the unwise lives on a farm of 100 acre and could only see the dark cloud over his own land; the wise considers the universe home and sees dark clouds far afield. unfortunately in a democracy each has one vote, and the wise outnumbered by a wide margin.

I wonder how much of the bail-out is part of a foreign policy to assert our global influence through a dominant financial system. I have no facts. It’s just a thought. How much power does our financial system have, and does the Obama Admin. have more control over that power now because of government support.

But, we will not sustain such a strategy because we are not shoring up a real productive economy that employs people and produces things for a financial profit that can continue to sustain the financial sector.

Bob Spencer

Financial companies' lobbying will neutralize any attempts at serious reform.

Having said that, the current optimism is unwarranted -- we are in for an October surprise.

Short the Dow!

The most pressing and stark issue this time is the tackling of the recession and Hell! Why not take the advatage of this prevalent perception??
Long-term reforms???...They can wait. Lets put them on backburners for now. Shall we?
Bush did so by "tackling" terrorism without caring for the domestic priorities. Why not the incumbent prez?
Better stick with the "cause célèbre". Right?

and the PNAC/9-11/GWOT project was a response to anticipated fuel shortages.

in november of 1999, at the London Institute of Petroleum, dick cheney, CEO of halliburton, acknowledged peak oil.

in may of 2001, cheney said the US would need 1300 to 1900 new nuke plants in the next 20 years.

june 2001, cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group calls for stepped up development of nuke plants and hydrogen

he's kept his yap shut about peak oil... and he's been one of the most vociferous defenders of the neocon project, which includes the AEI/exxon/CERA lashup and their ritual denials of peak oil and global warming.

so who sold the project to cheney?

...something he believed in, or was it simply a line he was assigned to deliver as the bunnypants administration hard guy?

was the threat of 30 new nuke plants for every state in the union calculated to inspire horrified resistance to more nuke plants while generating support for an alternative energy acquisition project... aka the GWOT, "benevolent global hegemony" and the PNAC Project for the New American Century?

oil production, price, drills, dollar index, gold price

it's no secret that the israelis have been pushing for reassembly of the middle east for decades, and it seems reasonable to assume that israel ---located as it is adjacent to the world's biggest oil patch--- would not be nearly as important to america if america were not so dependent on oil.... for instance, if america was supplying itself with electricity from nuke plants built and operated by exxon, fueled with uranium from exxon mines.

once exxon became aware of israeli americans' determination to thwart development of nuke plants, once exxon became aware of the power of the israeli american media, once exxon became aware of israeli and israeli american determination to remodel the middle east, exxon gave up on their nukes and joined up with the israeli americans in their land and oil acquisition project.

since the american taxpayer would be footing the bill for the project ---at a time when oil is getting scarce and exploration and production costs are soaring--- an alliance with the israeli americans and their PNAC project is the cheapest way for exxon to grab a chunk of the biggest oil reserves in the world.

is israel prepared to sacrifice america in their war with iran? ...because it seems unlikely america's gonna last very long if oil goes up to $200 or $300 a barrel.

maybe the israelis think, even with hormuz closed, there's enough inertia left in the american economic system that america can continue protecting israel until greater israel is secured, especially including the palestinians' high ground in the west bank.

maybe enough loot has already found its way to israel so that israel figures it can finally afford to cut itself loose from america...

maybe the whole thing's a sham... nothing more than cover for the biggest looting operation ever.

maybe there's a cold civil war going on to decide which faction is the boss of this dismal operation.

maybe the signal-to-noise ratio has deteriorated so bad there's only gonna be prey and predators.

It's always fascinating to see people who at one point were able to exercise a healthy dose of scepticism become mindless believers in spin when their guy enters the White House. Three million people have lost their jobs since Obama became president, unprecedented in our history to greet a new president, but it could have been worse. And now the economy is only shrinking by 1-2% (so the government now estimates), so Obama's saved us! Hallelujah! Jesus has risen!

To give you an analogy, you sound like the neocons in 2005 who were telling us Iraq could have been worse, and it's just about to turn around, any day now. According to the latest polls, a majority of Americans now believe Obama is a liar. What do they get that you're missing?

