Memo To My Progressive Friends

The past few weeks I've been sitting here at my computer watching many of my closest friends wrestling with their own convictions. I know these friends well, so I know what their real convictions are, and I share them. They are progressives, old progressives, veterans from half a century of the most important social struggles of the age; Vietnam, civil rights, voting rights, women's liberation, the environment. They are among the best amongst us.

Yet they seem to have found themselves stuck with a Hobson’s Choice, and it’s caused them to kind of lose their progressive GPS signal a bit. 

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not condemning them, just observing. I do understand the conundrum that's causing the static. They have a terribly flawed candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, currently in the lead for her party’s nomination -- if only because no other party big shot has challenged her. Against her is arrayed a small herd of Republican candidates that no satirist (or doomsayers) could have dredged from the darkest corners of their fevered minds.

These good friends, rightfully, fear that if their lead candidate does not prevail, all manner of awful things will descend upon us; Supreme Court, environmental disasters, a gutting of our national regulatory apparatus, rollbacks in civil rights and voting rights, restrictions on women's health choices, war, etc.

And yes, a GOP victory in 2016 would, to one extent or another, likely result in much, if not all, the above.

So I understand, and do not condemn my old progressive buddies for their steadfast support of Hillary Clinton. They're scared. And, with 2016, probably the most unsettled and dangerous election I can remember since the Nixon days, I'm scared too. And, if you're not, you're not paying enough attention.

Still I have to say that, acting on fear has been something I've tried to avoid my entire life. Fear is the parking brake of life. You either release it, or you're not going anywhere. And I'd like them to release it now. Because, while they feel that supporting Hillary is the best way to insure that none of the GOP wing-nuts never get within spitting distance of the Oval Office they, in the process, are jettisoning their most core values and beliefs. And doing so erodes the power of those values at a time we need the pursued even more vigorously.

So I ask them, and you, just do this for a moment: change shoes. Make Hillary the leading GOP candidate (not too much of stretch.) Now go through what we've learned about her and her values and her governing principles. Remember the “scandals,” real or contrived. Remember how her husband governed. 

First, we know she, like her husband, believes rules that prevent her from getting what she wants, are for not rules, but obstacles to over come. So she walks the razors’ edge of right and wrong. And, as always happens to those who think they are above it all, she often slips off that edge ending up on the wrong side.

Emails? Yeah, that's the most recent example, but there are plenty of others, large and small, that go all the way back to her disastrous and hubris-driven belief that she and she alone could repair America's broken healthcare system, in secret, behind closed doors, with the help and financial support of many of the same big medical and pharma players who caused, and profited from, the mess to begin with. That failure set healthcare reform back by two decades.

To see Hillary as a progressive is also a stretch. Her best friends (and contributors) a from the far-upper crust of America's financial world like Goldman Sachs. Her husband signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which contributed to the massive financial collapse in 2008. And just last week Hillary, when asked about that, supported that repeal, claiming it had nothing to do with the troubles that followed.

She supported, and continues to support, NAFTA, which was no favor to working Americans, to put it mildly. Now she supports the pending TransPacific Partnership trade deal as well. Some protector of the working class. And the Tar Sands pipeline from Canada? She won’t say, but we know, don’t we.

Once “dead broke,” she is now richer than Imelda Marcos was when she was in the clover... the similarity between the two also nags at me, though everyone tells me I'm crazy. Maybe.

Don't worry, I'm not going to drag you through the Clinton Chronicles of Horribles and Incidentals, from Whitewater forward. You remember, I'm sure. When I think of the Clinton's the image that always flashes in my head is of Pigpen, the Shultz charger who, in every frame in the cartoon, trails a cloud of dust and dirt along with him. That's Hillary.

Then she never takes personal responsibility for any of it. It’s aways one kind of "conspiracy" against her or another. There is something in that too that unsettles me about her. I once knew a woman who later proved to be a borderline psychopath. (Oh boy, now I've done it – crossed the line into truly nutty territory, right?) Well, I'm not saying Hillary is a psychopath. All I am saying is that one of the key traits this other woman displayed was that nothing that went wrong in her life was ever her fault. She always had a excuse, and explanation, no matter how much it strained credulity, she never took personal responsibility. (She eventually was sent to prison for embezzlement.)

So, there you are. My friends want me to stop harping on Hillary’s glaring progressive shortcomings. They say that I, and others like me, are “undermining” her. (Though her own behaviors seem to be doing that without much help from us.) But that if I and progressives like me don’t knock it off we are going to end up putting another Republican in the White House.

But I too am faced with a conundrum. To support Hillary Clinton I would have to jettison the very core values that formed and continue to form my life and politics:

- I abhor a liar. 

- I don’t like people who cheat. 

- I hate people who talk one way, and live another. 

- I do not trust “triangulating” opportunists. 

- I am dislike and distrust those who insult my intelligence by feeding me a line of self-serving bull instead of the truth. 

- I am not buying the claim that a candidate worth millions of dollars and who runs with Wall Street’s top dogs, knows or cares a damn thing about ordinary, working Americans.

And I am not going to let fear change any of that. Which means I can't, and won't, vote for Hillary Clinton if she ends up the nominee. I will just skip that box on the ballot. There are some things that are simply more important than a single election.

Because, if it's the current corrupt system you want to change, you don’t get there by voting for it.

Help Me Out Here

By Stephen Pizzo
stephen@pizzo.com

Like the rest of you, I just have to sit and watch and listen to the news from the Middle East and wonder who's right and who's wrong. Clearly from the state of affairs over there, most everyone has been wrong – at least those of us in the West who keep thinking we can “fix” that ever-so broken region.

Anyway, as we now see Iraq falling apart (for the umpteenth time in recent memory) we are hearing the hawks on the right complaining that “Obama's strategies have lost the Middle East.” And, they suggest, it's time to put more US “boots on the ground.” That term is starting to ring familiar, like ones from earlier failed imperialistic conflicts. Remember “light at the end of the tunnel?”

I have tried to see both sides of this argument. But for the life of me I can't see what US strategic interests need protecting in those arguments. In fact, the more I learn, the less and less I believe there are any. And, as such, my solution of choice has become “benign neglect.”

Here's my thinking – and if you disagree, I'd love to hear why and what you would do instead. But for now, here's my take:

Iraq:

I keep hearing from the right that we need to force some kind of “political solution,” there. Trouble is this is not a political problem, it's a tribal/religious problem. It's not Democrats fighting with Republicans, it's Sunnis fighting Shia and visa versa, and the Kurds fighting both. The three groups don't want to get along, any more than the Bloods and the Crips want to sit in a circle and sing camp songs of love and acceptance. They want to kill one another, hopefully in wholesale lots.

How do we craft a “political solution” to that? You don't. You can't. We tried... several times now. It's simply not going to happen. Ever.

That leaves only two logical responses, and each lives at the extreme ends of the list of possible solutions. The first, leave them alone. Let them fight all they want. Stay out of it. Let them live with the full implications of their deepest desires for as long as it takes for them to either get it out of their systems -- or for them to finish off one of the sides. Since only the Kurds are worth an ounce of Western concern or support, make sure they have enough firepower to defend the areas they've carved out for themselves already, but otherwise, stay out of it.

The other way is the “all in” option. And when I say all in, I mean ALL in. NATO, the whole group... 500,000 to a million troops from all NATO countries plus Arab “allies” like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Flood Iraq with multi-national forces, partition the country into three areas (already really happened) and help the Sunnies and Shia and Kurds set up their own independent countries... no more Iraq. Gone. If they want to form some kind of regional coalition years later when everyone has calmed the hell down, fine. But for now, get into the region you prefer, mind your own business (now that you have your own businesses) and “deal” with those who don’t comply.

