REPUBLICANS WITH MALAYSIAKINI: Political suicide

Political
Suicide

by Brad Woodhouse

chicagotribune.com
29 jan 2009

While the House of Representatives passed the economic recovery package Wed. evening by a wide margin, scoring a major victory for American workers and families and a beleaguered American economy, they did so without a single Republican vote.

Republicans appear to have learned nothing from the message sent to all of our elected officials in the most recent election that it's time to set partisan games, politics and ideology aside and work for bold solutions to the daunting challenges facing the American people. Rather than address the most severe economic crisis America has faced in a generation, Republicans retreated to the partisan games and failed policies of the past eight years, which cost them dearly in the last two elections. In turning their backs on the American people during a time of historic economic crisis to score cheap political points, Republicans in the House at worst may have committed political suicide and best proved their irrelevance to the process.

[Political suicide
Chicago Tribune, United States]

HEROISM WITH MALAYSIAKINI: being miraculous over New York

Crash cause unclear,
but not pilot's heroism

International Herald Tribune

The plane, an Airbus 320, was towed down the Hudson to a docking site.(Michael Appleton/The New York Times)

What might have been a catastrophe in New York was averted by a pilot's quick thinking and deft maneuvers, and by the nearness of rescue boats, a combination that witnesses and officials called miraculous.

A US Airways jetliner with 155 people aboard lost power in both engines, possibly from striking birds, after taking off from La Guardia Airport on Thursday. The pilot ditched in the icy Hudson River and all on board were rescued by a flotilla of converging ferries and emergency boats, the authorities said.

As stunned witnesses watched from high-rise buildings on both banks, the Airbus A320, which had risen to 3,200 feet, or 975 meters, over the Bronx and banked left, came downriver, its fuselage lower than many apartment terraces and windows, in a carefully executed touchdown that sent up huge plumes of water at midstream.

On Friday, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board investigating the accident, Kathryn Higgins, said the left engine was missing from the plane. Higgins said it was not clear if the right engine was still on the wing either, because it is submerged. Engines mounted under the wings, as on the A320, commonly detach in crashes.

Investigators want the engine to look for signs of damage from birds, which could have been the cause of the accident. They will also examine the airframe itself for signs of bird strikes.

The pilot, Chesley Sullenberger 3rd, unable to get back to La Guardia, had made a decision to avoid densely populated areas and try for the Hudson and had warned the 150 passengers to brace for a hard landing. Most had their heads down as the jetliner slammed into the water, nose slightly up, just three minutes after takeoff on what was to be a flight to Charlotte, North Carolina.

Moments later, terrified passengers began swarming out the emergency exits into brutally cold air and onto the submerged wings of the bobbing jetliner, which began taking in water. When all were out, the pilot walked up and down the aisle twice to make sure the plane was empty, officials said.

Brought ashore on both sides of the river, the survivors were taken to hospitals, mostly for treatment for exposure to the brutal cold: 18 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 7.8 degrees Celsius, in the air, and about 35 degrees in the water that many had stood in on the wings up to their waists.

Sullenberger, widely praised for his heroism, was unavailable to answer questions until he had spoken to the transportation safety board. That interview was planned later Friday.

"If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be here today," Mary Berkwits, of Stallings, North Carolina, a passenger who spoke of Sullenberger. She prepared to return to Charlotte on Friday morning at La Guardia Airport. "He was just wonderful."

The lead officials in the rescue spoke about the coordinated efforts and the subsequent towing of the plane, starting with a dramatic interlocking operation amid a swift current and freezing temperatures that enabled every passenger and crew member to reach the shore safely.

"I was worried if we didn't get them out right away," said a New York Waterway ferry captain Vincent Lombardi, first on the scene, "there would have been casualties."

The Emergency Medical Services chief, John Peruggia, agreed: "If we weren't there in another few minutes and got them on board and got them warm, they could have died."

A picture emerged late Thursday and Friday morning of just how perilous the rescue operations and the actual towing of the aircraft was, as boat operators battled a swift tide and the frigid temperatures while a captivated city watched continuous television reports and the Hudson turned from gold to silver in the gathering winter twilight.

Richard Johnson, 52, of the New York Fire Department, was on another one of the first boats to reach the plane, a 27-foot rescue boat.

"We came right alongside the wing, and the pilot did a great job of holding position," Johnson said. "They kind of jumped toward the boat and we pulled them off, one at a time. Their legs would be hanging over the side and then we had to heave them over the side of the boat, and we had to do that with each individual person."

He added: "It is very surprising they were able to hold that composure and stand on that wing, for 10 minutes or so. I am extremely surprised that no one slipped off that wing."

The aircraft was towed down the Hudson and tied up at Battery Park City, near the lower tip of the New York borough of Manhattan. In the glare of floodlights, the top of its fuselage, part of a wing and the blue-and-red tail fin jutted out of the water, but its US Airways logo and many of its windows were submerged.

source:

[Crash cause unclear, but not pilot's heroism]

STATEMENTS WITH MALAYSIAKINI: US Airways Crash

US airways crash
Statements from passengers
witnesses and rescuers
Wall Street Journal



[he following are accounts from witnesses and survivors of the US Airways crash in New York's Hudson River.]

Trouble Began Shortly After Takeoff

A crash survivor, Jeff Kolodjay, who was seated in seat 22A of the plane, said the trouble began three or four minutes after takeoff from LaGuardia airport. The plane first encountered a lot of turbulence, he said. Then he saw smoke and flames rising over the wing. The plane circled around to head back in the direction of the airport, he said. Everyone on board was hoping it could make it back to the airport. When it became clear that it wouldn't, "everyone started saying prayers and kinda looking at each other," Mr. Kolodjay said. But the pilot managed to maneuver the plane well. "I never wanted to die. The pilot did a good job of putting the plane on the water. It didn't feel too good, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be." As he described the ordeal to a reporter, Mr. Kolodjay was shivering in the cold on the Western waterfront of Manhattan around 40th Street, trying to call someone on his cellphone. Manhattan's borough president, Scott Stringer, who was at the scene, said of the rescue efforts: "There's a lot of heroes."

Not That Bad

One survivor, who gave his name as Julian Williams, called out to spectators at the Weehawken terminal in New Jersey, "It wasn't that bad."

Woman Falls

According to two police department divers, one woman waiting to be rescued fell off as she was getting on a Coast Guard craft. An elderly woman struggled to get pulled on to a ferry, pleading with one of the divers, "please don't let me go." She was wearing a life vest.

Passengers Brought to Weehawken Restaurant

John Keyser, the sous chef at Arthur's Landing in Weehawken, N.J., a steak-and-seafood restaurant which faces the Hudson River, witnessed the crash as he was looking outside the restaurant's wall of windows. "It was very surreal. After 9/11 you think the worst," he says.

Mr. Keyser and the rest of the staff watched as the plane, just after impact, started to drift downstream with the current. But four ferries were in the midst of their commuter route and they immediately turned and headed to the plane in an effort to hold it in place.

Mr. Keyser says he saw about 30 people on one of the wings who then climbed onto the ferries.

Within 20 minutes a ferry had docked next to the restaurant and 19 survivors began to stream in, says Michael Haimowitz, executive chef at the restaurant, which was just about to open for dinner. He was told that the restaurant was the first place survivors were brought.

The restaurant staff immediately made space in the dining room for the wet passengers and brought out white coats that chefs wear along with checkered pants, even chef's hats--anything that might provide warmth. Wilson Espinoza, the assistant general manager literally gave the shirt off his back and spent the rest of the evening wearing just an undershirt and his coat.

