Bailout Blues--Where'd the $$ Go?

$800 Billion BAILOUT

or is it really $2 Trillion??

Meet freshman Congressman Alan Grayson D Fla





and visit his campaign site for more vids here

Many are calling him "Bulldog."
Crapaud says: Welcome back Harry Truman!

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Happy 200th Birthday, Mr. Lincoln

We Celebrate with Pride His Vision and Another NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Guest Blogatorial from Average Bro

Why I Voted For Obama In The First Place.

Here's why. Because even though the guy's already in office, taking his lumps, and surrounding himself with people who hardly scream "change", he still does things from time to time to show he's not your typical "politician".

Case in point.





"I screwed up."

Ask yourself this: when is the last time you heard a President say those words?

We've heard Presidents say "I screwed... her."

We've heard Vice Presidents say "Screw you!"

We've heard Presidents say "Screw... what's a screw?"

When Presidents say "I'm sorry", they usually mean "I'm just sorry I got caught"[1], or "F*ck you, I ain't sorry for sh*t", or "You've seen my wife's cankles! What would you do?"

But falling on the sword, manning up, admitting your mistake, explaining your original rationale for a decision that's backfired, and promising to do better? Well, that my friends is indeed change. Does it atone for some of the odd Cabinet choices he's made? No. But it does tell me that he understands he's being held accountable by the American people.

Would Mr. Obama have come out with this missive had Daschle been confirmed by the Senate? Prolly not. But by telling Daschle and Nancy Killefer to kick rocks (no way in hell either "voluntarily stepped down"), it's clear to me that Obama realizes the error of his ways. I think dude start getting high on his own supply after November 4th, and forgot who the real bosses were: the folks who voted him in. When you campaign on being high and mighty, folks expect you to follow through.

By saying a figurative "my bad", Obama tells me he's got some level of self awareness and cares about following through on his promises.

Well done.

Question: Does Obama earn any points for coming out and freely admitting his mistake? When's the last time a President issued a sincere apology?

Crapaud says: Amen to Average Bro. His take on things is most often right on the mark.

Most other recent presidential "apologies" were never "personal." Examples: Clinton's landmark apology for the horrors of the Tuskegee Experiments were "easy" because he himself was not responsible. Lil' Bush's disingenuous deflecting about the horror at Walter Reed, blamed others for that and he did not "man up" to the fact that the "buck" for that one was squarely in his chain of command.

Refreshing indeed, refreshing indeed!

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Missed the Superbowl ?

as Big Games go, this one was good.

But the Crapauds loved the commercials.
Some that were truly funny--

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

The People vs. Dick Cheney et als

Illustration by Roberto Parada







Will Obama bring the Bushies to account? Will Congress? Some local DA? A judge in Europe? Anyone...?


Largely Excerpted from articles by Karen Greenberg and Jonathan Schwarz
From Mother Jones, January/February 2009 Issue


"…Will there be redress for the crimes of the Bush administration—and if so, what form should it take? The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international. It begins with illegal wiretapping and surveillance (which in the view of many experts violated the Fourth Amendment, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for starters), the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine US attorneys, and numerous instances of obstruction of justice—from the destruction of cia interrogation tapes to the willful misleading of Congress and the public.

Perhaps the paramount charge that legal experts have zeroed in on is the state-approved torture that violated not just the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment and other "outrages upon personal dignity."

"… Human rights organizations, notably the Center for Constitutional Rights, have teamed up with partners in Germany and France to pursue charges against Rumsfeld for violating the Convention Against Torture, though so far to little effect. The possibility of other cases has been raised, most recently in British barrister Philippe Sands' warning that Congress should investigate the torture question, for "if the United States doesn't address this, other countries will."

...More significantly, there have also been rumblings about prosecution here at home…

….As Walter Lippmann once wrote, congressional commissions can turn into a free-for-all as politicians, "starved of their legitimate food for thought, go on a wild and feverish manhunt, and do not stop at cannibalism." Accordingly, some favor the idea of an independent commission, run by someone of the stature of Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or former New York US Attorney Mary Jo White, in the hope that this format would be less politically charged. The goal would be to prove Lippmann wrong and establish the facts in a reliable, nonpartisan fashion—to create an authoritative narrative that the nation could share.

But what kind of commission makes all the difference. Truth and reconciliation commissions, which the United States has never had at the federal level, are for healing. Watergate-style commissions bear the prospect of condemnation, exposure, and punishment. Then there is the question of just what is to be found: Much of what happened in the run-up to the war, the torture scandal, or the National Security Agency wiretaps has already been documented in news articles, books, and congressional probes; what is missing, though, is the full story about who knew what and when. Perhaps a commission could get members of the Bush administration to reveal these details. Perhaps there are other skeletons to be unearthed. The best hope, Meintjes ruefully acknowledges, is for a "negotiated truth" along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. As attorney Scott Horton has pointed out in Harper's, "Investigative commissions can provide truth...but they cannot provide justice."