When it's a raging fire, you throw everything you have at it, you don't plink around the edges. Those who want to “fix” the mess in Iraq need to understand that... understand that it takes an all out, no-holds-barred response, not just some boots on the ground and some careful surgical airstrikes. It means lots and lots and lots of people, most of them civilians, will die.

Personally I vote for Option 1: Stay out of it... all of it.

Because, no matter which option we choose, Iraqi civilians will die in the tens of thousands. They are doing that right now. They've done that, to varying degrees, for 1500 years. And they are highly likely to continue doing just that for many decades to come. That's not pessimism, it's realism. It's history. Recent history too.

The difference, (and it's a damn big one,) is that with Option 1 we are not accomplices in mass murder.

Europeans went through this kind religion-fueled internal warfare hundreds of years ago. When Catholics and Protestants got tired of killing one another, it ended... if only recently in N.Ireland. That's how you end these kind of Hatfield/McCoy religious feuds – you let them burn themselves out. If others keep jumping in a putting just enough water on the flames to knock them down, then leave, it all just starts up again.

And that's where we are in Iraq. A forced partition would be a repeat of what created this mess in the beginning; the British and French drawing borders in that region that suited them, while ignoring the long smoldering fires of religious hatred and tribalism.

So I rest my case for benign neglect. Step away. Watchful waiting. Let the waring parties wear themselves out. Let the region reorder itself in ways that make sense to them, not us. If Iran wants to own the Shia area of Iraq, they are welcome to it. It would serve them right.

That's it. What do you think? I'm open to a better idea... tho I seriously doubt there is one.

Special Report
by Stephen P.Pizzo
October 2007

You may have noticed that we were recently treated to a full-scale Bill and Hillary charm offensive. Bill has been touting his charitable juggernaut --immodestly branded with the Clinton logo as "The Clinton  Global Initiative." And he has a new book out -- just in time for the primary campaign season -- with the warm and fuzzy title, "Giving."

All that dovetailed nicely with Hillary's  blitz of the mainstream media Sunday talk shows where, in a single morning, she held a rapid-fire round of high profile, prime time satellite interviews with every network that matters. She smiled - a lot, looked relaxed and laughed - a lot.

It was a Clinton Inc. media tour de force. This power couple have always been a team, and they still are. Anyone who thinks the timing of Bill's goodness offensive and Hillary's race for the Democratic Party nomination are mere coincidence just haven't been paying attention for the last twenty years or so.

As the couple knew they would,  the media took bait. The Clintons called the tune and as they twirled to the that tune a real story lurked right under their lazy noses -- a story that says a lot more about the Clintons than the puffy  "did she laugh too much" pablum the media spun for public consumption.

It was during the height of that Hill-Bill media blitz that an email popped into my box. It was from a well-connected old friend on the east coast. He wrote he was at a Clinton fund raiser rubbing elbows with, to quote him -- “an old friend of yours.”  Knowing this guy as I do I sensed sarcasm, and I was right.

“It's Farhad Azima,” he announced, knowing, I am sure, that the very mention of this character in any setting would get my attention, but at Clinton fund raiser! Holy cow!

I shot him an email back asking what that guy was doing anywhere near a Hillary Clinton fund raiser.

He replied, “Not Hillary. Bill.”

Ah, yes, it was one of  Bill Clinton's Global Innovative fund raisers. The whole previous week had been all CGI all the time, as Bill hosted the rich and powerful from around the world all looking to do well by doing good.

But the question remained; what was Farhad Azima, doing there? Why would the Clintons expose themselves to bad publicity just a couple of weeks after Hillary was forced to return nearly a million bucks she took from felonious fugitive, Norman Hsu? (Another instance where a single Nexis/Lexis search by a curious reporter would have broken that story months ago.)

Admittedly Azima is a bit of a different kind of problem since he's never been charged or convicted of any crimes,as Hsu had. But, as you will see if you  read on, there might be a reason for that, a quite extraordinary reason. Still a few Google searches would net the curious reporter some pretty startling allegations -- and lots of them. Sure it's just smoke, but so much smoke it would trigger a five-alarm response from any fire department worths it's salt.

In lieu of a real media vetting of Farhad Azima has become grist for the conspiracy theorists, who have now woven him into nearly every murky event short of the Lindberg kidnapping. In the world of conspiracy theorists 6% of separation is enough to throw their own grandmothers into the mix.

Maybe that's what's kept real journalists away. Anyone who's been a reporter for very long knows that the fastest way to ruin their career is to dive into one of these tales and try to sort the truth from the mis- and dis-information that swirl around characters like Farhad Azima. I personally knew two veteran reporters who were last seen following such bread crumbs sure they were onto the biggest stories of their lives. They're still out there  -- somewhere.

But, since I am retired and no longer have a career to ruin, what the hell.

Besides, Azima and I have a history.


Farhad Azima: Born in Iran in 1941, into a family that was reportedly close to the Shah. 

My first encounter with Azima was sometime back in 1987. My co-authors (Mary Fricker and Paul Muolo) and I were researching for our book, Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans. We were trying to figure out  why America's savings and loans were suddenly dropping like flies. When we looked at a small failed bank, Indian Springs State Bank in Kansas City, Mo., we found Azima on it's board of directors. We also found hundreds of thousands of dollars of the bank's money had been loaned to Azima's freight airline, Global International – loans which by then were in default.

What began as a routine probe into just another case of financial shenanigans sparked by thrift deregulation, took a hard right turn into a world swirling with allegations of gun and drug running, illegal Iranian arms shipments and CIA involvement. Azima and his airline were at the center of it all. Nevertheless, we would later learn, Azima seemed to enjoy a kind of prosecutorial forbearance back then that companies like Halliburton and  Blackwater Security enjoy today.

As we sorted through the ashes of Indian Springs State Bank we asked the Kansas City federal prosecutor assigned the case, Lloyd Monroe, if he was investigating Azima's activities at the looted bank. He told us he had tried to open an FBI investigation into Azima and Global International, but immediately received a call form FBI headquarters in Washington.

“They told me to forget about it. Azima had a get-out-of-jail-free-card.”

 (Rather than drag you through that entire tale here, I suggest -- even encourage -- you to read that chapter from out book reproduced on this page. It will enhance your understanding of what follows -- I guarantee it. --- Don't worry. I'll be here when you return ;-)

Azima dismisses what continues to be a steady flow of allegations that his airlines (he has more than one, some held under his umbrella corporation, Aviation Leasing Group, ALG.)  are or have ever been used for US intelligence operations -- like Reagan's illegal "Iran/Contra" arms shipments. It's his story and to this day, he's sticking to it.

But then there's things like this that keep the curious, curious. When then-CIA director William Webster testified before Congress about the failure of Indian Springs State Bank and Global Internationals involvement, he declined to answer questions about Azima's involvement or the loans to his airline in public session. Instead he testified about in closed session before the House Intelligence Committee (October 25, 1990.)

And then there's the fact that Azima's world seems to be one filled with the kind of strange coincidences that just don't happened to ordinary folk. For example, an SEC search of companies listing Azima as a shareholder and/or officer, shows that Farhad Azima and Huffman Aviation's Wallace J Hilliard, are heavily invested together in the same company, SPATIALIGHT INC.. Hilliard and Azima are major stockholders.. Huffman aviation, you may recall, was the flying school where Mohammad Atta studied.

