Custodians of Empire

The Obama national security "team" -- part of that much-hailed "team of rivals" -- does not yet exist, but it does seem to be heaving into view. And so far, its views seem anything but rivalrous. Mainstream reporters and pundits lovingly refer to them as "centrist," but, in a Democratic context, they are distinctly right of center. The next secretary of state looks to be Hillary Clinton, a hawk on the Middle East. During the campaign, she spoke of our ability to "totally obliterate" Iran, should that country carry out a nuclear strike against Israel. She will evidently be allowed to bring her own (hawkish) subordinates into the State Department with her. Her prospective appointment is now being praised by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Henry Kissinger.

The leading candidate for National Security Advisor is General James L. Jones, former Marine Corps commandant and NATO commander, who remained "publicly neutral" during the presidential campaign and is known to be personally close to John McCain and, evidently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as well. Not surprisingly, he favors yet more spending for the Pentagon. The reputed leading candidate for Director of the CIA, John Brennan, now head of the National Counterterrorism Center, was George Tenet's chief of staff and deputy executive director during the worst years of the CIA's intelligence, imprisonment, and torturing excesses.

The new Secretary of Defense is odds on to be… the old secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a confidant of the first President Bush. Still surrounded at the Pentagon by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's holdovers, he has had a long career in Washington as a clever apparatchik. He was the adult brought in -- the story of how and by whom has yet to be told -- to clean up the Bush foreign policy mess (and probably prevent an attack on Iran). He did this. He now favors no fixed timelines for an Iraq withdrawal, but a significant American troop "surge" in Afghanistan, "well north of 20,000," in the next 12-18 months. He has overseen the further growth of the bloated Pentagon budget and has recently come out for the building of a new generation of nuclear weapons. (Other candidates for Defense include former Clinton Navy Secretary and key Obama advisor Richard Danzig, who may end up -- for the time being -- as an undersecretary of defense, Clinton former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who might instead land the job as the Director of National Intelligence.)

Drop down a tier, as Yochi Dreazen of the Wall Street Journal wrote last week, and you find the Obama transition people using a little known think-tank, the Center for a New American Security (CNSA), as a "top farm team" to stock its national security shelves. The founders of the center are -- don't be shocked now -- former Clinton administration officials providing yet more "centrists" to an administration that seems to believe the essence of "experience" is having been in Washington between 1992 and 2000. CNAS, by the way, is officially against a fixed timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. In that, it seems typical of the coalescing national security team, almost none of whom, so far, opposed the invasion of Iraq (other than the president-elect). Having been anti-war is evidently a sign of inexperience and so a negative.

Add in the military line-up -- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, Centcom Commander David Petraeus, Generals Raymond Odierno and David McKiernan, the U.S. commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan -- all second term Bush picks, all reportedly ready to push for a major "surge" in Afghanistan, all evidently against Obama's timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Now, mind you, so far we've only been considering the foreign policy issues of empire that face the next team. Domestically, if Gates remains, the Air Force might get kneecapped (perhaps losing the F-22 Raptor, the weapons system it wants for a war that will never be fought), but the Army and Marines will expand, as (so he promises) will the Navy. The essence of the matter is simple enough, as Frida Berrigan, arms expert for the New America Foundation and TomDispatch regular, indicates in her latest piece, "Weapons Come Second": Even in the toughest of economic times, the Pentagon, bloated budget and all, is likely to prove relatively untouchable.

The Obama transition team's explanation for the remarkably familiar look to its emerging national security line-up, suggested David E. Sanger in a recent front-page think piece in the New York Times, is "that the new administration will have no time for a learning curve. With the country facing a deep recession or worse, global market turmoil, chaos in Pakistan and a worsening war in Afghanistan, 'there's going to be no time for experimentation,' a member of the Obama foreign policy team said." In other words, we need the sort of minds, already imprisoned in Washington's version of "experience," who helped lead us into this mess (long term), to get us out of it. "Experimentation" is obviously for times when it isn't needed. For these custodians of empire, Better a steady hand and the same-old thoughts. No?