Yet, when asked if he wanted to change his shirt, one male survivor said: "No. I'm not ever taking this shirt off. It's my lucky shirt," recalls Mr. Haimowitz.

One male passenger requested a Scotch and was promptly served. Other survivors received hot coffee as well as steak-and-pastrami sandwiches, because at least one passenger needed food due to low blood sugar.

The restaurant swelled to about 300 people as police officers and emergency personnel arrived--some of whom stayed on for drinks after the survivors left about two hours after the crash.

Panic in the Freezing Water

Ferry operator New York Waterway sent 14 boats to help with the rescue. As part of their training, they practice performing rescues once every couple of weeks. They lower ladders into the water people can climb up out of the water or step into a cradle and the crew will pull them up. Those techniques were used after Thursday's accident.

Vince Lombardi, for six years the captain of the New York Waterway craft, the Thomas Jefferson, said his boat got there in roughly three minutes. His boat was just leaving the New York side of the Hudson when the plane crashed. He pulled out 56 people, including two babies, some who were floating in the airplane's inflatable raft, some perched on the plane's wing and some who had fallen in the water. "It was scary, it was hectic," he said.

NY waterway employees who were at the press conference described people panicking in the water. They said it was very cold, shaking and screaming, as they pleaded for help.

One boat captain said he saw the plane go down slowly, heard a splash and the plane stopped right in the water. The plane was smoking when it went down.

Lieutenant Thomas Mirante, a New York City firefighter, was among the rescuers who responded to the crash. He says he helped about 20 of the plane's passengers get off a life raft at the West Side Midtown Ferry Terminal, which is located at the 40th Street pier in Manhattan. Lieutenant Mirante said the passengers were very cold but in pretty good spirits. "They were happy to be alive. They weren't in too much shock because they were happy to be alive," he said. Lieutenant Mirante said the passengers told him they heard a loud boom shortly after takeoff. They told him the pilot had managed to crash-land the plane on the water well, he said. After the plane came to a stop on the water, the life rafts deployed and the passengers got into them. He said they were soaked from the waist down when he helped them out of their life raft.

'Nervously Low'

Patrick Wilder, a 35-year-old social worker, saw the crash unfold from his bike. Earlier in the afternoon, Mr. Wilder had flown back to LaGuardia airport from Detroit. After getting home and washing up, he decided to go for a bike ride on the bike path that traces its way along the West side of Manhattan. He was at 125th Street when he saw a big commercial jetliner that he knew from his own flight back to New York earlier in the day was not on a normal flight path. The plane was going south roughly along the Hudson River. It passed over the George Washington Bridge. After that, its altitude seemed lower than the bluffs on the New Jersey side. "It looked like when you see a plane coming in for an approach," Mr. Wilder recalled. "At one point, it seemed like it was able to pull up, but that was just briefly." He added: "It was nervously low." Though above the water, "it looked like it was landing," he said. Then he lost the plane in the sun.

Reminder of 9/11

Michael Fricklas, general counsel of media company Viacom Inc., witnessed the crash from his 52nd floor office, which overlooks the river. He also witnessed the second plane flying down the Hudson River in a similar manner before crashing into the World Trade Center on 9/11.

"The plane was moving very slowly and low, traveling south along the Hudson River. It looked like it was gliding at that point. It was flying very evenly and looked like it was coming in for landing. When it hit the river, there was a spray of water and it quickly pivoted sideways. The current was strong. It took less than five minutes for the ferry boats to get out there. Perhaps 10-15 minutes for the emergency vehicles and helicopters."

Mr. Fricklas said he saw no fire or smoke coming out of the plane before it hit the water.

Hypothermia Treated

Gabe Wilson, assistant medical director at St. Luke-Roosevelt in midtown Manhattan, said the hospital was treating 10 patients, 6 females and 4 males ranging in age from "early 20s to late 80s". He said they were all in good condition and the worst they were being treated for was hypothermia. He said he didn't expect any more patients tonight. "Twenty or 30 people being treated for hypothermia could easily overwhelm our resources, so it was a relief we didn't see that many," he said.

Helen Rodriguez, an emergency medical worker for six years, brought in a 23-year-old male. She said the man had been asleep on the plane but awoke to yelling and an apparent fire then the plane hit the water. He stripped naked because his clothes were weighing him down, she said. Once he was taken to an ambulance and covered in blankets he began to recover, she said. Ms. Rodriguez's partner, Mike Benny, who turned 37 today, also brought a survivor to the hospital. Mr. Benny had been one of the first responders to the crash site and said he was relieved to see the damage wasn't as bad as he expected.

—Jonathan Rockoff, Amir Efrati and Nathan Koppel and Kelly Evans


US Airways Crash: Statements From Passengers, Witnesses, Rescuers..

WITH MALAYSIAKINI: immaculate, the hero of Hudson

Immaculate,
unflappable and
ow the hero of Hudson
by James Bone

Chesley B Sullenberger and family

The unflappable pilot who landed his US Airways jet safely on the Hudson River in New York was described by a friend last night as one of the last American gentlemen.

Captain Chesley B “Sully” Sullenberger III, who guided the crippled US Airways Flight 1549 to an emergency landing in the river, just off Manhattan’s West 48th Street, was compared to David Niven.

Friends said they were not surprised that the courtly silver-haired aviator and crisis-management expert had saved the lives of all 155 people on board. His unprecedented feat of landing a commercial airliner on water without any loss of life has been dubbed “The Miracle on the Hudson”.

Captain Sullenberger’s wife, Lorrie, described last night how he called her to break the news, having pulled off one of the most dramatic escapes in aviation history. “There’s been an accident,” he told her, minutes after ditching his stricken Airbus A320 in the freezing river.

Both engines are believed to have been knocked out when the jet hit a flock of geese shortly after take-off from LaGuardia airport on Thursday.

After steering the aircraft away from heavily populated Manhattan, Captain Sullenberger glided the powerless jet down into the water intact, less than 300m from George Washington Bridge.

While the aircraft began to sink, Captain Sullenberger, 57, twice walked the length of the jet to ensure that all 150 passengers and four crew were off safely before leaving himself. Then he called his wife.

“At first I thought it was something minor, but then he told me the circumstances and my body started shaking and I rushed to get our daughters out of school,” Mrs Sullenberger, 50, said.

His wife, a fitness trainer, fought back tears of happiness as she described the shock on realising the scale of the incident. “My body won’t stop shaking. I think he’s fine. I’m relieved,” she said at home with her two daughters in Danville, California. “Like everyone else, I was stunned when he called. Your mind never goes through something like this.

“We’d just like to say that we are very grateful that everyone is off the airplane safely. And that was really what my husband asked me to convey to everyone.”

But she was not surprised that the former Air Force pilot with 40 years of flying experience should have played down his role. “I have said for a long time: he’s a pilot’s pilot and he loves the art of the airplane,” she said.

Mrs Sullenberger admitted that the family found it strange to hear the world calling her husband a hero. She said that when her two daughters went to sleep on Thursday night, “I could hear them talking, ‘Is this weird or what?’”

Captain Sullenberger was due to meet investigators yesterday as salvage crews brought in a crane to hoist the aircraft on to a barge from its mooring at Manhattan’s Battery Park City.

Only a wing tip could be seen jutting out of the water and divers were last night inspecting the jet, expected to be raised today. Until then, the black box, located in the semi-submerged tail, remained out of reach.