If your read the chapter linked above, you already know that Azima was not the only colorful character who  attached himself to Indian Springs State Bank's vault. There mob money movers out of New York and one of the bank's "business development," executives was a debarred attorney for the Kansas City-based Nick Civella mob family.  The whole thing had a Goodfellas aire about it. Just before federal regulators closed in on the bank it's president, William Everett Lemaster, was incinerated in a single car auto accident family members claim was highly suspicious.  (Lemaster  and another bank executive with ties to Kansas City Civella crime family, also shared positions on Azima's Global Airways Board of advisers.)

In 1983 the Federal Aviation Administration suspended operations of his Global International Airways for safety reasons. Embarrassingly one of its planes carrying TV crews accompanying Reagan to Brazil had made a crash landing. Azima later put Global into bankruptcy. Another of his companies, Buffalo Airways of Waco, Texas, settled a tax lien with the Internal Revenue Service in 2000 and reportedly was fighting with the Justice Department over a $1.4 million bill for cargo service provided to the Pentagon during the Gulf War.

A world in turmoil is a profitable world for the kinds of shadowy, no-questions-asked, airfreight operations like Azima's. (It's no coincidence, after all, that Blackwater has formed it's own, Presidential Airways:

Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 2007-- Even as security contractor Blackwater USA faces scrutiny over its actions in Iraq, the U.S. government is deepening ties to its parent company by awarding an aviation affiliate a contract valued at as much as $92 million to operate a fleet of airplanes on missions throughout Central Asia. ... The four-year contract with Presidential Airways Inc. calls for the company to supply specialized airplanes, crews and equipment for flight operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Presidential Airways is owned by Blackwater's corporate parent, Prince Group LLC.

Gunrunning allegations have swirled around Azima and his various airlines since the mid-1980s. Besides swashbuckling tales from former Global pilots of being paid with bags of cash and boxes marked as “cabbages” actually containing mortars, Azima's planes, now under the umbrella of his Aircraft Leasing Group, (ALG) have also showed up in interesting places, leased to interesting people, doing some mightyinteresting things.  Whatever Azima's airlines are, they are anything but ordinary. Example here...

A public interest website in Belgium, "Clean Ostend," wants shadowy airlines, including Azima's, to stop using the former US Air Force Base:

"At Ostend Airport, Johnson's Air itself shares since the end of 2003 office, station manager and PO box with HeavyLift, which is part of Christopher Foyle’s airline company Air Foyle, as recounted earlier, known from its two-year business partnership with arms dealer Victor Bout. HeavyLift seems to be the air broker, who organises from Ostend the Johnsons Air flights. However, both companies recently left the Ostend airport after a few adverse publications. ...Johnsons Air was formed in 1995 by Farhad Azima, a native of Iran, resident in the U.S. since the 1950s...At the time of HeavyLift’s shutdown, Azima was its chairman. Reputed as a mayor gunrunner,  he is also suspected to have had close ties to the CIA and has been linked to the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal ... Also Race Cargo Airlines (another Azima operation) has for years an office at Ostend Airport and even a full-owned warehouse. (Lots more here -- 

During the years when Republicans  held the White House Azima's campaign contributions flowed largely to Republican candidates and causes. That changed once Bill Clinton became President.

Despite the bankruptcy of Global International Airways, Azima always seemed to have money to spread around. By 1995 Azima was back. He was head of Airline Leasing Group (ALG) with air freight operations and cargo jets scattered around the world.  He also seemed to have enough excess cash on hand to grease the palms of whoever in charge at the time. And now it the Democrats and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember, we're talking 1995 now, six years after our book was released. And where was Farad Azima now? Well at the White House, of course, sipping coffee with President Bill Clinton at three of of Bill's coffee clutch awards for major DNC contributors.

White House Coffees:
HOST: President Clinton
ATTENDING: DNC Supporters
LOCATION: Map Room

Farhad Azima, listed as attending on:

October 2, 1995: 


August 6, 1996:  

March 28, 1996:  

But by 1997 someone at the DNC apparently caught wind of the colorful side of their newly generous contributor and hustled to get rid of his contributions by giving him his money back.  Azima was offended:

MAN FORCES CASH ON DEMOCRATS 
DONATION WAS RETURNED UNDER CLOUD, DONOR PUSHES TO GIVE IT BACK 



AP - Rocky Mountain News -- 10-01-1997: Most people hire lawyers to get their money back, but Kansas City, Mo., businessman Farhad Azima used his attorney to persuade the Democratic Party to keep his $143,000 donation. 
In February, in the midst of its fund-raising furor, the Democratic National Committee announced that Azima's donation was among $3 million being returned because it was ``deemed inappropriate.'' 

Azima asked his attorney, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., ... 

Azima's attorney said he had received no explanation for why the DNC was returning his client's money, and assumed that the money was being returned because of  "misleading and inaccurate news reports" about Azima's past.

Azima's attorney, E. Larry Barcella, Jr.,  served a US Attorney for the District of Columbia during Reagan years and later was Chief Counsel to House Republicans during the so-call “October Surprise”investigation, which looked into allegations that Reagan operatives had convinced the Iranians to hold US hostages until after the Reagan/Carter presidential race... which is precisely what the Iranians did.  Those who believed it, still do. Those who don't believe it, still don't.  In any case, it's a tale for another day.)

Azima appears determined to hedge  his political bets. Not to say there weren't still some potentially useful Republicans around, like US Senatorial candidate Fred Thompson. Azima held a fund raiser for Thompson. Thompson also served, at the time on the board of one of  Azima's airlines, Tennessee-based Capital Airways. Azima came to know Thompson after Azima bought Capitol Airways to Smyrna, Tenn., in 1983. Thompson served on the board of the company and also represented it in legal matters. According to Federal Election Commission records, Azima raised $9,500 for Thompson's campaign at a 1996 fund-raiser at his Missouri home.  

A year later, in 1997, Thompson returned about half of the money raised at the Azima fund raiser. (But FEC records show Azima and his partners at ALG, Mansour Rasnavad, contributed $1000 and $500 respectively to Thompson during the 2000 election cycle. That time Thompson kept it all.)

There was apparently a flurry of reports about Azima's past and around the time Thompson gave back some of Azima's contributions because the Clinton/Gore campaign committee did so as well. Clinton/Gore returned $143,000 the campaign had accepted from Azima and his airline companies.

In response to a question at the White House Daily Press Briefing, Clinton-Gore Campaign Counsel Lyn Utrecht explained the money was being returned because Azima was deemed to be “an inappropriate contributor.” 

You may recall that, at the time, Clinton was using White House access as a reward for contributions to the DNC. Clinton insider, Harold Ickes had even prepared a list of Presidential privileges that could be marketed as rewards to large contributors. including selling rides on Air Force One.

“White House officials have acknowledged that they used events there to encourage and reward donors, but say no solicitation of money ever occurred at the executive mansion. It is illegal to solicit donations on federal property. The White House earlier this week released several hundred pages of documents from Ickes' files, including records showing Clinton liked proposals to use White House sleep-overs and coffees to reward big-ticket donors.”

Even though the DNC and the Clinton/Gore campaign had scrambled in 1997 to disgorge Azima's contributions because he was deemed “appropriate,”a year later they were apparently ready to let  bygones be bygones – though they didn't appear to be particular eager to brag about it:

Azima Donates $10,000 to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund
....Donors were required to fill in a form certifying that they met the criteria and listing their name, address, occupation, and employer. Trustees said careful efforts were taken to vet large donations. Yet, no occupations or employers were listed for several of the $10,000 donors, including some regular - and easily identified -- major political donors....For example, the occupation and employer of $10,000 donor Farhad Azima of Kansas City ... were left blank.  Azima, who heads Aviation Leasing Group Inc. attended three White House coffees before the 1996 election and let Democratic National Committee party officials use his private jet on several occasions.  In fact, 12 of the 39 $10,000 donors (to the Clinton legal defense fund) in the last half of 1998 attended White House coffees during the 1996 campaign. 