What has Obama done that has 'saved' our economy? Please explain your eagerness to accept the government spin. When they ring a bell, do you salivate now?

The reforms are coming, whether we want it or not. Obama has so destroyed our finances by exploding the budget that we now have no choice.

Victors never see a need for reform, that's left to the losers which is why they make such dramatic comebacks. Witness the state of Prussian military in 1800 and then compare it to 1812. Admittedly the military is a very different thing from economics, but the power of reformers is generally relative to how badly the reactionaries messed up.

Yet none of them has ever explained why that would be such a catastrophic development, for the obvious reason that Iran could not use any weapons it might one day get without inviting its own destruction. And if you can't use them, then you can't blackmail people, or do any of the other lurid things that threat mongers keep harping about.

1. If Iran did nuke Tel Aviv, how should Israel respond? Should it launch one nuke back into Tehran so as to be "proportional"? Should it nuke the entire country so no further nukes could be launched? I don't think anyone has actually thought of what the response to a nuclear attack on Israel would be. German intelligence has discovered that Iran never stopped its nuclear weapons program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124803669414063037.html

How many anti-Israeli people would say the Israelis would be committing genocide if they fired back and were as bad as the Nazis? I would bet that almost all of your anti-Israel commenters would suggest that after Israel gets nuked it only has itself to blame because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

3. Not that Professor Walt or any of the other commenters here who want to see Israel destroyed would care, but roughly 25 percent of Israeli population would be scared into considering emigrating if Iran had the bomb.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087342.html
This would be a catastrophe for Israel.

4. What if the bomb was smuggled into the country by one of Israel's enemies and the Israelis could not for certain say it was the Iranians (perhaps the North Koreans or a loose former soviet nuke)? How should Israel respond then? Should it nuke Iran in retaliation?

5. Isn't nuclear blackmail exactly what North Korea is doing to the West? North Korea uses their Nuclear weapons to force the West to give them billions in food aid. Explain why North Korea can blackmail the West, but Iran could not?

6. Allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons just signals to the world that there will be no consequences for building a bomb. It was just reported that the leaders of the Burmese military junta have been building a plutonium reactor with North Korean help.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/revealed-burma8217s-nuclear-bombshell/2009/07/31/1248977200181.html

Would you be fine with most countries in the world having nuclear weapons as they could be deterred by M.A.D.? If not why not?

More importantly, Bolton and others of his ilk don't seem to understand that threatening Iran with various bad things (including regime change) is the best way to convince them that they really do need a nuclear deterrent. Thinking that you can persuade Teheran not to go nuclear while pointing a gun at its head is not realistic. And as Tony Karon points out, if you want to unite Iran's competing factions and restive population, all you've got to do is impose harsher international sanctions. And if you want to guarantee that outcome, make a few military threats and then carry some of them out.

For a realist, you sometimes seem to live in fantasy land. Iran has already decided to build a nuclear weapon. Either we stop them or we don't, but I am asounded you are so naive as to think anything we do will convince them to make one when they have already made that decision.

What is your solution to stopping Iran from getting the bomb. Oh that's right, you don't have one because you don't care if they get it.

...the biggest threat to world peace, it's kinda hard to pin down who'd be the culprit if israel were nuked...

not to mention israel's inconvenient habit of staging false flags and blaming the villain du jour.

not to mention the SAMS' report that was written up in the washington times on 9/10/2001, in which the SAMS officers concluded that israel was capable of attacking america and blaming arabs.

are you saying that people who've demonstrably abandoned their morals will hesitate to bomb their closest allies or even themselves if the situation can be exploited to further the zionist cause?

if, for instance, aumann has gamed out global warming, and the data shows that global warming and sea level rise are unstoppable, and tel aviv will be gone, anyhow, what's to stop israel from nuking one of its own coastal cities, blaming the villain du jour, and mobilizing israeli america to a total war footing in an effort to grab the rest of the oil and enough high ground for israelis to move to as they flee sea level rise?

do you think people with a supposed 4000-year history, access to the most powerful computers in the world, and nobel-caliber theorists (who have apparently abandoned their morals) are limiting their risk assessments and plans to the next five years?

more coffee, please