After radioing the control tower to report a “double bird strike”, Captain Sullenberger considered emergency landings at two airports, but told air controllers he would be unable to make them and instead took the decision to put the jet down in the river.

Experts praised his skill in landing the plane without either the nose or the wings ploughing into the water, which would have flipped the aircraft. Officials said the jet only suffered damage to one wing, allowing the fuselage to stay intact so that it did not flood completely.

Passengers scrambled out of the emergency exits at the front and over the wings, while leaving the rear exits closed to keep the water out. They waited knee-high in water on the wings or in inflatable life rafts until Manhattan-New Jersey ferries sped to their rescue.

Billy Campbell, a passenger who shared a rescue raft with the pilot, said: “I leaned over and grabbed his arm, and I said ‘I just want to thank you on behalf of all of us’. He just said, ‘You’re welcome’.”

Barry Leonard, a passenger who was travelling in the first row, said: “I got into the raft. But it obviously was very cold. One of the pilots gave me his shirt. The pilot gave me the shirt off his back to keep me warm.” He was speaking from his hospital bed, still clutching the pilot’s shirt.

Jeff Kolodjay, another passenger, from Norwalk, Connecticut, said: “The pilot told us to brace for impact and that pilot did one hell of a job making sure everyone, or the vast majority of people, got off.”

Brad Wentzell said: “He is the reason my daughter, my two-year-old, has a dad and my wife, a husband.”

A police officer said: “After the crash he was sitting there in the ferry terminal, wearing his hat, sipping his coffee and acting like nothing happened.”

Captain Sullenberger grew up in Texas, watching aircraft from the edge of a local airstrip and earned his pilot’s licence at the age of 14 while still in school. He joined US Airways in 1980 after serving as an F4 Phantom fighter pilot in the US Air Force for seven years. The head of a consulting company called Safety Reliability Methods, he also has a master’s degree in psychology and has acted as safety chairman of the pilots’ union.

Neighbours describe him as a devoted family man. The family takes part in charity walks and raises guide dogs for the blind.

Robert Bea, a close friend, said: “I think he is feeling tired. I think he is also feeling satisfied that he was able to actually do what he had prepared for during his life.”

President Bush praised the crew’s “skill and heroism” and Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, offered them the keys of the city.

Deadly risks of ditching

2005 Tuninter flight 1153 lost power after running out of fuel off Sicily. The plane was found in three pieces. Of 39 on board, 14 died

2000 Kenya Airways Flight 431 took off from Nairobi for Lagos but changed course owing to bad weather and flew to Abidjan. After a three-hour stop-off the plane took off for Lagos but crashed into the ocean a minute later. Only 10 passengers out of 179 survived

1998 Swiss Air Flight 111 landed in the Atlantic after a fire broke out at 33,000ft. All 229 people on board were killed

1996 An Ethiopian Boeing 727 had to make an emergency landing when it ran out of fuel after being hijacked off the coast of the Comoros. The pilot was landing the aircraft when a hijacker grabbed the controls, causing the plane’s wing tip to hit the water and spiral out of control. Out of 175 people on board, 125 were killed

1982 Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the River Potomac soon after take-off from Washington National Airport. It hit the 14th Street Bridge before landing in the river. The crew had failed to turn on anti-ice systems and had taken off using less power than they needed because of frozen instruments. Four died in cars on the bridge, 74 in the plane. Four passengers and one flight attendant survived.

[Immaculate, unflappable and now the hero of the Hudson
Times Online ]

STAKES WITH MALAYSIAKINI: trillion dollar US deficit

Whats at stake with Kuala Terengganu by election? We can discuss in Malaysiakini and come out with a long list. But trillion dollar deficit in US has caused ripples, and many think something worst could happen soon....

Lets see what
Reuters
got to say about
this massive deficits:

(Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama has said trillion-dollar U.S. budget deficits could stretch into the coming years -- a prospect that some worry could wreak havoc on the dollar, interest rates and the country's top-notch credit rating.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has also said the U.S. budget deficit will swell to a record $1.186 trillion in fiscal-year 2009 and come in at $703 billion in the 2010 fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2009.

The actual budget gaps for both years may be significantly wider as Washington prepares to jolt the economy with stimulus spending that could total $775 billion over two years.

Obama has promised a massive program of new public spending and tax cuts to pull the economy out of the current recession, likely to be the longest since the Great Depression.

The cost of ending the recession will be enormous deficits, potentially mortgaging the well-being of future generations, though some note that the United States has had to resort to huge borrowing when faced with such difficulties in the past.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, an Obama transition adviser, said Congress should not be wary of borrowing to pay for a stimulus, pointing out that U.S. debt at the end of the World War Two was more than 100 percent of gross domestic product.

The U.S. public debt is currently around 40 percent of GDP. Still, the trillion-dollar deficit milestone has forced some to consider how things could go wrong.

The following are several scenarios that could result from runaway budget deficits:

FALLING U.S. CREDIT RATINGS:

A string of trillion-dollar deficits could undermine investors' faith that the U.S. government always pays its debts and put in danger the country's triple-A credit ratings. This could lead foreign investors to shun U.S. Treasuries, the bonds the government sells on the open market to finance its borrowing. Treasuries are currently expensive by historic standards since the financial and economic turmoil of the past year has boosted their global appeal as a safe-haven investment. Serious danger to U.S. credit ratings could send the debt market downward and burst what some are calling a bond-market bubble.

SKY-HIGH INTEREST RATES:

A loss of faith in U.S. government bonds would send interest rates throughout the economy soaring since Treasuries serve as the benchmark for loans in the private sector. A rout in that market would dramatically lift the cost of borrowing for buying homes, cars and paying for university education. If it happens any time soon, this in turn would jeopardize the Federal Reserve's efforts to stabilize the ailing economy.

DUMP THE DOLLAR:

A crisis of confidence in U.S. debt would devastate the dollar. The world's reserve currency, the greenback is used globally by countries and companies to pay for a wide range of basic commodities, most notably oil. If investors dumped U.S. debt, they could do the same with the dollar. A dollar crisis might end its status as the preeminent currency of world commerce, deeply undermining its value and further raising the cost of borrowing for the United States.

SOARING INFLATION:

A plummeting dollar and sky-rocketing interest rates could push the inflation rate through the roof. The United States imports far more than it exports and would be hard pressed to pay for oil and manufactured goods it buys from abroad with the greenback's value withering. Currently, though, rapidly falling prices, or deflation, appears to be a much more imminent problem than the more distant prospect of inflation. Continued... [ SCENARIOS: What's at stake with trillion-dollar US deficits Reuters ]

beritadarigunung

Iraqi Cabinet agrees deal for US troop pullout by end of 2011

Iraq’s Cabinet today approved a deal with the United States that sets out a timetable for all US forces to leave the country within three years.

The text, which also allows Baghdad to order an inspection of any US aircraft or vehicle that it has reason to suspect of transporting unauthorised weapons or people in or out of Iraq, will be submitted to Parliament in the next 24 hours for a final vote.

It is unclear, however, whether MPs will give the status-of-forces agreement the green light, with some political factions opposed to any such accord and others demanding that the text be put to a public referendum.

In a sign of ongoing volatility on the ground, a suicide car bomb killed 15 people, including 7 policemen, and wounded 20 in a town north of Baghdad. The attack in Jalawla is the latest in a series of large bombings to rock Iraq in recent days.

Related Links

• Friends fight for ‘forgotten’ hostage in Iraq

• Metalheads defy Baghdad militias

• British to pull out by 2010, says Iraqi official

Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister, is confident that the security agreement will be ratified before a major religious holiday from November 25.