Azima was no longer “inappropriate,” at least as far as the Clinton's were concerned. Two years later he was hosting a fund raiser for the former First Lady and would-be US Senator at his Kansas City home, at which President Bill Clinton himself made an appearance.

President Clinton will attend fund-raiser in Kansas City for first lady

Kansas City Star -- October 9, 2000 -- President Clinton will visit Kansas City on Friday to raise money for his wife's campaign for the U.S. Senate from New York. The president will attend a 3:30 p.m. tea at the Ward Parkway home of Farhad Azima, an aviation executive. The suggested donation to the first lady's campaign: $1,000 a person.

Azima said he expected that about 100 persons would attend, meaning that the event would raise at least $100,000 for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. The first lady is in a tight race against Rep. Rick Lazio, a New York Republican.

"I've been in his house many times, so he can come to my house," said Azima, who has visited the president at the White House. 

The DNC had also decided it was no longer inappropriate to accept money from Farhad Azima, because beginning in 2000, FEC records show, Azima donated $25,000 to the DNC -- and this time they kept the dough.

A Global Initiative and a Presidential LibraryI know it's been a while, so let me remind the reader what sparked this article; that email from an old friend informing me that he'd run in Azima at a fund raiser for Bill Clinton's Global Initiative. What was he doing there? A simple check of the CGI website is all it took to find the answer. There he was,  Farhad Azima, listed as of September 9, 2007 as a member in good standing in Bill's CGI. 

Why? Well, a guy owns or controls over 50 cargo jets based around the world, and had reputation for making no-questions-asked deliveries to world hotspots, could come in handy – not just to the CGI's charity efforts,  but to a future President Hillary Clinton.

Finally, what's the best way to weasle one's way into the heart of any former President?  Obvious answer – cough a huge hunk of cash for his Presidential library.

Bill Clinton has steadfastly refused to disclose the names of major donors to his Clinton Library. The reason for the secrecy,  he claims, is that the donors were not told their names would be made public and he did not want to embarrass anyone. But enterprising reporters in Arkansas were able to discover who some of those donors were, and – yep – you guessed it. There listed among those who have donated “over $1 million” to the Clinton Presidential Library is Farhad Azima. 

Now he's working on Mrs. Clinton's affections. In 2005 Azima tested the waters donating $1000 to “Friends of Hillary Clinton.” 


Maybe Bill and Hillary should task one of their dozens of opposition research mavens to take the time to check up on what Farhad may be up to when not attending their fund raisers. Allegations of gun running, legal and otherwise, by Azima's many airlines, abound on the web. Chatter among commercial pilots on websites they maintain to share industry information also abound with references to Azima's swashbuckling airlines.

In November 2006, veteran intelligence reporter and author, Wayne Madsen, reported on his site, Wayne Madsen Reports, the following:

November 21, 2006 -- On Nov. 17/18/19, 2006, WMR reported on the presence of an aircraft linked to Viktor Bout's international weapons smuggling network at Mogadishu airport. WMR reported that the "Boeing-707, registered in Ghana with registry number 9G-GAL, marked with “SACHA” on the fuselage, used the call sign 9QCTA. The plane landed in Mogadishu at 0700 GMT on November 13, 2006. The plane reportedly made previous stops with arms and ammunition at Mogadishu."

WMR has recently learned the aircraft, which is actually registered "9G-OAL," is owned by Johnson's Air of Ghana. Johnson's Air appears to have been founded around 1995 by Kansas City-based Farhad Azima (and may now be operated by Farzin (also spelled Farsin) Azima, Farhad's brother). Azima is well known for his connections to highly placed (and "well-oiled") American friends in Houston and Washington, DC and first became known for his role in the Iran Contra scandal of the 1980's.

Johnson's Air bases a number of its aircraft at Sharjah International Airport, the same location where Viktor Bout's various airline companies base their operations. On Nov. 22, 2005, a Johnson's Air DC-8 (9G-PEL) at Sharjah was spotted with its cockpit windows blown out and covered with cardboard. Buckets were noticed under the engines collecting leaking engine oil. Both are signs that the plane was fired upon in a war zone. Other Johnson's Air planes have been spotted in Maastricht, Netherlands; Ostend, Belgium; Dubai, UAE; Accra, Ghana; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Colombo, Sri Lanka; Budapest Ferihegy; Recife, Brazil; and Nottingham-East Midlands, England.

(See also NYTimes re: Bout & Ostead airbase.)

Maybe some of all that is just so much conspiracy theory nonsense. But there sure is a lot of it. And it comes from so many sources and directions that one has wonder. Web sites dedicated to professional commercial pilots are full of chatter about Azima and his mysterious airlines. 

In my quarter centure of experience chasing these kinds of stories, where there's that much smoke there's  almost always hell of story lurking.

If any of the tales about Farhad Azima's business dealings are true, there's only one explanation for how he's not only gotten away with so much, but continues to prosper and hobnob with some of America's most prominent and powerful individuals -- Azima really does have a get-out-jail-free card.

Which finally brings us to tiny Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan may not be on the minds of many ordinary folks or the media these days, it  has not escaped the attention of some of America's premier movers and shakers. The reason is simple – Azerbaijan is rich in just the kind of strategic resources most needed by the US right now including oil, natural gas, gold, silver, iron, copper, titanium, chromium, manganese, cobalt and molybdenum.

With all those goodies up for grabs someone in Washington decided that what little Azerbaijan needed most right now was a Chamber of Commerce. Of course, not their own chamber of commerce but a US/Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.  From the USACC website:

ABOUT US
The United States - Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) is an independent, nonprofit organization based in Washington D.C., whose purpose is to facilitate business and cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. Established in 1995, the Chamber has grown to become a major Azerbaijan-focused organization in the United States.

Among the US luminaries making up the Azerbaijan/US Chamber's “Honorary Counsel of Advisers,” 

• James Baker III
• Henry Kissenger
• Brent Scowcroft
• John Sununu Sr.
• Zbigniew Brzezinski

Listed as “Former Members of the Honorary Counsel of Advisers,”

• Dick Cheney
• Richard Armatige

And who do we find right up there at the top of the list of members of the board of directors? Yes. Farhad Azima.  Also listed is GOP presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback. And there too is one of the chief Neo-Con Iraq War architects, Richard Perle. 

Some company for a guy suddenly cozying up to Bill and Hillary Clinton, wouldn't you say? Could Farhad Azima be positioning himself to be the Ahmed Chalabi of a new Clinton administration? Or is that giving the guy more credit than he deserves? I sure don't know. But Hillary did vote to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guards "terrorists," as the White House wanted. And she did so despite the political damage she still suffers for her vote four years ago that gave Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq. Interesting. Just a coincidence. Another one.

What's it all mean? That's the question working reporters should be asking, not this retired one.

So, why aren't they? Inquiring minds want to know;  would a "President Hillary Clinton" be the agent of change the nation seems to be yearning for? Or would she just be more of the same in skirt?

Iranian expatriate, Farhad Azima, at least, seems to be betting it's the latter.

RELATED UPDATE:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=240313

The Most Dangerous Election Ever?

I am worried about the 2016 general election...very worried. And I think all progressives should be as well. I fear all the elements are there to make this coming election turn out, not just badly for the country, but for the entire world.

Let me explain.

Right now there are really only two “main” candidates, one from each party; Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

Both Jeb and Hillary are backed by their respective party's insiders. And with good reason. Both would basically maintain the status quo; at least for the Wall Street/Lobbyists/Military Industrial Complex constituencies. Those big money contributors are fine with all this democracy stuff, so long as it does not get in their way. And Hillary and Jeb would insure that it would be business as usual for them.

