World News

Thursday, July 8, 2010

"Jamie Gorelick, Mistress of Disaster"

Excellent, graphic-rich summary of Gorelick's leaden touch:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html

--S.

Jamie Gorelick, Mistress of Disaster

It's not often that one person plays key roles in two -- count 'em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters. Welcome, my friends, to the world of well-connected Democrat Jamie Gorelick.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating.

Her 1995 memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations", stated explicitly that they would "go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

The 2004 disclosure that Gorelick's service as a 9/11 Commissioner was the archetypical conflict-of-interest should have triggered a cacophony of complaints and demands for a new investigation. Instead, the mainstream media turned deaf and dumb and the controversy faded into the background.

Gorelick's "wall" wrapped a blindfold around America just when it needed its vision to stop the attacks that killed thousands and which sucked a half a trillion dollars out of the economy.

Where did Gorelick turn up next?

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.

During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. One of the falsified transactions helped FNMA hit earnings targets for 1998, which triggered bonuses for top executives including nearly $800,000 to Gorelick.

Put simply "Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting."

In 2002 Business Week interviewed Gorelick concerning the health of FNMA. She responded, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

Less than a year later regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses."

Today, of course, FNMA is on taxpayer-funded life support, currently trading at 61 cents a share. And because it was thought to have been "managed safely" (Gorelick's words), many top-flight financial services companies held its stock.

Last week it was revealed that top insurer AIG was teetering on the precipice of disaster because, in part, it held $600 million in Fannie and Freddie. Roughly $4 billion in those stocks are held by insurers, according to rating agency A.M. Best.

Put simply, FNMA's collapse helped touch off the current swath of instability in the financial system.

It's not often that one person plays such a key role in two unmitigated disasters.

Democrat Jamie Gorelick is just such a person; that is why she has earned her nom de guerre "The Mistress of Disaster".

What do you call someone with a Midas Touch, only instead of gold everything they touch turns to s***? That's what Gorelick's got.

If I was one of her associates at the law firm of WilmerHale, I'd keep my head on a frickin' swivel.

Update: Just Barking Mad adds even more foaming-at-the-mouth-level anger to the story:

In 1999 Fannie Mae announced that it would purchase $10B in CRA loans. In 2001 they reached that target as Ms. Gorelick announced that they would roll these into special security issues...

Yep, you guessed it. Gorelick also had a direct hand in the mortgage securitization debacle. I'm guessing we could link her to a few other catastrophes if we did the legwork. Where was she when the Hindenberg below up, for instance?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Gore Refuses to Release AKC Papers; Pedigree In Doubt After Being Called 'Sex Crazed Poodle!"

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i77501

Re: New Rankings Overrate Obama

Any raking above Zero (0) over-ranks comrade zero.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, M. Johnson <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"Yet, despite differences in rhetoric and political party affiliation – and thus against the conventional wisdom – the polices of Obama and Bush are strikingly similar."

New Rankings Overrate Obama
by Ivan Eland, July 07, 2010

The periodic Siena College poll [.pdf] of 238 presidential scholars in colleges and universities across the nation ranked Barack Obama, after only a year-and-a-half of his presidency, as the 15th best president out of all 43 in American history. His predecessor, George W. Bush, earned an abysmal 39th rating. Yet, despite differences in rhetoric and political party affiliation – and thus against the conventional wisdom – the polices of Obama and Bush are strikingly similar.

The Siena College poll is not only biased from polling academicians on the Left, but also rates presidents on 20 attributes, some of which measure effectiveness – that is, ability to get done what they promised – and even personal characteristics – for example, background, imagination, and even luck.

But should people care if Obama had a bad background? The scholars downgraded him on family, education, and prior experience before being in the White House. And so what if Ronald Reagan was lucky enough to have the Soviet Union collapse just after he left office?

Shouldn't presidents be judged solely on their accomplishments – that is, whether their policies were good for the country? Of course, the Siena poll does include some assessments on policies, but it is heavily biased toward government activism in domestic and foreign affairs. It is also striking that two presidents – Obama and Bush – with such similar policies get such disparate ratings.

For example, despite Obama's image as a progressive Democrat and Bush's image as a conservative Republican, they both have a record of activism in both domestic and foreign relations. Domestically, Bush bailed out the banks and socialized the AIG Insurance Company and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage lenders. Obama pushed through a pork-filled bill to re-inflate the collapsed economic bubble, socialized some of the American auto companies, and will apparently win even deeper government intervention in the financial industry (the banks' correct perception that they were too important or big for the government to allow them to fail helped cause their risky behavior that led to the meltdown in the first place). By piling the irresponsible prescription drug benefit for the wealthiest group in society on a teetering Medicare program, Bush pushed through the first new entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs of the 1960s; similarly, Obama has "helped" the less affluent by requiring them to buy health insurance but providing government subsidies for only part of the bill, thus raising health insurance company stock prices with the prospect of new coerced customers.

In the civil liberties area, although Obama has dropped the scariest of the Bush administration's justifications for detaining terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial – that as commander in chief, the president can rule by fiat and ignore laws passed by Congress – Obama still relies on the congressional resolution authorizing the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban as a justification for this continued unconstitutional behavior. Although Congress had the chance to include such a suspension of habeas corpus in the congressional war resolution, it chose to pass it up. Although Obama pledged to close Guantanamo prison and end torture, the prison has not been shuttered, and torture has been restricted but a loophole still exists. It can be assumed that the warrantless domestic surveillance of Americans continues under Obama after Congress meekly sanctioned and widened the Bush administration's brazenly illegal and unconstitutional snooping.

In foreign policy, although the arrogant rhetoric has changed substantially from the Bush years, American policy hasn't morphed commensurately. Although Obama has pledged to completely withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, this promise may be hard to keep if violence in Iraq rises after the pull out begins. In Afghanistan, Obama has tripled U.S. forces and has sunk the United States deeper into the quagmire. Obama has given up Bush's ridiculous "war on terror" rhetoric. But he may be making new enemies as fast as Bush by aggressively pursuing a not-so-secret war against al-Qaeda in more countries, striking the group's local affiliates, which usually haven't focused their attacks on the United States but are now beginning to do so in retaliation. As for North Korea and Iran, despite the façade of increased negotiation with these pariah states, the former has not been persuaded by coercion to give up its nuclear weapons, nor the latter its apparent quest to get them. Only in relations with Russia have Obama policies significantly improved the situation – with an arms control treaty and the scaling back of dubious U.S. missile defense plans in Europe.

Some hope exists that Obama may ultimately prove to be a better president than Bush (he can't get much worse). If the withdrawal from Iraq actually comes to fruition, the surge in Afghanistan was the price a Democratic president had to pay to begin withdrawing forces after 18 months, and Obama begins to reduce the massive record U.S. budget deficit of 11 percent of gross domestic product by cutting spending (every time a large budget deficit has occurred in U.S. history, it has been closed), he may rise above Bush. But he likely will never deserve the no. 15 ranking of all time given by the Siena poll.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2010/07/06/new-rankings-overrate-obama/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.