It will not achieve its stated goal and it will leave us fundamentally weaker in the exact same place it meant to strengthen us.

Actually, make that two ways: It will massively benefit the people who have spent the time to buy out the politicians.

In Iraq we knew what a WMD was, an Å-bomb. We didn't know where they were (it proved to be nowhere). In this instance, as you say, we know what the WMD is but we don't know where they all are. We know where some on them are but I doubt we've found them all.

In what light do you consider the comparison to Congressional promises of oversight, and their promises to end funding to the war if the American people decided the war was no longer worth it. What do you think of the exceptional powers granted to the leadership at the White House. How do you answer the charge that the economic crisis is a manufactured crisis to rescue Bush's failed Presidency, his posterity, and his posterior.

Why do Democrats love the President? The real difference in this instance is that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this economic intervention. This is the end of their representative Democracy, which they lost when the Democrats gave Bush extraordinary powers in the failed immoral, and illegal war in Iraq. Game, set, match.

In Iraq, we were allowed to catch the alleged "bad guy" (Saddam) and ultimately execute him.

In the bailout, it is politically impossible to do anything to punish the culprits.

I'm sure we'll be hearing more than a couple of "everything is connected" (shhhh, to the same "Jews" responsible to 09/11) theories in the next few days ... I'm merely suprised I haven't heard from them yet (I'm sure their early efforts are working their way up to the more respectable surface of the internet as I write this).

Conspiracy theories aren't new, but as a mind-set, they are a toxic Mrs. Murphy's kitchen-sink-and-more chowder. This one should be fun to watch, particularly the convulsions of "It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel" crowd who seem willing to belive that "Israel" is somehow inherently evil nonetheless and that being called an anti-semite is somehow worse than being called a Nazi or part of the fabled "international zionist conspiracy" or whatever the overlord is being called these days. Can't wait.

1) So, if in this case we've found the WMDs, why are they being left in place? As far as I can tell, this plan does nothing to defuse the conditions that led to the problems.

2) Despite the hyperventilating of some Republicans, this is nowhere near "the nationalization of the financial economy". It's the nationalization of (some of) the risk to (some of) the major players. They would've liked it better if Paulson had gotten it without strings (except when they thought about the possibility of an Obama Administration), but to call it "New Deal-style government intervention" is laughable.

3) Well, you think the situation has only embarrassed us in front of the rest of the world, not angered them. Well, I guess that really does prove it's different.

You've not been keeping up, that particular scapegoat is yesterday's news, except for a dedicated few that will never let it go.

The new scapegoat are the Hispanics (and blacks) that were given home loans. It's easier to wrap a twisted mind around, that's why Fox and RW blogs are pushing it.

I, too, corrected some of my political buddies who think there are no mass weapons of financial destruction. There are.

But the stunning similarity of the Democrats blocking with Bush ... again ... while Mr. Tepid, Obama, hides in the background - while Mr. Loudmouth, McCain - flops around doing exactly nothing - is quite illuminating. All the details I have heard so far indicate there is little for the taxpayer and the ordinary worker to cheer about - except the unsubstantiated allegation that Capital's pile of shit has been prevented from falling on the little guy. This is clearly a 'trickle down' bailout...

Rahm or one of those smooth Democratic white-haired, 'young' guys with $5,000 suits was saying it would protect our 'retirement' because the 401K and Roth IRA wouldn't sink anymore. No gurantees, of course, that you can keep the market up. And isn't this the 'privatized' SSN argument that the Republicans like to make? Hey, Wall Street / Main Street - keep my dividends coming! Let's all be in this together.

Pelosi was high profile in defending the bailout on CNN yesterday - but she said it was 'not' a bailout, and it wouldn't happen again, blah blah. There is supposedly a 5 year 'guarantee' that if the taxpayer lost money, the banks 'might' have to pay it back in a tax/fee. So they are going to wait for 5 years, when the 'heat' cools down, to 'perhaps' put on a tax. I heard nothing about even the weak idea of 'warrants' or the stronger idea of repayment through profits or company control.

If there was more decisive proof that our political parties are exclusive partys of big finance capital, unresponsive to the will of the population, this bailout is it. The population is overwhelmingly against this deal.

We need a third party representing the labor movement, the black and Latino populations, women and small farmers and businessmen. Populism will never find a home in the Democratic Party... those Democrats on the left of the Democrats should break with it and work to form a new organization.

The more voters learn about the proposed $700-billion taxpayer-backed Wall Street rescue plan, the less they like it. Most voters remain largely unworried about their own money, too.

Just 24% of U.S. voters now favor the plan first proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson a week ago and the subject of very public negotiations on Capitol Hill ever since, according to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken Friday night. Fifty percent (50%) oppose it, and 25% are undecided.

on why the bail out should be opposed ... Well organized and annotated, as usual from Mr. Sirota ... likely worth printing out and reading more than once ...

Annie -- I was struck this morning over at TomDispatch (as linked from Juan Cole) at Chalmers Johnson's article "blaming" (on the surface) the Military-Industrial-Complex for this "mess" (it's all more complicated and layered and under all sorts of varying controls and influences, etc. than I can hold in my head at one time) -- however, doubtless, Chalmers Johnson's MANY fans will be linking it extensively today.

Andrew's post refuting the "It's just like the run up to the Iraq war" simplistic, "it's all related AND it's all the same" easy explanations made me realize I have yet to hear from the "ZOG" crowd and the more prevalent on Salon less overtly "It's all AIPAC/Israel's fault" crowd ...

Sirota (as usual) is worth a read.