Oh I know what the Hillary Moonies out there are saying right now; “But Steve, Jeb Bush would be so much worse than Hillary. By not supporting her you are risking putting another Bush in the White House.”

Yeah, heard that. But I've never been much of a fan of the “lesser of evils” voting theory. We've been playing that game for a long time now and, surprise, surprise, mostly we keep getting evils. Also, the vote is supposed to be a near-sacred exercise in the democratic process. So I would like to vote for a candidate that does not make me feel like I have to take a shower after I caste my ballot.

And it's not just me feeling that way. Nor is it just progressives either. Neither Hillary nor Jeb is wildly popular with the growing number of folks who now call themselves “independents,” or “undecided.”

And that's what makes this coming election so dangerous. It's the kind of social/political/ideological stew brewing out there that can make for unhappy surprises. When a large portion of the electorate “throws the bums out,” they more often than not end up electing even bigger and badder bums.

And, if you are looking for a baker's dozen of just such bums, look no further than the GOP's backbenchers angling for their moment in the national spotlight. ch on the GOP side angling for the top job.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Rand Paul are a few. Oh, and remember Rick Perry? He has new eyeglasses so he looks smarter -- though in fact he's as dumb as ever.

So let's look ahead. What happens if Hillary Clinton runs virtually unopposed and wins the Democratic Party pole position. And, for now anyway, she is running unopposed.

Then there's Jeb. Unlike Hillary he's not going to run such an easy primary. In fact since he announced his “exploratory committee” the reception among the GOP base has been something less than resounding. It would that even the GOP base has Bush Fatigue.

After a couple of decades of pandering to their social/religious wing-nut base, the GOP has all but lost control of its own party, and maybe its own destiny as well. Which could mean that Jeb bombs in the primaries. Instead one of the party nuts could be hoisted to the party's nomination on the shoulders of their now uncontrollable Tea Party-type delegates.

Again I hear the Hillary folks in my head: “Well that would be great, Steveo. It would mean an even easier win for Hillary in the general election.”

Maybe. But, if I've learned anything about Hillary Clinton over the years it's that, the more you see and hear of her, the less and less you like her. If Bush Fatigue is real, so too is Clinton Fatigue. Though it may lay further beneath the surface, there will be nothing more likely to dig it up than more Hillary.

Simply put, Hillary grates. She is un-genuine in the extreme. She is the most transparent political panderer ever. Her private and public lives are rife with contradictions. For example she plans to make income inequality a centerpiece of her campaign. Really? Is this the same person who takes $300,000 speaking fees from already hard-pressed universities, demands the most expensive private jets and the presidential suites whenever she travels and then, with a straight face, denounces “income inequality.”

All that, and much more, is sure to catch up with her as soon as she hits the stump this Spring. By the time the general election rolls around Hillary Clinton's persona will look like a Pit Bull's chew toy.

Will all that wear down Hillary's progressive base? I feel it already. Many others do too. So it will take it's toll, for sure. And that would be especially so among young voters, who are far less likely to buy the “lesser of two evils' rationalization.

Which could mean that, if indeed the GOP nominates one of those true-blue, Yosemite Sam, crazy-as- a-woodtick ultra-conservatives, an reenergize far-right just might be enough to swing the race.

Meaning that the following Wednesday morning we could wake up to learn Ted Cruz, or Rick Perry of Rand Paul is going to be our next Command-in-Chief.

Stranger things have happen. But never anything so dangerous to America and the world.

And if it does happen here, it would be in step with the disturbing rightward trend we are seeing in several western European nations and the near-fascist trend in several eastern European and former Soviet territories. Troubled times are fertile soil for reactionary, regressive forces.

There are ways to avoid such a fate here at home. It's not complicated; more challengers and better challengers – in BOTH parties. At this point the GOP is offering plenty of challengers but to say the quality is lacking would be a gross understatement. Meanwhile the DNC has apparently decided it agrees with the way China wants to run elections in Hong Kong – with an old horse DNC apparatchik.

Oh my....

What To Do About Israel

March 18, 2015

Tipping points happen. And one just did. With Benjamin Netanyahu's victory the world comes face to face with a fork in the geo-political road. 

One path would keep in place a world-view that Israel is a special case, one that requires a world with a history of wronging Jews, a world that allowed even in the 20th century, an attempt at wholesale extermination, and a world still plagued with anti-Semitism.

That's the easiest path, one that allows non-Jews of good faith to both salve their own feelings of guilt and sympathy, but also to avoid responsibility for what's happening to the other indigenous populations in the region.

Increasingly though, and particularly after the recent openly racist Israeli election, that path has lost much of its appeal and, I suspect, many are looking down that other path wondering if its time....

The problem of course is that other path is a real bugger. It means breaking up with a longterm relationship which, though often troubled, has become part of who we are. A relationship that began with us seeing ourselves as sweeping a damsel in distress into our arms and carrying her to safety, but which has now turned into something that looks and feels more like a Fatal Attraction.

Nevertheless I believe it's time to embark on that path. What does that mean in practical terms?

We no longer reflexively use our veto at the UN to block reasonable measures that Israel opposes. Instead we either abstain or, if we really like the idea (gasp) vote for it.
Tell Israel that from this day forward we will withhold $5 million dollars for every illegal settlement unit built or otherwise supported by Israel.
Begin providing direct financial aid to the Palestinian authority with close US oversight.
The US should join the handful of other countries that have formally recognized the Palestinian state, including the establishment of a US consulate on the West Bank.

In other words, balance what has been a grotesquely loopsided relationship between the US, Israel and the Palestinians. 

What about the dozens of illegal settlements Israel has set up deep inside the West Bank in order to make Palestinian state impossible? Two things can, and should happen in that regard:

The US should begin a process at the UN that would lead to a timeline and deadline for the removal of those settlers.
The PA should organize every local Palestinian community with a nearby Israeli settlement into dozens of nonviolent sieges, surround the settlements 7/24, block roads, make life difficult and, more importantly, raise the costs to Israel of defending those settlements. This will also keep the world's attention focused on the settlement issue and the Palestinians right to their own state, just like Israel. 

So, here we are folks, standing at that fork in the road. If we do nothing but what we've been doing we are going to get nothing but what we've got, only more of it. Time to yank the leash of Israel's neo-fasccst right... and right now.

Hey You! Yeah, I'm Talkin' to YOU.

Excuse me, but can I have a word with the 70% of Americans who continuing keeping their money in big banks, like Bank of America, CitiBank, Wells Fargo and such? Come closer. A little closer. I want to be able to give you a well-earned dope-slap while I ask;

WHAT' THE  HELL's THE MATTER WITH YOU?

ARE YOU STUPID!?

Jesus H. Christ, what's it going to take before you people stop doing business with the enemy? You're like abused spouses who are slapped around and slapped around again and again by your big bank and keep crawling back for more. If this behavior didn't hurt the rest of us I'd be delighted to just let you get the shit beat out of you until your big bank bleeds you white. That would be Darwinism at it's most effective.

But, thanks to the fact that 90% of America's household savings are deposited in these big banks means that your self-destructive banking habits are fueling the very financial services juggernauts that have repeatedly devastating the lives, homes, families and savings of average working Americans. And not just once, but time and time and time again.

Are you listening goddamnit!

And why do you do it?

“Ah, well... because...... well, you know... ah, there's a Wells Fargo Branch on Main Street... and... well, it would be such a hassle moving my account to our hometown community bank. You know, new checks and credit cards and such. I don't like my bank at all, but  it's just easier to leave it with Wells.”