“All the bets are on getting the approval,” Mr Zebari told The Times.

The deal must be signed by the end of the year when a United Nations’ mandate authorising the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is due to expire.

Mr Zebari added: “We think it is a good agreement for Iraq and the United States and something that we will be able to defend.”

He was speaking after a one-and-a-half-hour Cabinet meeting, where the pact was discussed and passed by 27 of the Cabinet’s 37 members, nine were absent.

The decision is a major breakthrough in a process that has dragged on for months, with both US and Iraqi negotiators forced to make compromises.

In the latest hurdle, Iraqi ministers sent the text back to the US side last month, demanding a number of amendments. As a result, the final draft contains two key changes, according to Fawzi Hariri, Minister for Industry and Minerals.

Firstly, the deadline for the withdrawal of some 146,000 US troops from Iraq is set for December 31, 2011. Soldiers will also pull out of towns and cities to larger bases outside these urban areas by next summer.

Secondly, the accord will enable a joint US-Iraqi team to co-ordinate an inspection of any US military vehicle that the Iraqi Government has reason to suspect is being used to move unauthorised entities, such as weapons or people.

“If we have intelligence that things are being smuggled in or out of the country, or persons are being taken in or out unauthorized … then the US side will agree for an inspection,” Mr Hariri told The Times.

Among other tricky areas, the accord gives Iraq the right to try US soldiers in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base. It also prohibits the US from using Iraqi territory to attack neighbouring countries such as Iran and Syria.

Mr Hariri was very upbeat on the passage of the document through the Cabinet and said he was “quietly confident” it will be approved by Parliament

“It is a great day for the standing of the new Iraq and the new democratically elected system of Government,” said the minister, a Kurd.

“We were occupied in 2003 and today we made an agreement with the occupying force under international law to depart our country having contributed to the stability of the country and the economy.”

It remains to be seen whether the draft will pass through the 275-strong Parliament, but it is sure to generate a lively debate.

Abdulkareem al-Samarrai, a senior member of the Sunni Muslim al-Tawafuq bloc said: “I believe there will be strong discussions about the agreement because the Parliament is not the same as the Cabinet … There are many blocs in the Parliament and not all of them have members in the Cabinet."

His political group wants the public to vote on whether or not to accept the pact in a referendum. “This agreement will affect Iraq for a long period, so it should be the people who decide their fate,” he added.

In contrast, Hadi al-Ameri, leader of the Badr organisation, one of the main Shia Muslim groups in the ruling coalition, said this week Iraqi politicians felt it would be easier to accept the pact after the election of Barack Obama, who favours withdrawal.

Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric, however, remain opposed to the accord. Iran, which wields influence in Iraq, is also against it.

Failure to approve the pact by the end of the year will force the Iraqi Government to return to the United Nations Security Council to request an emergency extension of the troop mandate.

Britain must also sign an accord with Iraq on the status of its 4,100-strong contingent largely based in the south of the country.

Iraqi Cabinet agrees deal for US troop pullout by end of 2011
Times Online

Auto bailout backers offer to cut $25 billion size

WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing an uphill battle in Congress and stiff opposition from President George W. Bush, supporters of a government bailout for the sinking U.S. auto industry are offering to reduce its $25 billion size.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, battered by an economic meltdown that has choked their sales and frozen credit, are lobbying lawmakers furiously for an emergency infusion of cash. GM has warned it might not survive through year's end without a government lifeline.

Other auto suppliers and dealers with showrooms empty of customers plan to join the effort Monday when Congress returns following the Nov. 4 elections. The key Senate vote on preventing opponents from blocking the package could occur as early as Wednesday.

"There's a need for immediate action,'' Alan Reuther, the United Auto Workers union's legislative director, said Friday. He said one option under consideration was a smaller, more targeted amount of funding "that would get the companies through to March.''

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, said negotiations were taking place among senators on what the amount should be. "This is about getting enough votes to be able to solve the problem,'' she said.

Democrats want to carve a portion of the $700 billion that the Bush administration is using to bail out banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

The White House on Friday came out firmly against the approach.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration would rather Congress expedite the release of a separate $25 billion loan program for the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and have the loans used for more urgent purposes as the companies struggle to stay afloat.

"Democrats are choosing a path that would only lead to partisan gridlock,'' Perino said.

Environmentalists and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have vehemently opposed using that money for anything other than designing and building vehicles that get higher gas mileage and produce less pollution.

Democrats hold a 37-seat majority in the House and bailout supporters foresee little difficulty winning its passage there.

But the measure needs 60 votes to survive in the Senate, where Democrats will hold a razor-thin 50-49 majority when President-elect Barack Obama gives up his seat on Monday. A furious search was on for a dozen Republicans to break the anticipated delaying tactics from opponents.

Democrats are modeling their bill on the bailout terms that the Bush administration has used for doling out $290 billion to banks and insurance companies. The government would get an ownership stake in the auto companies in exchange for the loans to ensure that taxpayers would get their money back if they return to profitability.

Several Republican senators have already lined up against it. "Like most Americans who are concerned about the direction of our economy and more federal spending, I must also ask - when is enough, enough?'' said Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Two Republican senators have said they will back the plan and several others have signaled they might accept a rescue if strict conditions are put on U.S. automakers, such as management and salary changes, union concessions and a commitment to making more fuel-efficient vehicles.

However, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said workers will not make any more concessions. He said it is unfair to call on workers to make more sacrifices, noting that previous cuts workers have agreed to have helped steady their employers.

Getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy, the union leader said. "The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,'' Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control _ the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.

"We're here not because of what the auto industry has done,'' he said. "We're here because of what has happened to the economy.''-AP

USA elections: Impact on Southeast Asia

Ashwini Devare, Contributor, Singapore

The fine sand is accelerating through the hourglass as the U.S. presidential race enters into the homestretch. With both candidates locked in a dead heat, the drama and ballyhoo in the world's largest economy has the rest of the world in a state of heightened anticipation.

Against the backdrop of what is being termed as the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the denouement of the race is of utmost significance. Irrespective of the theory of decoupling, what transpires in the United States will have far-reaching implications for the rest of the world, including Southeast Asia.

With a population of about 560 million, Southeast Asia is a kaleidoscope of cultures and ethnicities, encompassing communist Vietnam to capitalist Singapore. Over the past few years, the region has emerged as a vibrant and dynamic hub, bursting with trade and business activity.

As of 2006, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had a combined gross domestic product of over US$1,100 billion and a total trade of about US$1,400 billion. With the emergence of ASEAN as an important political and economic body on the world stage, there are many expectations and much optimism about furthering the U.S.-ASEAN relationship and taking it to the next level.

This is something that U.S. President George W. Bush has failed to do during his eight-year term, says Professor T. J Pempel, professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. Bush bungled Asia, he says. "The United States under George Bush has seen a decline and demise in its importance in Asia," Pempel argues. "Under Bush's reign, the relationship with Southeast Asia was marginalized as U.S. foreign policy became driven by Iraq, Afghanistan and dominated by ideology. It is the excessive militarization of U.S. foreign policy that has hurt relations."

Over the last four decades, the United States has enjoyed a long, undisputable economic and military position in Asia. During the Cold War, Asia was the arc of stability for its sphere of influence and a bulwark against communism which the United States reinforced through a series of strategic and regional alliances. Security became the paramount geopolitical interest for it under its Cold War containment policy.