Comments (66)

1. And lets not forget the people hired to do the economics side of things. Here's Larry Summers on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

   'The illusion that the companies were doing virtuous work made it impossible to build a political case for serious regulation. When there were social failures the companies always blamed their need to perform for the shareholders. When there were business failures it was always the result of their social obligations. Government budget discipline was not appropriate because it was always emphasized that they were "private companies." But market discipline was nearly nonexistent given the general perception -- now validated -- that their debt was government backed. Little wonder with gains privatized and losses socialized that the enterprises have gambled their way into financial catastrophe.' -- http://online.wsj.com/ article/SB122757308122854859.html

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/25/2008 @ 1:21pm

2. Well come on, girl, who do you think he's going to hire, Magenta and RiffRaff?

   Posted by Mistral at 11/25/2008 @ 1:26pm

3. 'In other words, we need the sort of minds, already imprisoned in Washington's version of "experience," who helped lead us into this mess (long term), to get us out of it. "Experimentation" is obviously for times when it isn't needed. For these custodians of empire, Better a steady hand and the same-old thoughts. No?'

   Well said! What was the definition of insanity again....do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Obama's foreign and security policy team appears poised to dove-tail nicely with Obama's economic team - let the ones who made the mess fix the mess. "Stay the Course" a little while longer maties....

   Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 1:27pm

4. I don't know TOM...

   The new transition team's thoughts on foreign affairs might not be the left's thoughts (like on here) but I doubt they'll be the "same old" thoughts.

   I see this a lot here: Nation writers expressing surprise at some of Obama's choices. Many seem to think that a vote against the Repubs was a vote for the leftist tendencies as expressed here. But Obama's too smart for THAT too. The only one who has gotten real about this is Katrina with her fine article yesterday, and even she has sort of an odd notion of what defines a centrist.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/25/2008 @ 1:28pm

5. You know you can appoint a national security team that doesn't include Ramsey Clark and Todd Chretian....

   and it NOT be "just like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton".

   Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 1:33pm

6. This has been perhaps the most pleasing surprise from the incoming Obama administration. Obama seems to have done what virtually all preceding US presidents have done; acknowledge the reality that a dangerous world requires a US govt and military that is reading and willing to take on these challenges to freedom here and globally.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 1:09pm | warn this person

   And no increase in taxes to boot Liv! Happy Days!

   Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 1:34pm

7. and it NOT be "just like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton".

   Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 1:33pm | warn this person

   Rahm Emanuel's got that end covered quite nicely already.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 1:45pm

8. no biggy. obama will take one last shot at osama, dump a few more buzillion in afghanistan, and bow to the shithole economy eventually, largely withdrawing.

   it may take two terms, but the shithole economy is the key here.

   he won't breath a word about it, since we want our rivals to still fear our crazy power, but look for it.

   doesn't matter who obama appoints - unless he proves to be a trembling weakling who cant stand up to and direct his own underlings, so what?

   this just shows he wants to bluff to our enemies that we are ready to stupidly and suicidally continue our policy of fighting as many expensive, wasting, land wars in asia as we have to in order to guard access to a soon to be obsolete resource and show those wacked out durka durkas just how crazy WE are...

   then withdraw after running up the body count and war bill and proclaiming victory.

   sounds good to me.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2008 @ 2:22pm

9. seriously - did any fool expect obama to haul ass from every craphole bush flushed us down? almost as soon as he took office?

   not happening. i think he wants to get out ASAP, but will play the game and bide his time. 8 years should be sufficient to reduce our presence to skeletal crew and let the ME despotisms hire a pack of mercs if they want to.

   or go butt crazy like they want to do, slaughtering each other to their hearts' content until some ruthless strongman asserts bloody iron fisted control...

   ah, the circular, jerkular beauty of life!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/25/2008 @ 2:30pm

10. Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 1:45pm

    And what is Rahm Emmanual going to DO exactly...in opposition to what Obama ran on?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 2:35pm

11. ibbleblibble: ah, the circular, jerkular beauty of life. Oh yes indeed, there does seem to be an eagerness to spill blood over there among the locals. Well, better there than here. As for your reference to "a soon to be obsolete resource", oil and gas will be in high demand for many decades, even if we stop burning it, because hydrocarbons are a key part of the chemical industry which permeates into just about everything. See the history channel segment on "Oil".