Is that how you make all your financial decisions? I hope not. I assume when you're about to make a big ticket purchase, like furniture or a new car, you shop around for the best price and quality and service? But when it comes to where you bank all you care about is that the big bank is a quarter mile closer to your home or office or that you parents banked there or that they give you a (usurious interest) credit card? That's it? That's the reason you bank with Tumor Bank of America?

Sucker. No wonder nearly 70% of Americans nearing retirement age have less than $55,000 in savings to retire on.

My god people. Putting your hard-earned money with a big bank is like Mr. & Mrs. Chicken entrusting their chicks to Col. Sanders Prep School.

As it becomes increasingly clear that Congress is not about to pass anything that even resembles comprehensive financial reform, big banks, freshly rejuvenated by $700 billion pints of taxpayer plasma, are positioning themselves for the next round of looting and pillaging. And why not. They made hundreds of billions of dollars off the last round and all they had to endure was a tongue lashing from members of Congress -- after which they savved their wounds with hundreds of million of dollars in "performance bonuses.”

So, you ask, what's the alternative? And what will it cost you to switch? 

Well, you drive and walk by that solution every day... your local community bank or your local credit union. And it's not going to "cost" you anything. In fact you're likely to come out ahead. Not only do small banks provide exactly the same services as the big banks, but they do so at a lower cost, pay higher returns to depositors and --- are you sitting down?-- they are still making loans to local homebuyers and local small businesses -- even as the big guys you just saved claim they just can't do either right now.

Proof? You want proof? (Can you handle the proof?) If so the Internet is lousy with proof that small banks beat large banks on virtually every single measure.  Just do a Google search under "Big banks vs. Small Banks," and you'll have a month's worth of reading on your hands.

AM BESTS business analysts compared the two and take a look for yourself:

Community Bank Advantages Challenge Historical Assumptions

A bank’s size alone can have less to do with its performance, safety and soundness than would be expected, based on A.M. Best’s analysis of data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other, qualitative factors. Various operating models carry key advantages and disadvantages, as Best delineated by a threshold of $5 billion in assets between small and large banks.

• Despite common industry perceptions that large commercial banks have greater safety and earnings power than community banks, a bank’s assets don’t necessarily equate to economies of scale, diversification of risk and market power.

• Small community banks generally have smaller scale and less diversification, but their local owner-managers provide stabil- ity, and they draw strength from focusing on their local commu- nities and limiting risk.

• Larger institutions historically have tended to take on more leverage and complex risk exposures, and they also may forego diversification to assume concentrated risk in certain regions or in certain products, such as subprime mortgages.

• Relative risk aside, community banks are better capitalized according to certain regulatory capital ratios, including the Tier 1 risk based capital and tangible common equity.

• Community banks are less susceptible to downswings in bank- ing cycles, as shown by more gradual declines in median return on assets and return on equity compared with larger banks.. (Full report with graphs)

Why is this not more widely understood? Well, ask the New York Times or most other large media outlets. They are always way behind the curve when it comes to reporting emerging financial news. Mostly they come along after each crash to explain to us everything they failed to warn of when it would have done some good. But if you look hard enough you can find some stories that support the Best study:

As big banks falter, community banks do fine

Christian Science Monitor --Unlike banks on Wall Street, these smaller banks didn’t invest in risky mortgage-backed securities or complex derivatives....While they account for less than 10 percent of America’s total banking assets, their traditional, values-based approach contains plenty of lessons for their larger Wall Street counterparts, some analysts say.

But there’s another component as well, says William Attridge, president of the Wethersfield, Conn.-based bank: Most community bankers know their customers. “We’re lending to small businesses, and in small businesses the individual is a significant part of that,” he says. “There’s a character component: That means we might make loans that possibly someone else wouldn’t if they just looked at the financials, because we know the individual well and what their resources and talents are. On the other hand, there are probably some [loans] that look good on paper that we wouldn’t make.”

During the Great Depression, there were more than 30,000 banks in the US, and most of them were small. The majority of banks that failed were small, while the few bigger banks that existed weathered the economic turmoil better. Today, the flip side is happening. Four large banks were responsible for half of the $26 billion in losses reported by the banking industry during the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). (Full Story)

Okay, that's enough from me. Get your damn money out of those cancerous leviathan banks and into a local bank or credit union. (If you choose a credit union, by the way, your new credit card will be limited by law to 18% interest. ) And you're tired of those BofA checks anyway. Here's a chance to get a new look to your checks.
    

Oh, and by doing this, you'll be doing your part in returning banking to its roots, keeping local savings working locally, rather than fueling multi-million dollar bonuses and fueling the next financial bullshit-bubble.

March 13-26, 2008

Hillary's
Dick Cheney Strategy

After being pounded by the Obama folks for months to open her records as First Lady being held under seal at the Clinton Library, Hillary dumped 11,000 pages on us yesterday. That's out of an estimated two million pages that remain under seal.

The records released yesterday were of her personal schedules. Schedules would, one would assume, show with whom she met, for how long they met, why and where they met. One would assume.

Hillary likes to point out that, seven years after Dick Cheney met with oil company executives to develop America's energy policies, we still don't know the names of those who gave us $4 a gallon gasoline and record oil company profits.

Then yesterday Hillary tore a page right out of Cheney's hide-the-pickle playbook.

"Over time, Clinton's schedules offer less and less information. In 1993, her first year as first lady, the records include the names of people she met with. But federal archivists blotted out those names, citing privacy issues. In spring 1994, Clinton's schedulers appear to have stopped including names -- so her days are filled with one "private meeting" after another, with no mention of whom she met with or why." (LA Times)

For example, on Jan. 28, 1994, the names of the participants in a 10 a.m. meeting with her at Bally's Resort & Casino in Las Vegas had been erased. Why? Inquiring minds would like to know why the names of individuals who met with the First Lady of the United States of America, had to be obliterated from a public record.

Simple logic, and my decades as a reporter, tell me that the answers to that question fall into a very narrow range of possibilities:

• - She was up to no good
• - The individuals she met with were up to no good
• - The individuals she met with were, themselves, no good
• - All the above

But wait, there's more:

"Sometimes, even the names of people getting their pictures taken with Clinton were removed. So it is not known who had a photo op with her at 2:45 p.m. on March 10, 1994, in the White House Map Room."

Some folks wanted to have a photo taken with the First Lady of the United States of America, for reasons of their own.

But the former First Lady of the United States of America apparently does not want us to know who those persons were. Why?

Again the possibilities are limited:

• - The person she was photographed with is now in trouble with the law
• - A more recent photo of the person she was photographed with can now be viewed on the FBI "Most Wanted" web site.
• - The person she was photographed would cause embarrassment for her as a candidate for President of the United States.

Am I being too cynical?

Fine. Then you give me the innocent explanation, because I sure the hell can't think of one.

Then there are all the entries in her schedule that give us no information whatsoever, with entries like these:

In later years, the records are even more spare. On June 25, 1997, for example, Clinton is shown as having taken part in three successive meetings in the White House residence, stretching from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. They are labeled simply "private meeting."

And

On Feb. 12, 1999 -- the day the Senate voted down her husband's impeachment -- she blocked off an unusually long appointment on her daily schedule from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. under the entry: "PRIVATE MEETING/Residence/NO PRESS/NO WH PHOTO.

Now, I can imagine situations where it would be none of our damn business what she was doing or with whom the First Lady of the United States of America was meeting with or why.

• - She was meeting with her private physician to discuss her own personal health
• - Her plastic surgeon had dropped by to give her botox injections to remove the worry lines caused by her husband's misbehavior(s).
• - She was having an emergency session with her shrink-- for the same reason.