It was in 1967, at the height of the Cold War when the Vietnam War was raging, that ASEAN was conceived and founded. The emergence of a pro-western grouping in Southeast Asia was a welcome development for the United States which extended its full support to the newly formed entity.

Following the end of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S.-Southeast Asian economic relationship blossomed as the tiger economies across the region boomed. Relatively free from military conflict, Southeast Asia saw an extraordinary transformation through the 1970s and 1980s on the back of market reforms and export-led growth.

Early fissures began to appear in the relationship during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 to 1998 when the United States was perceived as insensitive in its perception and handling of the crisis. Post 9/11, the its preoccupation with fighting terrorism resulted in a reduced focus on Southeast Asia. U.S.-ASEAN relations took a dip when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice skipped the ASEAN Regional Forum three years ago. While Myanmar remains an occasional flashpoint that attracts U.S. attention, by and large it has became more remote and removed from the region.

Professor Pempel says this so-called indifference has actually been a blessing in disguise for Southeast Asia. Far from suffering from a lack of U.S. attention, the region has in fact thrived, with new bilateral and multilateral alliances sprouting right in its own backyard.

Southeast Asia has proactively courted economic giants China and India, accelerating trade and business ties with both. ASEAN has concluded a plethora of free trade agreements, including those with China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand, and the region is becoming more interlinked than ever before.

Experts also point to the fact that the United States is no longer part of many of the important regional groupings in Asia. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization which includes China and Russia was started in 2001 and does not include it; ASEAN+3 includes the 10 Southeast Asian nations plus Japan, China and Korea. The East Asia Summit is another regional forum which began in 2005 and includes ASEAN, China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.

Experts say the U.S. disinterest in Southeast Asia has paved the way for the other economic juggernaut to spread its footprint across the region. Dr. Kesavapany, Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore says: "It is not so much the decline of USA as the relative rise of China in economic and soft power terms, as well as the astute Chinese diplomacy and its charm offensive in Southeast Asia. The United States also suffered from negative international Muslim sentiments arising from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq."

But Dr. Kesavapany adds it is also up to ASEAN to enhance ties with the United States. "There is a long queue of countries and regions wanting the attention of the new U.S. Administration which hopefully will not be distracted by new crises, such as any with N. Korea, Iran or Russia. Southeast Asia is not a front-burner issue for the USA. ASEAN should also creatively and proactively suggest some areas where USA and ASEAN can cooperate closely -- in energy or climate change, for example."

The U.S. diminishing interest in Southeast Asia coincides with its falling status in the region. According to the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey published by the Washington, DC-based think tank in which over 47 countries are surveyed, anti-Americanism is as extensive as it has been for the past five years. The report shows that the U.S. image has taken a battering in most Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia. In Indonesia, for example, the report points out positive opinions of Americans have fallen from 65% in 2002 to 42% last year.

The United States cannot afford to neglect one of the world's most dynamic areas. The new administration will have to revisit its policy toward Asia and resurrecting its image will certainly have to be top priority. Which candidate will have better synergy with this part of the world is a question on the minds of many Asians these days, as the presidential blitzkrieg roars to the finish line. Both candidates have a connection with Asia.

Senator McCain was a naval pilot during the Vietnam War who spent five years imprisoned in Hanoi. As a senator he consistently pushed for improved relations between the United States and Vietnam. Both McCain and Obama have pledged to reinvigorate alliances in Asia and with ASEAN.

Some believe if Senator Obama becomes president, he will be more sensitive to Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia. The importance of Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world and the biggest in Southeast Asia, cannot be eschewed and there is a view that Senator Obama is better positioned to appreciate its diversity.

An archipelago made up of over 17,000 islands stretching across some 5,000 kilometers, Indonesia is a country most Americans have little knowledge of and if not for Obama, would have continued to escape its radar completely. By dint of an old childhood connection, he shone a spotlight on the country during the campaign.

As a young boy, the democratic presidential nominee spent a few years in Jakarta attending local schools. This childhood connection was undoubtedly brief, but it still remains an irrevocable piece of his early life. An Indonesian stepfather, Indonesian half-sister and the fact that his white American mother went on to study anthropology, focusing on the traditional artisan culture of Indonesia, is what gave the Obama factor an exotic appeal in the early days of the campaign, when Obamamania engulfed the United States like a huge tidal wave.

In fact, Obama has said his early exposure to multiethnic cultures and societies such as Indonesia and Hawaii played a key role in shaping his political and social outlook in the years to come.

The current global financial maelstrom has sucked Southeast Asia right in, arguably mitigating the decoupling theory. The destinies of the United States and ASEAN countries remain closely intertwined, whether they like it or not.

It remains one of ASEAN's biggest export markets and the largest foreign investor in the region. It cannot afford to turn its back to Southeast Asia, a region uniquely complex and diverse.

Politics is taking center stage in Thailand and Malaysia, Vietnam is battling double-digit inflation, and Myanmar is a hotbed of unpredictability. Thailand's southern provinces remain highly inflammable and Indonesia is vulnerable to terror elements as is the Philippines. Singapore is on the brink of a technical recession with exports in August falling the most in 20 months. Slowing economic growth and high inflation are a lethal combination, the spectre of which could haunt many as the economic malaise continues to spread.

At this very critical juncture, having a U.S. president who is committed to Southeast Asia is not merely wishful thinking, but a sine qua non.

SOURCE: USA elections: Impact on Southeast Asia
Jakarta Post, Indonesia

Pakistan on the flight path of American power

Bush’s War Widens Dangerously

Tariq Ali

The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval of the Pakistani government ends a long debate within, and on the periphery of, the Bush administration. Senator Barack Obama, aware of this ongoing debate during his own long battle with Hillary Clinton, tried to outflank her by supporting a policy of U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Senator John McCain and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin have now echoed this view and so it has become, by consensus, official U.S. policy. Its effects on Pakistan could be catastrophic, creating a severe crisis within the army and in the country at large. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to the U.S. presence in the region, viewing it as the most serious threat to peace.

Why, then, has the U.S. decided to destabilize a crucial ally? Within Pakistan, some analysts argue that this is a carefully coordinated move to weaken the Pakistani state yet further by creating a crisis that extends way beyond the badlands on the frontier with Afghanistan. Its ultimate aim, they claim, would be the extraction of the Pakistani military’s nuclear fangs. If this were the case, it would imply that Washington was indeed determined to break up the Pakistani state, since the country would very simply not survive a disaster on that scale. In my view, however, the expansion of the war relates far more to the Bush administration’s disastrous occupation in Afghanistan. It is hardly a secret that the regime of President Hamid Karzai is becoming more isolated with each passing day, as Taliban guerrillas move ever closer to Kabul.

When in doubt, escalate the war is an old imperial motto. The strikes against Pakistan represent — like the decisions of President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger to bomb and then invade Cambodia (acts that, in the end, empowered Pol Pot and his monsters) — a desperate bid to salvage a war that was never good, but has now gone badly wrong.

It is true that those resisting the NATO occupation cross the Pakistan-Afghan border with ease. However, the U.S. has often engaged in quiet negotiations with them. Several feelers have been put out to the Taliban in Pakistan, while U.S. intelligence experts regularly check into the Serena Hotel in Swat to discuss possibilities with Mullah Fazlullah, a local pro-Taliban leader. The same is true inside Afghanistan. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, a whole layer of the Taliban’s middle-level leadership crossed the border into Pakistan to regroup and plan for what lay ahead. By 2003, their guerrilla factions were starting to harass the occupying forces in Afghanistan and, during 2004, they began to be joined by a new generation of local recruits, by no means all jihadists, who were being radicalized by the occupation itself.