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 3:27pm

12. The Nation in the past week has extremely lazy! It is far easier to criticize than it is to create. If the choices the in-comming adminstration are making are so profoundly non-progressive, what or who does the nation think would have been more appropriate? I am seeing the nation and other far left posters now using the same failed argument that the neo-cons and republicans made during the presidential campaign. That of course is guilt by association. Just because someone worked for the Clinton administration does not mean they do not have any ideas of their own. What I see the nation advocating for, is bringing in people who have absolutely no experience. As anyone with any semblance of experience in the past 20 years worked for either one of the bushes or clinton. But according to the faulty logic I am seeing here is that automatically disqualifies you from being a "progressive", whatever that means? Rather than taking such a lazy, straw man approach, why don't the writers at the nation at least mention some folks they think would be more appropriate than those being chosen.

    Posted by Extraneous at 11/25/2008 @ 3:29pm

13. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:47pm

    LVLIB, did the economy suffer under the tax rates BEFORE Bush's cuts?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 3:52pm

14. Obama ran on continuing the existing foreign policy that has been in place for decades. Why are you surprised Tom Engelhardt? Or why is LVL "pleasantly surprised"? He told everyone what he would do, upfront.

    He has no problems bombing another sovereign nation if he thinks that its worthwhile to do. He'll move us from the wrong war (Iraq) to the "right" one (Afghanistan).

    This was the principle reason why I didn't vote for Obama. His foreign policy is very much a continuation of the past. Without a sane foreign policy, domestic policy change is pretty difficult to effect.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2008 @ 3:53pm

15. And what is Rahm Emmanual going to DO exactly...in opposition to what Obama ran on?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Does not being beholden to special interest groups count?

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 3:58pm

16. Not true. Obama announced yesterday during his news conference that he will be raising everyone's taxes in 2011. And the media didn't give it 5 seconds.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:47pm | warn this person

    Liv...for crying out loud. The new justification for not increasing taxes is going to be the "economic crisis," and there will be the inevitable push to extend the tax cuts again if Congress can get away it without incurring the rath of purchasers of our debt. The new credit default swap scandal will be (if not already) on US Treasury debt.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 4:10pm

17. So then you support raising everyone's taxes including the middle and lower income families and individuals in this country?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 4:58pm | warn this person

    Is that what the roll back of the Bush tax cuts would do?

    I am for a progressive tax structure, regardless of whether or not there is an "economic" crisis. The Bush tax cuts have done little for real economic growth in this country and instead have widened the gulf of income and wealth disparity. I am concerned about continued growuth in deficit spending, and both our Federal and State governments are in fiscal crisis because of deficit spending. I think an effort to start to pay down the national debt in small increments or at the very least make some attempt at pay as you go would be perceived by overseas lenders as a positive, with the added benefit of restoring some semblance of fiscal responsibility to government. These measures must be judicious given economic circumstance, but what Obama is calling for is a continuation of the inequality of the middle class tax burden by refusing to attempt a roll back of the Bush tax cuts.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 5:23pm

18. It seems that the Nation as usual has confused wishfull thinking with reality of the political world in this so called democracy. At least I will not feel betrayed by Obama, since I had no expectations and did not vote for him, Same old, same old...

    Posted by pachonegro at 11/25/2008 @ 6:43pm

19. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 4:58pm | warn this person

    What about the capital gains tax under the Bush tax cut?