Those are the kinds of really private, entirely personal, stuff.

Even First Lady's have a personal life that, from time to time, require private moments.

For example, on July 20, 1993, Hillary Clinton was staying at her mother's house in Little Rock when she got word that friend and aide Vince Foster had committed suicide. Her schedule for the next two days is virtually empty even though they were among the most frenetic and emotionally fraught of her White House time.

I understand. I not only understand. but I'm sympathetic. One of her closest friends had just committed suicide. Hillary was in mourning. That's the kind of stuff really is none of our damn business.

But Hillary was First Lady of the United States of America. She was living on the public dole, doing the public's business. Ninety nine percent of what a President and First Lady do while in office is the public's business -- because it is public business.

All those "redactions" in her public schedule bode ill for our democracy should she become our next President. She will not only bring those habits to her new job, but many of the very people who implemented them during her terms as First Lady:

"The schedules also show the depth of Clinton's attachment to a small cadre of "Hillaryland" aides who have followed her on to the campaign. In the 1990s, most White House days began with a 15-minute meeting that included Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's first presidential campaign manager, and Maggie Williams, who replaced Solis Doyle at the helm earlier this year. (Newsday)

Back in my day it was the press' job was to assure that the public's business remained public. I hope the media will insist that Hillary either fill in the blanks in the records she released yesterday, or supply explanations for why each of those erased names, reasons and photos should remain secret.

Otherwise all we will be doing next November if Hillary is the Democratic choice, is trading Cheney/Bush secrecy for Hillary secrecy.

What a choice.

---

History;
What a Bitch

In 1932, Edward Angly published a short book filled with optimistic forecasts about the economy offered by President Herbert Hoover and his associates. The sarcastic title of his book was, "Oh Yeah?."

I've found myself echoing that title almost every day of late as I listen to President Bush and his associates try to reassure us that things are not as bad as they seem. Oh Yeah?

Anyway, as you may know by now I am a real history whore. Maybe that's why, as I enter the final third of my life, I fell like I'm living a social/economic and political version of the movie, Ground Hog Day. Wave after wave of Deja vu sweep over my conscious hours. Wars, greed, famine, self-indulgent political leaders, economic disparity and "trouble in the financial markets."

Been there. Done that, and done that, and done that, and done that. It's as though society is little more than an software program stuck in a loop, and no one around to hit the "ESC" key.

Ah, but there I go, diverging again. My purpose this morning was actually to just dip back into that loop and copy and paste a few lines of code from the past and compare them with the code that's running today to test my theory.

So, thanks to Edward Angly we can compare President Hoover's take on things then to President Bush's take on things now. (You won't be surprised, but you may be amused... and then worried.)

---

"Unemployment in the sense of distress is widely disappearing. . . . We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land...There is no guarantee against poverty equal to a job for every man. That is the primary purpose of the economic policies we advocate:
August 11, 1928—Herbert Hoover, speech accepting the Republican nomination, Palo Alto,California.

"Losing a job is painful, and I know Americans are concerned about our economy; so am I. It's clear our economy has slowed, but the good news is, we anticipated this and took decisive action to bolster the economy, by passing a growth package that will put money into the hands of American workers and businesses."
(President Bush, March 7, 2008 on news that the economy lost 63,000 payroll jobs in February.)

“Prosperity is no idle expression. It is a job for every worker; it is the safety and safeguard of very business and every home. A continuation of the policies of the Republican party is fundamentally necessary to the future advancement of this progress and to the further building up of this prosperity.”
October 22, 1928—Herbert Hoover, Campaign Address, Madison Square Garden

"The economic team reports that our economy has a solid foundation, but that there are areas of real concern. Our economy is still creating jobs, though at a reduced pace. Consumer spending is still growing, but the housing market is declining. Business investment and exports are still rising, but the cost of imported oil has increased."
Jan. 18, urging Congress to quickly pass an economic-stimulus plan.

“The outlook of the world today is for the greatest era of commercial expansion in history. The rest of the world will become better customers.”
July 27, 1928—Herbert Hoover, Speech at San Francisco

"In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow, but in the short run, it is clear that growth has slowed....This economy of ours is on a solid foundation, but we can't take economic growth for granted."
Jan. 4 after meeting with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.

“Any lack of confidence in the economic future or the basic strength of business in the United States is foolish.”
November, 1929—Herbert Hoover

"'Every time, this economy has bounced back better and stronger than before,. In the long run, we can be confident that our economy will continue to grow."
March 14, 2008 -- President Bush.

“Definite signs that business and industry have turned the corner from the he temporary period of emergency that followed deflation of the speculative market were seen today by President Hoover. The President said the reports to the Cabinet showed that the tide of employment had changed in the right direction.”
January 21, 1930—News dispatch from Washington

"I hope you're confident about our economy. I am. We've got some short-term issues to deal with. Fourth quarter growth slowed. In other words, there are signs that our economy are slowing. We're in challenging times. But another thing is for certain — that we've taken strong and decisive action."

Jan. 30 at the Robinson Helicopter Co. in Torrance, Calif.

“While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover. There is one certainty of the future of a people of the resources, intelligence and character of the people of the United States—that is, prosperity.”
May 1, 1930—Herbert Hoover, Address at annual dinner of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States

In the long run, Americans ought to have confidence in our economy. I mean, there are some anchors that promote long-term -- that should promote long-term confidence.
First of all, the unemployment rate is relatively low. We're an innovative society with a flexible economy. There's a lot of research and development being spent here in America. There are new technologies being developed. Productivity is on the rise. We have a strong agricultural sector. The small-business sector is vibrant.
President Bush -- Florida March 17

“During the past year you have carried the credit system of the nation safely through a most difficult crisis. In this success you have demonstrated not alone the soundness of the credit system, but also the capacity of the bankers in emergency.”
October 2, 1930—Herbert Hoover, Address before the annual convention of The American Bankers Association, Cleveland

"I understand there's short-term difficulty in the credit markets," Bush said. "But I want people to understand that in the long term, we're going to be just fine."
President Bush -- March 17, 2008 -- Florida

“Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement.”
December 1930—Herbert Hoover, Message to Congress

"If we were to pursue some of the sweeping government solutions that we hear about in Washington, we would make a complicated problem even worse. "As we take decisive action, we will keep this in mind: When you are steering a car in a rough patch, one of the worst things you can do is overcorrect and end up in the ditch."
President Bush -- March 14, 2008

“On September 8, I requested the governors of the Federal Reserve banks to endeavor to secure the co-operation of the bankers of their territory to make some advances on the security of the assets of closed banks or to take over some of these assets... Such a measure will contribute to free many business activities and in a measure reverse the process of deflation involved in the tying up of deposits.”
October 1931—Herbert Hoover

"The United States is on top of the situation. We obviously will continue to monitor the situation and when need be, will act decisively, in a way that continues to bring order to the financial markets.
Prisdent Bush -- March 17, 2008

“The depression has been deepened by events from abroad which are beyond the control either of our citizens or our government.”
October 18, 1931—Herbert Hoover, Radio address at Fortress Monroe, Virginia

"Over the past seven years, this system has absorbed shocks — recession, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, global war. Yet the genius of our system is that it can absorb such shocks and emerge even stronger."
President Bush -- Feb. 13, 2008 in signing an economic stimulus package of tax rebates for families and businesses.

---

The Politics of Complexity

I just finished listening to Barack Obama's speech.

It boils down to this: The politics of simplicity vs. The politics of complexity.

