Do you find merit in the argument that all this attention and fuss being drawn to the executive's bonuses is really an effort to hide the significance and corruption involved in the bailout of AIG itself?

I'm supposing that they want to get us all excited about opposing the bonuses as being greedy as a way of saying, well the much larger and still criminal swindle of the bailout itself was appropriate, or uncontentious. How much effort will now be put to stopping the massive bailouts themselves once all this sweat is poured into the relatively insignificant bonus question? I doubt much.

Don't you think that we know full well that these houses selling for two to five or more times their worth given the prevailing wages had to have been a scam. And, don't you think it was obvious that neither the government nor anyone else tried to put a stop to it years ago because they knew full well that there was money to be made in the scam? And, wasn't there always the argument that the banks, lenders, insurance companies, etc. etc. would be too big to fail and that the government loaded down with tax dollars would have to come to their rescue?

It's like this, we know that the government was in cahoots with the banks and international corporations to create a massive debt in Argentina. We know that their government's argument there was that the people had to bail out these corporations and take on their debt. So, if it was done so successfully in Argentina, why shouldn't we think that the same corporations that gutted that country for profit wouldn't do the same to this one? They can teach seminars on how to do it just as well up here. They have phones and do infomercials on swindling, fraud, government corruption, and so on.

Isn't this the bigger picture?

You started your piece here,

"...Dick Cheney -- at John King's prodding -- accused Barack Obama of, among other things, lying to the public about his proposed domestic policies, taking advantage of the financial crisis to foist enlarged government on unsuspecting citizens, and leaving us all more vulnerable to slaughter by the Terrorists."

And then the story was about how the journalists thought the Obama guy was disrespectful to Cheney.

I am not surprised that many journalists are themselves committed to some political party or political leaders. "Yes," they could admit, "I worship Dick Cheney as a God, and I don't appreciate you speaking ill of him!"

I think the better response would have been for the Obama Press guy to have been more thoughtful before he responded. What was his reaction? ...Maybe he could have offered to respond to more specific allegations. For example, What lies? What response has Obama proposed that wasn't called for by our dire circumstances? And, what proposals does Cheney think the government is now ignoring?

There are many things which one should be pressuring Obama to do, and also many things that should be clarified. However, the press guy's response to vague ranting isn't it.

You said,

"...By stark and depressing contrast, America's political class and even most of its "journalists" -- in the face of far, far greater, more heinous and more direct war criminality by their highest political leaders -- are explicitly demanding that nothing be done and that it all be kept concealed..."

I'm wondering whether the fact that the crimes are so obvious makes it hard for American politicos and journalists to find fault with it. They cannot think that they are guilty of any kind of crime, so they refuse to believe that they have done anything so bad.

I suspect if you commit one crime, it's easier to admit it and stand up for your punishment. But, if you have committed countless crimes and have made people really suffer, it is just impossible to face it, to admit it, or to allow oneself to be punished. You have to decide to keep making the argument that you have done nothing wrong.

This may be why it's easier to ask for investigations in the U.K. where they were just going along with the U.S. than in the U.S. where the major criminality originated.

I am reminded of Nuremburg trials and the idea that Nazis could not admit that they did anything wrong.

If there was just one crime, one might argue that one had a bad day, or wasn't feeling well, and one got confused. It was a crime, but that in itself didn't make one a terrible person. However, there does not seem to be any excuse for years of crimes, for countless victims, for suffering, and pointless destructions. They then are really terrible people.

These guys just can't admit that.