…who else could throw the book at the Bush/Cheney crew? A few possibilities:
A Rogue district attorney--- In his recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi lays out a creative argument that state or local prosecutors could indict Bush for murder if a soldier from their jurisdiction was killed in Iraq. It's a far-fetched premise, but with 2,700 DAs out there, Bugliosi—famous for putting Charles Manson away—says, "I just need one." (Last fall, the Vermont Progressive Party's candidate for attorney general said that if elected, she would appoint Bugliosi to implement his plan.) This unusual strategy is not unprecedented; witness New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison's investigation into John F. Kennedy's assassination (as dramatized in JFK). Garrison successfully subpoenaed evidence like the Zapruder film, which had not been seen publicly before the trial. Potential upshot: major embarrassment for Bush. Likelihood: low.

Ticked-Off Lawyers---Most of what happened under Bush was "legal" in the sense that the Justice Department issued opinions—such as the so-called torture memos—that said as much. The new administration, if only to placate the military and intelligence agencies, will be loath to go after Bush officials who can claim legal cover, no matter how flawed the reasoning behind it. But the lawyers who actually drafted the legal justifications for torture—particularly Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee—may be vulnerable. They could be indicted in federal court if they knowingly issued faulty legal opinions that led to criminal acts. However, that would be an extremely difficult case to make unless one of the defendants turned against the others. More plausible is that, like Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby, they could face disbarment, limiting their employment prospects.

The United Nations--A range of observers, from former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to überhawk Richard Perle, has acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter. In theory, the Security Council could sanction the United States or even authorize the use of force to expel our troops. But that's a nonstarter, not least because the Security Council signed off on the occupation of Iraq. Likewise, the United States could be tried in the UN's International Court of Justice and forced to pay reparations to Iraq. That's also doubtful, since the Security Council enforces Court rulings; the US could use its veto power as it did in 1986, when the icj found we had violated international law by supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. If the UN wanted to go after American officials for torture, it could set up a special tribunal like those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But such courts are the creation of—you guessed it—the Security Council.
The International Criminal Court--- The Third Geneva Conventions, which the United States signed in 1949, as well as the UN Convention Against Torture, which Congress ratified in 1988, forbid torture. The International Criminal Court (not to be confused with the icj) was convened in the Netherlands in 2002 as a permanent venue to try crimes including violations of Geneva. But the United States hasn't ratified the icc treaty and has pressured 100 countries to agree never to extradite American citizens to the court, so Dick Cheney's unlikely to wind up in the dock at The Hague.

The Garzón Factor---Not that George W. Bush & Co. shouldn't be worried about international laws that they once sneered at. There are hints that they already are: A 2002 State Department memo cautioned officials about the "risk of future criminal prosecution," and the Pentagon's 2005 National Defense Strategy warned of enemies who might "employ a strategy of the weak using international fora and judicial processes."
The biggest threat comes from European magistrates like Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish "superjudge" who nearly brought Augusto Pinochet to justice. In 1998, Garzón issued an arrest warrant for the former Chilean dictator for the deaths of Spanish citizens who'd been tortured by his regime. Days later, the unsuspecting 82-year-old was picked up while visiting England. Pinochet died while incarcerated awaiting trial.

In many European countries, most notably Spain and Italy, judges can initiate prosecutions and—as in the case of Pinochet—may do so independently of the executive branch. Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says such a court might be the most plausible venue for a case against Bush. "The prime minister of Spain was completely against going after Pinochet," he points out, "but a judge lower down was able to do it." The approach might prove especially effective in pursuing torture cases. As signatories to the Convention Against Torture, most European nations are obligated, theoretically, to investigate violations by other signatories, such as the United States. Sure enough, human rights advocates have filed complaints in Germany, France, and Sweden against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing the torture of Iraqi and Saudi citizens in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The ccr claims a pending case convinced Rumsfeld to alter his travel plans to Germany.

"Believe me, people from the top of the administration will be consulting with lawyers for the rest of their lives," says Christopher Simpson, a professor at American University and an expert on international law. "They will have to coordinate very, very closely with the State Department's specialists whenever they leave America. This is something they cannot take lightly." Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, has warned that former Bush officials like Gonzales, Yoo, and Addington "should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

BAILOUT ACCOUNTABILITY NOW!

Arn Pearson at Common Cause

Sends out this Appeal on January 23, 2009.