Traditional politicians, on both the right and left, prefer the politics of simplicity: The simplicity of racial stereotypes. The simplicity of religious stereotypes. The simplicity of economic choices -- free enterprise or socialism. The simplicity of social class.

Obama knows better. When it comes to human beings, and the social systems we create, nothing is simple. The complexities are deep and they are wide. They are also stunning in richness and variety.

The American black experience is as rich and deep, fruitful and tragic, as any of those who came, willingly or otherwise, to this country.

The white experience too is filled with its own complexities, fruitful and tragic.

For two centuries now, we've stumbled along parallel paths, the same in many ways, different in significant ways. Thanks to the efforts of some who went before us, men and women who understood this complex relationship, those two paths have begun to merge...not yet one, but closer. The politics of simplicity wants that never to happen. Because the day it does the politics of simplity loses a powerful wedge of division and distraction.

The traditional politics of the right would have us believe white America is somehow burdened, even threatened, by changing ethnic and cultural demographic trends.

Traditional political hacks on the left would have us believe that the root of all that ails us can be found in corporate board rooms.

Both views are simplistic to the extreme, simple to use in speeches. and simple ways to get media attention. They are simple ways to cast doubt. Simple ways to divide rather than unite. Soundbite politics is the politics of simplicity.

But there's nothing simple about Iraq, or the deteriorating environment, or the now internationlized nature of the economy, or what currently ales it. Each of those issues is made up of billions of moving parts. The complexity of any one part of any one of those issues is mind-numblingly complex. And only those willing and able to see, accept, process and deal with such complexity can address them.

But simplicity works better than complexity for politicians. Forget all that complexity they say. Make your choice based on the simple problems and all that so-called complexity will take care of itself.

Politicians of simplity want us to focus on the simple-minded things:

Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin and doesn't put his hand over his heart when the national anthem is played."

Focus instead on the simplistic remarks by his former pastor, Rev. Wright.

Focus instead on a candidates religion... is he Christian or maybe a closet Muslim?

Focus instead on whether a candidate is black, or white, "enough."

Focus instead on whether a candidate is for or against certain medical procedures, rather than whether all Americans can even afford any significant medical procedures.

Obama was right when he said, in his speech today, that this is rare opportunity to turn our backs on the politics of simplicity and embrace the politics of complexity. Because we will never solve the complex problems facing America and the world with the simpleminded politics of the past..and present.

The only question now, is are we, all of us, mature enough to eschew the politics of simplicity and embrace the far more difficult, but certainly more productive, politics of complexity?

It's up to us now. It's up to you.

*(If you missed the speech you can watch it here)

---

The Good
v.
The Bad & The Ugly

What are you going to do if Hillary Clinton succeeds bagging the Democratic Party nomination for President by playing dirty.

I've begun thinking about that more and more over the last couple of weeks. The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that, if they can't win pretty, they'll settle for winning ugly.

Which is why things have gotten so ugly lately. Once it became clear she could not beat Obama in a fair fight they switched tactics. IED's (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions) are now the weapons of choice for the Clinton campaign. Hardly a day goes by now when one of these IEDs doesn't explode into the news.

"Is Obama a Muslim." Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. "No. Not as far as I know," she replied.

BOOM!

"Obama is not ready to become Commander-in-Chief," Hillary warns then coyly adds, if voters on the fence pick her, she'd consider putting Obama a heartbeat away from becoming Commander-in-Chief.

BOOM!

"I have crossed the threshold and met the national security test to be Commander-in-Chief," Hillary says. "John McCain has also met that test. Obama gave a speech."

BOOM!

"The reason Obama has gotten where he is today is because he's black," pronounced Clinton supporter and finance committee big shot, Geraldine Ferraro.

BOOM!

BTW -- that was not the first time Ferraro set off a racial IED in the midst of a presidential primary.

A Ferraro flashback
"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," she said.

Really. The cite is an April 15, 1988 Washington Post story (byline: Howard Kurtz), available only on Nexis.

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

 Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history." (Politico.com)

A few weeks back Bill Clinton detonated an almost identical Jesse Jackson IED. Coincidence? No way...

BOOM!

Can you imagine! I never thought I'd see a leading Democrat dip back to the tactics of the dark days when racist Democrats ruled the segregated South, playing the fears of whites against the hopes of blacks. Disgusting.

But insurgencies are, by necessity, ugly business. Inevitably there will be collateral damage. Innocents will be hurt. The means are ugly, but the ends will make amends --we are assured. Once they win, the insurgents promise, they will get rid of the bad and the ugly and herald in the good.

Hillary holds up her role as First Lady as the reason she's "ready to lead from day one," and there may be some truth in that. Among the things she learned during those days was how run parallel political and insurgent actions. She learned this when husband Bill helped negotiate a settlement in Northern Ireland. While the Irish Republican Army conducted the ugly part of their insurgency the leader of its political arm, Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, stayed above it all making nice in Parliament. When his IRA fighters blew something, (or someone) up, Adams would bemoan the violence, even condemn it. Then he'd offer his political solutions/demands.

Likewise, each time one of her campaigner sets off an IED aimed at Obama, Hillary denies her campaign is behind it. If the uproar is loud enough, she even condemns it. Then she makes nice, assuring everyone that all she really wants is peace and reconciliation -- on her terms, of course.

Will she stop these IED attacks? Well, (have you ever noticed when on the spot Hillary always begins her response with "well.") Well, she'd just love to stop that kind of stuff, but -- she quickly adds -- she can't because, "you know, it's a free country and people have a right to say what ever they want."

But does she agree with the things people speaking on her behalf are saying? Well, of course not. "Well, I certainly don't agree with everything people who say the support me say," she demurely adds.

In other words, stop the IEDs -- "no way, Jose." Because this is all she's got left. Obama has already won the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic voters. If she stops the IEDs now Obama would have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. She's can no longer count on just slowing him down, she's got to stop him. She needs to wound him so badly he can no longer win.

There's two ways to get this nomination: win it fair and square, or finagle it. Since she can no longer win, she's now onto finagling. Which means encouraging her surrogates to keep planting IEDs while she works the political angles -- Super-delegates, seating Michigan and Florida delegates, etc.

Meanwhile out on the field of battle her surrogates have turned to the nuclear option -- or as her own spokesmanr and snake turned snake charmer, Howard Wolfson describe it, "the kitchen sink strategy."

Call it what you like, boiled down to its essence it can be summed up as, "an IED a day keeps the nomination away" -- from Obama.

Sure it's dirty fighting. And sure, if successful it will leave the Democratic Party looking like Beirut on a bad day. And sure her victory would only reinforce the very kind of politics that have torn the nation apart since Newt Gingrich and his kind marched to power. And sure an ugly Clinton victory risks outraging Obama supporters to such an extent many will not even show up to vote in November, virtually guaranteeing another four years of GOP rule.

But those probabilities appear not to matter to Hillary Clinton. If she can't have the prize she'll make sure her opponent inherits a scorched political landscape; a party in disarray. a fractured party embroiled in a very un-civil war. It could even mean the end of the Democratic Party as a force in progressive politics -- not that the party has been much of a force in that direction anyway. But at least it would end the pretense.

Then there's African American voters who will feel betrayed, snookered and humiliated by the party they've supported through thick and thin for decades. And all those young Democrats, new to the process, who will retreat into cynical complacency. And why not? Why participate in a process where the best values and behavior are routinely trumped by the worst values and behavior?

So, have you been thinking about it too? About what you're going to do on election day next November if your choice is between the Republican version of Mr. Magoo and the Democrat's version of Imelda Marcos?

Whatya gonna do? Now would be a good time to think about it, so maybe, just maybe we can avoid such an unpalatable, unhelpful, unacceptable choice.