As I have said on this blog and elsewhere, the financial/leveraged speculator community has grown like a tumor around the US and global economy. Like a face grabber from Aliens there is no way to remove it at this point without killing the patient, (in this case morbidly wounding the case economy to the tune of near Great Depression-like hardship), although allowing it to grow only ensures that when the end comes it is spectacular.

In the one case, the alien explodes out of the victims chest, liquidating his organs. In the other, well, dollar flight, hyperinflation and attendant decimation of savings and the normal banking operations our standards of living depend on, perhaps for a generation. Basically, however bad the ramifications of ending our inflationary policies would be for us now- and they would be massively so- they will pale in comparison to final circumstances if these policies are not changed.

My point in bringing this up again is that Goldman's profits don't outrage me. They are incidental. Preordained because we do not have a political class that is willing to do what is right if it involves risking their job security (i.e. anything that causes discomfort among the constituency). Sure enough the treasury has green-lighted the Fed's backstop bids on all manner of fixed income paper, letting the broker dealers make riskless profits so they can be recapitalized. A backdoor bailout as it were. The problem with the backdoor is that reasonably well capitalized firms like Goldman can take full advantage too, which is just insult to the public's injury.

But Christ, if you think this is bad, and I submit that both the blog owner, Glenn Greenwald, and the vast majority commenters here have no idea just how bone crushing this end game will be, you really ought to take a look at what these bastards are doing to us vis a vis climate change. Here we have a litany of clownish Congressman and Senators trying to secure their slice of the pork to sign off on an entirely inadequate mitigation program, when they aren't watering it down further, or dismissing it altogether.

I mean, here we have a problem that with entirely unacceptable probabilities THREATENS THE HABITABILITY OF THE ENTIRE PLANET as given by current estimates. A 2 standard deviation event, something that happens 1 out of every 20 times, would cause absolutely cataclysmic outcomes on par with anything you might have ever seen in a bad science fiction movie by the end of the youngest generation's lifetimes. Yet these blowhard assholes ostentatiously cite small rises in people's utility bills as if they have a point as they collect backhanders from the carbon industry. Where to start???

Point being, what the eff did we expect? You cannot exist in an abjectly amoral society and expect positive outcomes. And ours could be unfavorably compared to the late Roman Empire on that score.

@Glenn-

There may be lots of reasons why it's in the U.S. strategic interest to appear to oppose Dotsum. I'm not saying that's wrong or bad -- just that it's a huge leap to think that this somehow means we're no longer willing to align ourselves with war criminals.

Fair enough but I don't think it's fair to insinuate baseless speculation on my part. I'd say the weight of the evidence, though hardly conclusive, is supportive. There is the in-country evidence- in particular, that Dostam remains a power player within an important ethnic group, the Uzbeks, making it unclear that he would no longer be of service to the US backed Afghan government, (especially when that government is openly contemplating negotiating with adversaries including elements of the Taliban a la the Iraq strategy). There could of course be rivals waiting in the wings with sufficient legitimacy as judged by the geniuses at the CIA, but time will tell there.

More compellingly there is the out-of-country evidence of Honduras. Note that a Republican government would most certainly not be calling for the return to power of an anti-American leftist however deposed (as right wing outlets have made abundantly clear). It would seem that the governing philosophy is changing- Obama's people seem to believe that the benefits of having friendly despots are less than the cost to our reputation and our persuasive power of propping them up. That can only be described as a welcome development.

In any case, irrespective of whether this move does not signal a more moral global role for this country, (and I'm no Choamskyite, but I do recognize our past), and even though it is hypocritical, it bears noting that this policy is the right one. Certainly that should not be overlooked or, given the state of this country's right-wing, taken for granted.

@Silenced- I am aware that Dostam was allied with the Soviets. He is nothing if not a sociopath and opportunist and the best money was on the guys with the multiple million man army with the high tech tanks and jets. As to his time in the Mujahideen, I suppose I was referring to Dostam's alliance with certain Mujahideen warlords against his former allies subsequent to the Soviet's withdrawal, and the siege of Kabul wherein he annihilated thousands of civilians in particular. You'll get no argument from me about the virtue of Afghanistan's power brokers in any case, not least as regards the various factions of the UIF that became our conquering heroes after 9/11.