shi'ia populations. The US is an English speaking country with a largely Christian population and a capital 6200 miles from Baghdad.
The best way for the US to counter Iran's growing influence is to support the emergence of strong democratic Islamic powers that can protect legitimate US interests without the need for US occupation. As the operation in Libya has proved, the US can achieve results that further US interests without feeling the need to lead the fighting in every war that comes along.
Contrary to what McCain and the other Republicans imagine, the rising powers in the Middle East are Turkey and Egypt. Iran's influence grew under Bush but is now shrinking under Obama. The US withdrawal will actually reduce the Iranian influence in Iraq as factions that previously attempted to play one foreign power off against another seek to eliminate foreign interference completely. Meanwhile Iranian influence in Syria is only as strong as the embattled Syrian regime. Should Assad fall, the Iranian regime will be too busy fighting for its own survival to worry much about regional power status.
Read the rest of this post...
BP wins federal approval for drilling deeper than Macondo disaster
What could possibly go wrong with this except everything? Much like the defense contractors who bilk taxpayers for millions and still operate, the oil drilling approval process can easily ignore the largest oil disaster in the US. How badly does one have to screw up to get shut out?
“We are working through the regulatory process” to drill in the Kaskida Field, according to the e-mailed statement. “Exact timing for commencement of drilling is subject to approval of the regulator.”Read the rest of this post...
BP is planning to drill Gulf wells in water as deep as 6,034 feet (1,839 meters), according to the agency statement. The Macondo well was in about 5,000 feet of water 40 miles south of Louisiana.
“Our review of BP’s plan included verification of BP’s compliance with the heightened standards that all deep-water activities must meet,” Tommy Beaudreau, the bureau director, said in the statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