"If you got a bonus from work, you would have to report it to the government. But when our nation's banks get a bailout from the federal government, bank CEOs are allowed to spend it as they see fit.

Does that seem fair to you?

Next week, the House Financial Services Committee is planning to hold a hearing to question CEOs from the nation's nine biggest banks about how bailout funds are being used.

Take action now to demand accountability from bank CEOs who receive bailout funds!

These funds were intended to stop the foreclosure crisis, yet so far there is no evidence the banks that helped get us into this mess are doing anything to help struggling Americans weather the storm.

As nine of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout, these CEOs have an obligation to use taxpayer dollars in an open and transparent manner.

If you've been turned down for a loan by a bailed-out bank or haven't been able to get the financial help you need, this is your chance to get some answers.

But you must act now, there's only a few days left until the hearing!

With your input, Congress will pressure the top bank CEOs to disclose how funds have helped Americans struggling in a tough economy.

Thanks for all you do,

Arn Pearson "

Common Cause is a national nonpartisan organization with chapters in 38 states. Our mailing address is 1133 19th Street NW, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036. Our phone number is (202) 833-1200.

Bush War Crimes? It ain't over 'til it's Over.

Crapaud borrows unashamedly
from Raw Story:

The specter many want to forget

"The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.

Bush stepped down from power Tuesday, with Barack Obama becoming the 44th president of the United States.

Asked about chances to bring legal action against Bush and Rumsfeld, Nowak said: "In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table."

At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognise these forms of torture."

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

French, German and US rights groups have previously said they wanted to bring legal action against Rumsfeld.

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast Jan. 21, 2009."

A Welcome and Refreshing Example

Crapaud steals shamelessly from SilentPatriot today, 'cause I got dee inaugural hangover!

President Obama freezes WH staff salaries

By SilentPatriot Wednesday Jan 21, 2009 12:00pm

In a symbolic and unprecedented move, President Obama today announced that he would be freezing the pay of White House employees who make over $100k a year.

CBS13:

President Barack Obama announced on his first day in office Wednesday that he is freezing the pay of the about a hundred White House employees who make over $100,000 a year.

The freeze would hold salaries at their current levels. It is part of a presidential memorandum being issued Wednesday when Obama attends a swearing-in for staff at the White House.

In a statement, Obama said "families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington."

Aides making above $100,00 include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also fit into that cap, if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up.

This is pretty cool. I probably wouldn't find it as cool if I were Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs or General Jones, but it's sending an important message either way. After eight years of Bush-rule, this quote is a welcome change.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this administration," Obama said in a statement to reporters.

Music to my ears.

And Music to All Ears of all Crapauds Everywhere
Finally, Leadership by Example once again!

A Dignified Choice

Via press release from the Human Rights Campaign:

Right Rev. V. Gene Robinson, bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church in the diocese of New Hampshire has accepted an invitation from President-elect Barack Obama’s inaugural committee to deliver the invocation at a concert held at the Lincoln Memorial. The concert, which will be held on Sunday, January 18th, is the first inaugural event the president-elect will attend. Bishop Robinson, the first openly gay priest to be ordained bishop by a major Christian denomination, is a member of the Human Rights Campaign Religion Council.

“Bishop Robinson models what prayer should be—spiritual reflection put into action for justice,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It is encouraging that the president-elect has chosen this spiritual hero for all Americans to lead the nation in prayer at the Lincoln Memorial inaugural concert.”

The Concord Monitor quotes Bishop Gene: As for himself, [Bishop] Robinson said he doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible.

"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."

Robinson said his prayer will be reflective of the times.

"I think these are sober and difficult times that we are facing," he said. "It won't be a happy, clappy prayer."

On the "Things could always be worse" front:

Crapaud's good fren' Mssr. Le Proffeseur Paul Krugman de la Laureate-Nobel, had this to say in the Jan 5th NY Times relating to the POWER of the opinions of the People to influence public opinion for the good. Thanks to Mon 'tit Bougre for sending this along to Crapaud.

"A bullet dodged

What would have happened if George W. Bush had actually succeeded in his plan to privatize Social Security? Ask the Italians.

Italy did for retirement financing what President George W. Bush couldn’t do in the U.S.: It privatized part of its social security system. The timing couldn’t have been worse.

The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions from a government severance payment plan to private funds meant to yield higher returns.…

Gaetano Turchetta, a Rome office manager, made the irreversible move to a private plan after a union representative boasted of the potential for 20 percent annual returns. The 43- year-old father of three now says he would sign with “two hands and two feet” if he could switch back."

Crapaud say: A bullet dodged is one well-worth gunny-sacking for future battle discussions.