It was instantly clear after Sept. 11, 2001, that our security agencies knew little about al Qaeda's inner workings, could not detect its operatives' entry into the country, nor predict where it might strike next.

Actually, I think the security agencies knew a whole lot. What is going on is the CYA that is typical of politicians and bureaucrats.

If Congress wrote a law that has no prescribed penalty for breaking the law, it must mean that the Congress has retained the power to prescribe a penalty when the offence occurs. Not having a definite penalty can make sense if the seriousness of the offence can vary greatly.

When Sen. Whitehouse or whomever says there are no consequences, it must be because the Congress lacks the fortitude to chastise.

:)

Since the higher purpose is to keep the social order, the question becomes then, is it easier to maintain the social order by prosecuting Bush/Cheney or by ignoring DFH bloggers?

What we want is for the Social Order to toss the baby Bush off the sled.

Rachel Maddow had an excellent segment y'day that any kind of "kill the terrorist" program was hardly secret. She had a couple of clips of Bush saying that 2/3rds of the Al Qaeda leaders were captured or killed. "Kill the terrorists" is the whole point of the GWOT. She had former Powell aide, Retd. Col Wilkerson(?) on, who opined that perhaps the Cheney program was killing the wrong people.

Wilkerson also said that lying to the Congress is in the CIA's portfolio; it happens all the time.

Anyway, if Leon Panetta had to put an end to the program, then it cannot be that it did not become operational or whatever.

There is apparently no market advantage to be had in being open and transparent with consumer credit - or else someone would have followed that route.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opinion/14herbert.html

"The Obama administration wants to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would shield individuals and families from deceptive practices and outright fraud by banks and other businesses offering credit cards, mortgages, home loans and other forms of consumer finance.

Everything we’ve learned in this recession tells us we need such an agency. As Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner described it, “This agency will have only one mission: to protect consumers.”

Protecting the consumer is, of course, anathema to the industry. So it’s preparing for war. The Times’s Edmund Andrews neatly summed up the matter when he wrote that “banks and mortgage lenders are placing top priority on killing” the president’s proposal."

....

" “Giant lenders compete for business by talking about nominal interest rates, free gifts and warm feelings,” she said, “but the fine print hides the things that really rake in the cash. Today’s business model is about making money through tricks and traps.”

....

"The malefactors of great wealth view an informed consumer as Public Enemy No. 1. The last thing in the world that they want is a fair marketplace, which is why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency can’t come fast enough."

I think what you're not getting is that Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., are not going to roll over and submit themselves to any type of regulation, rule of law or such thing. Following the law itself is not a matter of principle with them, it is a calculation of cost versus gain. And they won't hesitate to buy up Senators and Representatives to make sure the costs of the laws or breaking the laws remain low to themselves.

You're thinking of powerful and profitable corporations leading America to prosperity; and they're thinking of America like the European colonial powers thought of their Asian and African possessions - how can we squeeze them some more?

Profit loses any benign nature it may have when it comes coupled with political power. Nothing you've written suggests how to break the well-demonstrated political power of the banks. And so what you wish for remains a fantasy.

I hope, I pray, that one of the Senators stops bloviating tomorrow and reads out your article into the record.

Not that it will stop those GOPers from sliming away faster than a slug.

But it will be a treat for anyone watching the hearings or listening on the radio.

Page 31 and the comments are still readable! I think my horoscope said something about it today :)

"Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country. Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggles. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago. It is our Constitution that makes that Dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a Justice on the Supreme Court."

(via

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/13/753002/-Sonia-Sotomayors-opening-statement )

Golf as a weapon for the little guy is an interesting concept. :)

1. If Goldman Sachs is making money by legitimate means (for contraindication, e.g., see the allegations that it is "front-running" on a massive scale), then that is fine. It should use its "blow-out" profits to pay back the Treasury and wean itself off the Federal Reserve.

2. Regarding reforming the rules under which the markets operate - none of the participants there should be beholden to Goldman Sachs or have any conflict of interest.

3. If the government has to periodically (say, once in a generation) bail out financial institutions, it seems only right that these institutions contribute more to the Treasury. That means higher marginal tax rates and fewer tax shelters for these institutions.

Whatever else we may think about Eliot Spitzer, we know he understands the finance industry inside and out, as an outsider. Perhaps, GG, you can do an interview with him?