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 7:12pm

20. Tax Cuts on Capital Gains & Dividends DoubledBush Income Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest in 2003A new analysis of IRS income tax data for 2003 shows that the tax cuts for capital gainsand dividends enacted that year almost doubled the size of the Bush income tax cutsenacted in 2001-03 for the wealthiest Americans.The 2003 tax act lowered the top tax rate on corporate stock dividends from 35percent to 15 percent, and reduced the top capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 15percent for gains realized after May 5, 2003. As a result of these changes:# The size of the Bush income tax cuts enacted in 2001 through 2003 for thosewith adjusted gross incomes greater than $10 million a year increased from a2003 average of $521,905 to $1,019,369 -- a 95 percent increase.# In contrast, the 71 percent of tax filers with AGI less than $50,000 saved anaverage of only $10 each from the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, addingonly 2 percent to their $425 average tax reduction in 2003.# Almost 43 percent of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts in 2003 went to the181,000 filers with AGI greater than $1 million. These filers represented only 0.1percent of all tax returns.

    Source: Citizens for Tax Justice

    Posted by OneVote at 11/25/2008 @ 7:29pm

21. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 4:56pm

    "It would have done better"?

    How MUCH better? FIFTY million new jobs? Unemployment at TWO percent? A TRILLION in surpluses?

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 8:41pm

22. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 4:58pm

    You certainly do, with your "pennies on the dollar" wars with my tax money.

    Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 8:41pm

    Since he is extracting all of this from his nether regions, are you just trying to make this fact more explicit than it already is?

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/25/2008 @ 9:34pm

23. The reputed leading candidate for Director of the CIA, John Brennan, now head of the National Counterterrorism Center, was George Tenet's chief of staff and deputy executive director during the worst years of the CIA's intelligence, imprisonment, and torturing excesses.

    posted by TOM ENGELHARDT on 11/25/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Golly, I thought they meant Walter Brennan!

    According the the Post "A former CIA official who was in the running for a top intelligence post in the Obama administration withdrew his candidacy today after coming under criticism from several groups who accused him of being closely tied to the agency's interrogation policies.

    John Brennan, who held several senior positions during a nearly 25-year stint at the spy agency, notified Barack Obama of his decision in a brief note, saying he no longer wished to be considered for any job in the intelligence agencies."

    Posted by jackwells at 11/25/2008 @ 10:22pm

24. Who creates jobs, the poor or the wealthy?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:50pm

    both.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2008 @ 11:17pm

25. what erases jobs?

    inflation.

    who creates inflation, the poor or the wealthy?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2008 @ 11:20pm

26. Now Gates too? A Bush person to add to all the Clinton people brought back. Super. I guess that is why they are so quick to give money to banks, but not auto manufacturing companies that employ blue-collar workers. I am a progressive who is disappointed by Obama's choices, but not surprised. That is why I voted for Nader.

    Posted by philbq at 11/26/2008 @ 02:45am

27. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:50pm

    That wasn't my question, LVLIB.

    How MUCH "better" would we have done in the 90s?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 07:18am

28. "LOVELIBERTY" (a most pompous phony title) is a true believer in "supply-side economics", entitled voodoo economics by Bush Sr. This discredited crackpot theory has been used by Reagan and Bush Jr. to cut taxes for the rich which has created massive dangerous federal budget deficits. No one except for a few rightwing lunies buys this theory anymore. Facts and history have proved it to be a giant scam for the rich and disasterous for the nation.

    Posted by philbq at 11/26/2008 @ 08:14am

29. 'We're Eisenhower Republicans now' -- William J. Clinton

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/26/2008 @ 10:01am

30. Q. Who creates capital?

    A. The working class creates capital through its labor.

    Q. Who controls capital?

    A. The owning class controls capital and builds their ill-gotten fortunes by stealing the bulk of the profit of the workers' labors.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 10:38am

31. To all of the liberals and progressives who voted for Obama, and especially those who are disappointed in his cabinet and staff picks so far:

    I told you so.