Though, in the world of the Western media, the Taliban has been entirely conflated with al-Qaeda, most of their supporters are, in fact, driven by quite local concerns. If NATO and the U.S. were to leave Afghanistan, their political evolution would most likely parallel that of Pakistan’s domesticated Islamists.

The neo-Taliban now control at least twenty Afghan districts in Kandahar, Helmand, and Uruzgan provinces. It is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. Though often characterized as a rural jacquerie they have won significant support in southern towns and they even led a Tet-style offensive in Kandahar in 2006. Elsewhere, mullahs who had initially supported President Karzai’s allies are now railing against the foreigners and the government in Kabul. For the first time, calls for jihad against the occupation are even being heard in the non-Pashtun northeast border provinces of Takhar and Badakhshan.

The neo-Taliban have said that they will not join any government until "the foreigners" have left their country, which raises the question of the strategic aims of the United States. Is it the case, as NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer suggested to an audience at the Brookings Institution earlier this year, that the war in Afghanistan has little to do with spreading good governance in Afghanistan or even destroying the remnants of al-Qaeda? Is it part of a master plan, as outlined by a strategist in NATO Review in the Winter of 2005, to expand the focus of NATO from the Euro-Atlantic zone, because "in the 21st century NATO must become an alliance… designed to project systemic stability beyond its borders"?

As that strategist went on to write: "The centre of gravity of power on this planet is moving inexorably eastward. As it does, the nature of power itself is changing. The Asia-Pacific region brings much that is dynamic and positive to this world, but as yet the rapid change therein is neither stable nor embedded in stable institutions. Until this is achieved, it is the strategic responsibility of Europeans and North Americans, and the institutions they have built, to lead the way… [S]ecurity effectiveness in such a world is impossible without both legitimacy and capability." Such a strategy implies a permanent military presence on the borders of both China and Iran. Given that this is unacceptable to most Pakistanis and Afghans, it will only create a state of permanent mayhem in the region, resulting in ever more violence and terror, as well as heightened support for jihadi extremism, which, in turn, will but further stretch an already over-extended empire.

Globalizers often speak as though U.S. hegemony and the spread of capitalism were the same thing. This was certainly the case during the Cold War, but the twin aims of yesteryear now stand in something closer to an inverse relationship. For, in certain ways, it is the very spread of capitalism that is gradually eroding U.S. hegemony in the world. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s triumph in Georgia was a dramatic signal of this fact. The American push into the Greater Middle East in recent years, designed to demonstrate Washington’s primacy over the Eurasian powers, has descended into remarkable chaos, necessitating support from the very powers it was meant to put on notice.

Pakistan’s new, indirectly elected President, Asif Zardari, the husband of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto and a Pakistani "godfather" of the first order, indicated his support for U.S. strategy by inviting Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai to attend his inauguration, the only foreign leader to do so. Twinning himself with a discredited satrap in Kabul may have impressed some in Washington, but it only further decreased support for the widower Bhutto in his own country.

The key in Pakistan, as always, is the army. If the already heightened U.S. raids inside the country continue to escalate, the much-vaunted unity of the military High Command might come under real strain. At a meeting of corps commanders in Rawalpindi on September 12th, Pakistani Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani received unanimous support for his relatively mild public denunciation of the recent U.S. strikes inside Pakistan in which he said the country’s borders and sovereignty would be defended "at all costs".

Saying, however, that the Army will safeguard the country’s sovereignty is different from doing so in practice. This is the heart of the contradiction. Perhaps the attacks will cease on November 4th. Perhaps pigs (with or without lipstick) will fly. What is really required in the region is an American/NATO exit strategy from Afghanistan, which should entail a regional solution involving Pakistan, Iran, India, and Russia. These four states could guarantee a national government and massive social reconstruction in that country. No matter what, NATO and the Americans have failed abysmally.

source: The American War Moves to Pakistan
International Viewpoint, UK

The Business of Politics

Talk about mixing business and politics; they’re practically married now. As the debate surrounding the federal government’s proposed $700 billion bailout rages, it is interesting to note who’s in the loop.

Each of the two presidential candidates have taken time during campaign stops and interviews to discuss their views and perspectives on the crisis in the financial services industry. We’re not here to debate who’s right and who’s wrong.

What’s fascinating is that both candidates were at the White House yesterday in the room with Congressional leaders and others, debating and negotiating their way to what -- as of this morning -- is a stalemate.

Neither candidate is a member of a banking- or financial services-related committee in the Senate. Neither has a background in the financial services industry. Their participation in the meeting was solely due to their candidacies for president.

That leads to this question: To what extent should they be involved in crafting a bailout program for the banking industry, outside of incorporating their solutions into their platforms?

source: The Business of Politics
BankInnovation.net, NY

Recklessness in a dangerous time

In our opinion

09-27-2008

In the wake of the turbulent events of the last few days, a moment of unhappy reflection is necessary.

A large amount of uncertainty gripped the markets, lawmakers and the American people this week. It was and still is an unsettling time.

And during times of national crisis — make no mistake we are in one — Americans look for strong leadership that can compel the public and decision-makers to be reasonable and pragmatic.

Normally, we look to the president, but unfortunately George W. Bush does not have the power or the credibility to lead us through any event, especially a challenge as monumental as this one. So the torch had to pass to members of Congress, to party leaders and to congressional committee chairs.

It is hard to fully celebrate any of them, but Democratic leaders seemed to do what they could, within the constraints they were dealing with. There was, from an early stage, a consensus to pass a bill with a number of key provisions with an emphasis on helping homeowners, strong oversight and limits on executive pay. But there was also, from the beginning, a clear understanding articulated by Democrats that they would not go this alone.

They insisted on cover, if you will, from Republicans. The Democrats were right to say that they were not going to absorb all the blame that was primarily the making of the peddlers of laissez-faire economics within the GOP and the White House.

Give credit to members of the president's staff for working with the Democrats and many Senate Republicans.

The failure and the recklessness, then, came from a specific corner of the other side.

We speak here not just of Sen. John McCain's political maneuver to "suspend" his campaign to return to Washington only to throw a monkey wrench in the cogs of a developing deal, but a widespread revolt in the House among some 100 conservative Republicans against a compromise measure developed by leaders of both parties and members of President Bush's team.

This group of GOP representatives pulled stunt after stunt as the markets continued to gyrate, as the credit markets continued to dry up, as the very fabric of the American economic system — right down to the hometown independent bank — was beginning to look imperiled.

The GOP House leader showed up at one key White House meeting on Thursday with the presidential candidates, only to drop the bombshell that he didn't have the support of the majority of his members. This seemed a surprise to everyone, except John McCain, who decided to keep that bit of information to himself.

Ranking Republicans in the Senate and the House darted in and out of committee meetings announcing they were there as observers, or only there to represent themselves or only as a representative of some faction or another.

It was all fun and games at the circus when the town was on fire. It was unacceptable, ridiculous, embarrassing and dangerous.

But most of all it was political.

At the end of the week, it be-came clear that the princes of free-market economics represented by this group of House members were intending to use this national emergency as an opportunity to define their faction of the party.

This, they were shouting as the sirens were screaming, is what the GOP will stand for in the future: no government intervention in the economy and no regulation. We are the party of Reagan, they bellowed.

Nevermind that they are the party that has long advocated the disastrous policies that led to this in the first place.