    Unlike some of my fellow posters, I will however grant that you have every right to be at least somewhat disappointed. Obama's so-far total reliance on pro-war, pro-Big Brother and pro-Wall Street voices is breathtaking. You have a right to be appalled that none of his appointments, none, come from the ranks of experienced government and military opperatives who opposed the war, stood up for civil liberties and the rule of law, or have dissented from the twin religions of finance and free trade.

    Hell, there are some decent veterans of the Reagan Administration (!) who would be improvements on the choices so far, such as Bruce Fein (Justice) and Paul Craig Roberts (Treasury). But no, instead we get a mainstream "Dream Team" that the pundits of the center and right - not to mention Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex - can cheer for.

    Just wait: Obama will revoke his support of the Employee Free Choice Act given the current economic "emergency" which will allow the corporate elite to continue to drive real wages and benefits down. And dollars to donuts that he tries to privatize Social Security, Wall Street-meltdown or not.

    I hope I'm wrong, but make sure you keep me honest here, Mask.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 10:55am

32. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 10:19am

    So "hypothetically" we could eliminate the income tax entirely and eliminate Social Security and Medicare...

    and things would become Utopian, right, LVLIB?

    Like they were before that socialist Roosevelt?

    Or we could look at actual HISTORY and see that under Clinton and his "massive taxes"...we had a booming economy and budget SURPLUSES and were on our way to becoming a creditor nation, instead of a debtor nation, as typical conservative economics led us to become in the 80s.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:56am

33. Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 10:55am

    CKA, as you see above, I am always in the unusual position of defending Centrism to both the Extreme Right (LVLIB) and the Extreme Left (you).

    Isn't it odd that both you chaps would poo-poo the Clinton Years (from different perspectives of course)...

    while 80% of the country would LOVE to go back to them.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:57am

34. while 80% of the country would LOVE to go back to them.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:57am

    ah yes, the good ol' days when the bubbles were truly bubbly..

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 12:09pm

35. this is obama's re-election cabinet.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 12:10pm

36. Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:57am

    What Frosty said.

    The best that can be said about the Clinton years is that for a year or two near the end, the average worker actually saw an increase in their real wages for the first time in 20 years. Of course this occurred while finance and banking were being deregulated, so whatever was gained 10 years ago is gone, gone, gone.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

37. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:08am

    Actually, lvl, there is a long history of sucessful workers cooperatives in Europe as well as some examples in the U.S. and Latin America.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

38. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

    Yep...."It was GINGRICH's economic boom...except it was a dot-com boom too!"

    But you know what, all through the 1993 tax hike debate, guys like you (aka Rush and Bob Novak) kept telling us "Clinton's tax hike will KILL the economy!".

    Yet it didn't. So your prognostications of the future were about as accurate as your historical analysis, wasn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:24pm

39. the average worker actually saw an increase in their real wages for the first time in 20 years.----Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 12:16pm

    Wait a minute!!! You mean things actually IMPROVED...and without the socialist revolution?!?!!???!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:25pm

40. "LOVELIBERTY"---REALITY CHECK: We had an election. Your tired old trickle-down economic ideas lost. Get used to it. Live with it. The tide has turned. You are on the wrong side of history. Your ideas have doubled the national debt in the last 8 years under the Bush Reich you voted for and supported. It has been an economic disaster for our nation. We are seeing the results: a depression. So your ideas have failed and been soundly rejected. Get some new ideas or shut up.

    Posted by philbq at 11/26/2008 @ 12:41pm

41. Actually, lvl, there is a long history of sucessful workers cooperatives in Europe as well as some examples in the U.S. and Latin America.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

    A kibbutz (Hebrew: קיבוץ, קִבּוּץ, lit. "gathering, clustering"; plural kibbutzim) is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The kibbutz is a form of communal living that combines socialism and Zionism. Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, but have gradually embraced a more "scientific" Socialist approach. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises.[1] Although less than five percent of Israelis live on kibbutzim, they are disproportionately represented in key positions and high-status fields.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:32pm

42. Wait a minute!!! You mean things actually IMPROVED...and without the socialist revolution?!?!!???!?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:25pm

    how about cuba 1959 - 2008 versus haiti 1959 - 2008?

    everything's relative.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:34pm

43. 1. printing money without asset backing

    •••• #1 biggy. done by the rich.

    2. taxation

    •••• who writes tax laws, the rich or the poor?

    3. Increased wages (see unions and minimum wage laws)

    •••• HELP!!!! #1 AND #2 ARE DROWNING ME!!!!!

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 11:24pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:36pm

44. What do you think the total number of such cooperatives is that was created by lower income people? And how many jobs did it create?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

    actually,

    such cooperatives created human civilization.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:37pm

45. How many are creating more barter systems than real wages?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

    isn't money just a tool for bartering?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:38pm

46. You may remember, I was a hippie long before I become a hated conservative.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:33pm

    well, break out the ol' bong, pastor.

    a flashback or two might do you some good.

    how's the garden?

    remember, you are the garden and the garden is you. sow not seeds of hate.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:40pm

47. 1. this election actually was won by Obama in part because he campaigned on the trickle down conservative view of tax cuts. Without the promise to cut taxes, he would not have gained enough votes from independents and moderate Republicans.

    •••• borrow now, pay when you're dead.

    2. We did not have trickle down over the last 8 years.

    •••• nope. we've been pissed on.

    We had some tax cuts coupled with massive domestic spending increases.

    ••••  DOMESTIC?!?!?!!!?!?!?!??!??!???!??!????!???!???!?!???!???!???!???!??!? (well, i guess if you include "home"land secure-a-contract.)

    the two do not go together. That was a key part in the defeat of Republicans in the House in the 06 election.

    •••• wow. you've finally figured out why reagan crushed the economy.

    3. We are not in a depression and you cannot cite any of the major economists, liberal or conservative who say so.

    •••• perhaps. however, the water is getting warmer, froggie.

    4. We are in a global economic downturn. Asia and Europe are experiencing the same problems.

    •••• well, thank you very much, america. anybody wanna buy some creditswappydefaultymortgagefundies?

    Did Bush somehow take over all the govt's of Asia and Europe?

    •••• no, hank paulson did.

    Did he produce the biggest drop in manufacturing in Germany in the past 40 years?

    •••• no, lehman brothers' flatulence toppled the housingBOOOOOM house of credit cards.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:47pm

48. Perhaps you are giving Bush credit for the strengthening of the dollar against the Euro and the Pound since July of this year?

    •••• strongest of the weak. whattanhonour!

    I doubt it.

    ••••  BONG HITS FOR LARRY! (hope the principal don't see that)

    Or that the price of oil has dropped by 2/3's.

    •••• you forgot to mention speculation in your inflation primer. why?

    Did Bush cause the economic inbalance in China?

    •••• no, we did.

    We have been warning them for several years to adjust their currency and make other economic changes.

    •••• well, thanks, daddy.

    Now they are in a decline that cannot solely be related to the US.

    •••• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ8jHtCI8-0&feature=related&fmt=18

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:54pm

49. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:34pm

    Well, ZOOM, compare Cuba and the USA then? Or Cuba and CANADA if you like.

    Sure it's "relative", but CKA and LVLIB trying to make the case that the 90s sucked or weren't that great (from different ends of the spectrum)....and 80% of the country would disagree with both of them.

    It's like Nader...anybody seriously agree NOW with his assessment back in 2000 that there would be little difference between Gore or Bush??? CKA might....LVLIB might even (if he thinks Gore would have invaded Iraq after 9/11 too... which looney lowell stated.)