Here, then, is the slogan of these House members and their new enabler, John McCain: Party First.

source: Recklessness in a dangerous time
Anniston Star

A Question of Leadership

Andrew Romano

What if John McCain's "amazing gambit"--suspending his campaign, calling off Friday's debate and inviting Barack Obama to return to Washington with him to work on the economic crisis--ends not with a bang but a whimper?

That's the way it's looking right now. When McCain delivered his surprise announcement here in New York yesterday afternoon, both he and the Democratic Party were quick to say that the Treasury's $700 billion bailout bill was in grave danger of collapsing. For McCain, "it ha[d] become clear that no consensus ha[d] developed to support the Administration's proposal" and that the nation was "running out of time." For the Dems, McCain's return to Washington "risk[ed] injecting presidential politics into this process" and delaying the legislation. Of course, this was pure political posturing. McCain wanted to appear as if he were rescuing America from a dire situation. The Democrats wanted it to appear as if he were creating one.

But the truth is, the legislation itself was approaching the finish line by the time McCain dropped his bombshell. "By 2:00 p.m. yesterday," writes the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, "the House and Senate Democrats had settled their most important differences, the White House had caved on CEO pays, and the two sides were coming close to dealing with the bailout's oversight mechanism, its posture toward homeowners, and whether taxpayers would get ownership stakes in taken-over companies." Given that, it's somewhat ludicrous for McCain to claim--as he did again this morning in speech at the Clinton Global Initiative--that "no consensus has developed" and that "the plan on the table will [not] pass." That's simply not true. In fact, many of McCain's "five fundamental improvements"--oversight, CEO pay--have already been adopted. According to reports from the Hill, the most likely sequence of events for today is that Republican and Democratic congressional leaders--who are convening this morning (without McCain) to hammer the details--will present a consensus framework to be ratified at the unprecedented White House meeting between President Bush, Obama, McCain and top negotiators scheduled for 4:00 p.m.

At this point, McCain would have two choices: either sign off on the framework or, citing pet provisions left on the cutting room floor, announce that he will oppose the bill until it meets his exact specifications. The latter scenario is possible. The Senate Democratic leadership reportedly fears that McCain will vote "no"--defying Bush and "standing with" the American people, who remain skeptical of the bailout--in an attempt to burnish his "maverick" brand. But that maneuver carries such significant risks--not the least of which is being seen as deliberately destroying (for his own political posturing) a fragile bipartisan compromise that's crucial to the nation's economic security--that I suspect McCain take the safer route: acquiesce at the White House, vote "yes" on the legislation and fly to Oxford, Miss. in time for Friday night's debate.

Hence the whimper. Of course, McCain will try to argue that a) he helped seal the deal and b) improved the flawed Bush legislation to guard taxpayers. But the chronology--which shows that Congress and the White House were already nearing an agreement when McCain parachuted in--will contradict him. As House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said yesterday, "now that we’re on the verge of making a deal, John McCain drops himself in to make a deal." The only accurate argument available to McCain will be that the potentially polarizing effects of his presence "lit a fire under the behinds of Democratic negotiators," pushing them to meet today's 4:00 p.m. deadline--which, incidentally, was set by Bush. In other words, McCain's actual involvement will be entirely symbolic--a gesture rather than an accomplishment.

In all likelihood, the bill will pass. The candidates will debate. And business as usual will resume. Does this mean that voters should simply forget McCain's startling maneuver? Hardly. It may not result in any real consequences--positive or negative--but the Arizona senator's decision (and Obama's reaction) has provided us with the clearest window to date on their contrasting styles of leadership. Neither candidate did, said or proposed anything that actually helped solve the problem at hand. But their individual instincts were on display. Half-submerged in a political quagmire of economic uncertainty and dismal polling, McCain discarded the rules of the road and made a dramatic, unorthodox move that sent a unmistakable message but showed little concern for logistics on the ground. Meanwhile, Obama remained dispassionate, sticking to his talking points--here are my improvements; the debate must go on--and staying in Florida until summoned to Washington by the president.

Views on the candidates in crisis will differ. It's like a Rorschach Test of presidential leadership. Some will see McCain's response as bold, assertive, unconventional and impassioned. Indeed, the former fighter pilot's "need for speed" may be one reason he's leading among Independents--who are angrier than ever at Washington and may appreciate McCain's "mad as hell" attitude--by an astonishing 14 points (up from six earlier this month) in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Others will see McCain's response as gimmicky, reckless, impulsive and opportunistic. "An affront to American voters," carped the Washington Post's Harold Meyerson. "McCain's ploy was transparent." Likewise, Obama's reaction will strike some voters as steady, strong, rational and pragmatic. The aforementioned NBC/WSJ survey, for instance, shows that a majority of voters now agree that the Illinois senator could handle a military crisis well as president--a possible product of his confidence and certainty in the face of the Wall Street meltdown. Others, however, will see him as passive, detached, conventional and cautious.

Predictably, many of these disagreements will break along party lines. C'est la vie politique. The question going forward is what portion of the tiny segment of the populace still unsure which candidate they'll support on Nov. 4 will prefer McCain's style of leadership--as currently on display, and as reinforced over the next 40 days--to Obama's. More than anything else, the answer will determine our next president.

source: A Question of Leadership
Newsweek

The Lehman Bankruptcy , The New York Times.

The Lehman Bankruptcy
The New York Times reports on the collapse of the investment bank.

Lehman Brothers was founded in 1850 by two cotton brokers in Montgomery, Ala. The firm moved to New York City after the Civil War and grew into one of Wall Street's investment giants, despite period brushes with death. On Sept. 14, 2008, the investment bank announced that it would file for liquidation after huge losses in the mortgage market and a loss of investor confidence crippled it and it was unable to find a buyer.

Lehman's slow collapse began as the mortgage market crisis unfolded in the summer of 2007, when its stock began a steady fall from a peak of $82 a share. The fears were based on the fact that the firm was a major player in the market for subprime and prime mortgages, and that as the smallest of the major Wall Street firms, it faced a larger risk that large losses could be fatal.

As the crisis deepened in 2007 and early 2008, the storied investment bank defied expectations more than once, just it had many times before, as in 1998, when it seemed to teeter after a worldwide currency crisis, only to rebound strongly.

Lehman managed to avoid the fate of Bear Stearns, the other of Wall Street's small fry, which was bought by JP Morgan Chase at a bargain basement price under the threat of bankruptcy. Lehman and Bear Stearns had a number of similarities. Both had relatively small balance sheets, they were heavily dependent on the mortgage market, and they relied heavily on the “repo” or repurchase market, most often used as a short-term financing tool.

But by the summer of 2008 the rollercoaster ride started to have more downs than ups. A series of writeoffs was accompanied by new offerings to seek capital to bolster its finances.

Read More...

WaMu is largest U.S. bank failure

Thursday's seizure and sale is the latest historic step in U.S. government attempts to clean up a banking industry littered with toxic mortgage debt. Negotiations over a $700 billion bailout of the entire financial system stalled in Washington on Thursday.

Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan, has been one of the lenders hardest hit by the nation's housing bust and credit crisis, and had already suffered from soaring mortgage losses.

source: U.S. largest bank failure ever

Financial Crisis Offers a Study in Leadership Styles

By Dan Balz
What kind of leadership do Americans want in their president?

Do they prefer the MBA-style of President Bush, who delegated management of the economic crisis to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson until he could not avoid a prime-time address to the nation, and then warned of dire consequences if the government does not act?