    But I don't think majorities of Americans would...or would mind the "horrific social inequities" of the Clinton years (CKA) or the "horrific taxation and crippling of entrepeneurship" (LVLIB)...coming back.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:01pm

50. We really feasted this year on our fruits and veggies and had a decent amount to give to others.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:52pm

    excellent.

    thank god for socialist funded municipal water!

    "Riverside average annual rainfall is 10 inches per year"

    good for growing rocks.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:02pm

51. Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:01pm

    but it was all a dream.

    ¡POP! went the bubble.

    we need peace and we need solar.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:03pm

52. that being said, it was certainly better than plan R.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:06pm

53. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:03pm

    Better a dream, than a nightmare.

    And we were on the right "glide path".

    But neither CKA's socialist...nor LVLIB's extreme libertarian revolution...is coming.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm

54. But neither CKA's socialist...nor LVLIB's extreme libertarian revolution...is coming.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm

    nope, we will soon enter the phase of FROSTYNOMICS:

    <b>"freedunomics"</b>--the river flows unto the sea, and each individual jumps into the swirling eddies, hoping to get caught in a current both gentle and swift that will safely carry them to the awaiting tropics.

    <b>"controlanomics"</b>--it is decreed that the river shall be damned, correction dammed, and we shall harness the power of all the river's energy on your behalf in order to make things go round and round and round and round.

    <b>"Frostynomics"</b>-- "Honey, get off that friggin' blog and go get us some water."

    "Uh, what's that, darlin'? Uh, yeah, right away."

    <b>I, Frosty Zoom, do hereby declare, to use the smallest of buckets when i go to the river. I will endeavour not to spill a drop. I will try to save every drop i have fouled and will return this life-giving force back to it's flow as clean (almost) as the moment i first fetched it.</b>

    "Te amo, ahorita regreso"

    "Adios" ("to god")

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:19pm

55. after all,

    all wealth is from the earth (pbuh)

    (and the sun (pbuh), of course. oh, and those meteorites that fell in sask. i hear they're gonna fetch a tidy sum.).

    wall street just shuffles.

    and the earth may be 1565,4,4,433343,4,4443,,,4333,44 tonnes of mass,

    but there's only so much gallium.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 2:23pm

56. Where Does Riverside Get Its Water From? Riverside's water supply begins as pure rain and snow which is naturally filtered through the sand and gravel of the Bunker Hill and Riverside Basins in San Bernardino and Riverside. This water settles in pools deep in the earth and are then tapped for domestic use by 51 wells operated by Riverside Public Utilities.

    In 2002, Riverside met 99.0 percent of its water needs from underground resources receiving only 1 percent from Western Municipal Water District. Water quality information for imported water is available on request.

    BETTER HOPE IT SNOWS:

    "As we move into the summer months, low rainfall in the Colorado River Basin, Sierras and Southern California Mountains have surrounding areas bone dry and extremely stressed, leaving the landscape like a sitting duck and ripe for wildfires," said Dr. Reese Halter. "The projected drought across the Los Angeles basin fuels the chance of wildfire and with rising temperatures and strong winds, this is a very real threat," he added.

    With just under three and a half inches of rain since last July, Southern California is on course to eclipse the driest yearly rainfall ever recorded in more than 100 years and wildfire occurrence is at an all-time high. Although the global amount of rainfall is expected to increase as warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water from the sea, Dr. Halter predicts the same warmth will also dry out the land causing droughts to occur at a higher intensity.

    ≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥

    06/04/2008 GAAS:307:08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Print Version | Email / Share

    Governor Schwarzenegger Proclaims Drought and Orders Immediate Action to Address Situation

    Following two straight years of below-average rainfall, very low snowmelt runoff and the largest court-ordered w

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 3:25pm

57. ZERO CHARACTERS!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 3:26pm

58. Oh the WEATHER outside is FRIGHTFUL,

    But the FIRE is so DELIGHTFUL,

    And since WE'VE NO PLACE TO GO,

    Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 3:28pm

59. Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    indeed. plastic!!!!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2008 @ 6:24pm

60. Oh yes indeed, there does seem to be an eagerness to spill blood over there among the locals. Well, better there than here.

    Posted by pyeatte at 11/25/2008 @ 3:27pm

    there are about 15,000 murders in the u.s. every year.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 10:24pm

61. "This has been perhaps the most pleasing surprise from the incoming Obama administration. Obama seems to have done what virtually all preceding US presidents have done; acknowledge the reality that a dangerous world requires a US govt and military that is reading and willing to take on these challenges to freedom here and globally."

    Indeed, fear everything.

    Mask notes that 80% of the US would love the Clinton years now. Maybe. But much of the world wishes he too was brought before The Hague for war crimes. The number of Iraqi dead due to his hand is not much different than under this Bush's.

    Posted by onthehelm at 11/27/2008 @ 01:24am

62. obama says he will provide "change" and that he needs a mass movement to push him: summers did not get treasury and brennan did not get the cia; both faced strong and loud progressive opposition and it worked! progressives should make concrete requests of change, have obama declare them "change" or "no change", and compel him to offer alternatives whenever he declines a request. when obama will embrace a reform publicly the team won't matter because it'd be up to progressives to make sure that the team executes things fine, that any bluffs are called out, and that team members who sabotage things are exposed. post-election spectator-sports habits won't cut it anymore, folks. good obama or bad obama and good team or bad team, progressives will have to be vigilant and loudly --if smartly-- assertive. as for concrete things to ask for right now: i) creation of a federal bank that will hire laid-off experts in identifying needed production and use it to inject credit in actual production and so bypass the banks of the rentier class that are sitting on bailout moneys waiting for a good moment to give the money to their investors (they risked, they lost, so let's use the money to jumpstart the financing of real production directly); and ii) stop the subsidies to fat-cat farmers but redirect a big part towards small farmers (this would win obama the rural states!). above all be assured that if obama dared to appoint any non-main-stream people, blackwater inc. would take him out in a breeze well before inauguration, so be happy that the center right is so delighted right now and think twice of what you are asking for. [and yet if progressives campaigned for ralph nader as secretary of the interior it would be fine even with militia types].

    Posted by erplus at 11/27/2008 @ 8:03pm

63. The Obama foreign policy team: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Posted by philbq at 11/28/2008 @ 12:27am

64. Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:01pm

    Jeez, Mask, you're back to your old tricks of building straw men that you can then knock down. I love how you put phrases in quotes that neither I (the "horrific social inequities" of the Clinton years) not lvl (the "horrific taxation and crippling of entrepeneurship") used. A cheap and dishonest tactic.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/28/2008 @ 1:59pm

65. how about cuba 1959 - 2008 versus haiti 1959 - 2008?

    everything's relative.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 1:34pm

    Well, ZOOM, compare Cuba and the USA then? Or Cuba and CANADA if you like.

    Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:01pm

    I may defend Cuba from impearialist aggression and capitalist restoration, but I have no love for Castro and his Stalinist regime. Nevertheless, frosty is more on the mark than Mask. It's generally ridiculous to expect a third world nation to match a first world nation's level of development over the same period of time. The U.S. and Canada both started way ahead of Cuba in 1959. I haven't looked at the stats in a while, but I believe that Cuba has performed better than the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the last 50 years in measures of development and quality of life, which is not necessarily saying that much, given that the rest of the Americas have been held back by their "Monroe Doctrine" big brother, the U.S.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/28/2008 @ 2:06pm

66. We have think tanks coming out of ears, and all of them are useless! God save us from so-called experts! We have had every possible nuclear test since the 1940s, and I fail to see why we would need more testing. Any replacement of aged nuclear equipment should not exceed the number and explosive force agreed on by any treaty with other countries. Also, any "Star Wars" type missile defense system is impossible and would be swamped by a cloud of incoming missiles. They are a waste of money.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/29/2008 @ 1:54pm