Do they prefer the brashness of John McCain, who on Tuesday talked as if he were prepared to scuttle a deal on a rescue package and then on Wednesday abruptly suspended his campaign and elbowed his way into the middle of things in an effort to galvanize negotiators to reach a solution?

Do they prefer the cool and reserved style of Barack Obama, who has monitored the crisis without interrupting his campaign, offered guidelines for what would be an acceptable deal, but who has seemed willing to let the process in Washington play out without direct intervention on his part?

What was clear from the start of the general election was the wide philosophical gulf between Obama and McCain. On virtually every issue, from Iraq to taxes to health care to energy, the differences in their views were stark. Voters could see that the outcome of the election would have a profound impact on the direction the next president would try to take the country.

But over the course of the past week, it's become equally clear that there is a significant difference between McCain and Obama in their leadership styles. Those differences have been on display over the past few days, especially during the chaotic and unexpected developments on Wednesday that produced Thursday's White House meeting, with McCain and Obama in attendance.

McCain, speaking Thursday morning at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York before returning to Washington, called for Democrats and Republicans to set aside politics and solve the crisis now. But both campaigns understand the very obvious political implications of the drama unfolding around the negotiating tables in the capital and along the campaign trail.

Voters are gaining new insights into how these two nominees might act if they were actually in the White House. The presidential debates are intended to provided side-by-side comparisons of the two candidates and presumably they will go forward, if not exactly on schedule. But the financial crisis provides a real-time laboratory for understanding the approaches of the two nominees.

Obama has been more measured and less passionate. McCain, since declaring the fundamentals of the economy strong in his first utterance, has been increasingly outspoken.

Obama has blamed the policies and philosophy of the Republicans for allowing the innate greed of Wall Street to run amok. McCain has blamed greed and corruption itself. McCain has seen the crisis in terms of good and evil -- well, mostly evil. Obama has looked at systemic causes. McCain asked for heads to roll. Obama argued that a change in administrations is the real solution.

Neither can be seen as an obstacle to a solution, but has either truly contributed to a one? Obama advisers argue that their candidate worked cooperatively with Paulson as the administration was preparing its rescue plan and with congressional Democrats in formulating objections to what the initial package included. That, they say, has helped push both sides closer to resolution.

McCain's actions have certainly appeared more impetuous. Was it necessary to declare his campaign in suspension and recommend a postponement of Friday's debate to get the attention of the president and the negotiators? With congressional Republicans moving to oppose the package, his advisers would argue that only a forceful intervention could produce a package acceptable enough to pass.

Obama's moves have drawn less direct criticism, though McCain and the Republicans have argued that he has been unwilling to commit himself at key points over the past 10 days -- a charge Obama's advisers reject.

Ironically, Obama and McCain are now very close together on the terms of a deal. In this case, policy differences appear minimal. Both want independent oversight of how the Treasury secretary would buy up and then resell devalued securities. Both want the taxpayers to share in any profits. Both want Wall Street executives not to profit excessively. Both say the rescue package should be a first step toward revamping the regulation of the financial industry.

But the two are now playing brinksmanship over the crisis, with McCain calling for a delay in Friday's presidential debate until there is agreement on a package and Obama arguing there is no need to stop all campaign activity. Speaking by satellite to the Clinton global forum after McCain, Obama said he would go to Washington Thursday to meet with McCain and others at the White House, but vowed to be in Oxford, Miss., on Friday night for the debate.

McCain has certainly taken the bigger risk, but Obama's course is not risk-free. These events are yet to play out, but the public will have plenty to judge these two nominees on by the time the weekend is over. These are not two politicians who would operate out of the Oval Office in similar ways. Philosophically, stylistically and temperamentally, Americans have a real choice in November.

source: Financial Crisis Offers a Study in Leadership Styles
Washington Post, United States

Some hints of leadership quality do lie in the past

History offers examples of life experiences serving as a useful guide to presidents.

By STEVE ANDREASEN

Last update: September 21, 2008 - 5:13 PM

Airline pilot: Excuse me, Captain. This may seem silly, but can you fly?

"Dirty Harry" Callahan: Nope. Never had a lesson.

-- "MAGNUM FORCE," 1973

John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has sparked another election-year debate over experience on the presidential ticket. Palin is not the first candidate to undergo the experience gauntlet. Barack Obama's Democratic primary opponents -- including his running mate, Joe Biden -- questioned his experience for the top job, and indeed, Obama's choice of Biden added credentials to the Democratic ticket. Scrolling back through recent elections, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter all were accused of not having the right background for running the country.

The experience question is now squarely on the public's radar. In short, does the person and his or her background matter most, or are other factors as important, if not more, in predicting success?

History is full of examples of how life and work experiences play a major role in how presidents govern, and in particular how they manage the inevitable crises that come across their desks. President Dwight Eisenhower, when confronted with the recommendation from military advisers and Vice President Richard Nixon to intervene with nuclear weapons to save French forces in Vietnam, responded, "You boys must be crazy." He said to the Joint Chiefs: "I want you to carry this question home with you: Gain such a victory, and what do you do with it?" Ike's military background -- as well as his contemporary knowledge of the devastation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings -- gave him the perspective to stare down his own generals.

source: Some hints of leadership quality do lie in the past
Minneapolis Star Tribune, MN

Iranian president blames US for market collapse

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran's president blamed U.S. military interventions around the world in part for the collapse of global financial markets ahead of his speech Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also said the campaign against his country's nuclear program was solely due to the Bush administration ``and a couple of their European friends.''

``The U.S. government has made a series of mistakes in the past few decades,'' Ahmadinejad said an interview with the Los Angeles Times. ``The imposition on the U.S. economy of the years of heavy military engagement and involvement around the world ... the war in Iraq, for example. These are heavy costs imposed on the U.S. economy.

``The world economy can no longer tolerate the budgetary deficit and the financial pressures occurring from markets here in the United States, and by the U.S. government,'' he added.

full report here: Iranian president blames US for market collapse
guardian.co.uk

Cheney slams Russia over war against Georgia

By STEVE GUTTERMAN – 1 hour ago

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — Demonstrating Washington's commitment to beleaguered Georgia, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney flew in Thursday and condemned Russia for what he called an "illegitimate, unilateral attempt" to redraw Georgia's borders by force.

Speaking during a closely watched trip to this U.S.-allied South Caucasus nation, Cheney also assured Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili that the United States was "fully committed" to his country's efforts to join NATO.

"Georgia will be in our alliance," Cheney said.

One of the U.S. administration's most hawkish figures and a longtime critic of Russia, Cheney was visiting three ex-Soviet republics that are nervous about Moscow's intentions — Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine.

His trip signaled to Moscow that the United States will continue to cultivate close ties with Georgia and its neighbors even after Russia showed it was not afraid to use its military against countries along its border.

"America will do its duty to work with the governments of Georgia and our other friends and allies to protect our common interests and to uphold our values," Cheney said in a joint appearance with Saakashvili.

"Russia's actions have cast grave doubts on Russia's intentions and on its reliability as an international partner," Cheney added.

He told Saakashvili that the United States was at Georgia's side "as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory and an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force, that has been universally condemned by the free world."

On the eve of Cheney's arrival, the White House announced a $1 billion commitment to help the small but strategically located nation recover from its war with Russia.

"The free world cannot allow the destiny of a small independent country to be determined by the aggression of a larger neighbor," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington.

In his remarks Thursday, Cheney also thanked Georgia for sending troops to Iraq. Georgia has been the third largest contributor of troops to the U.S.-led operation there.

"Now it is the responsibility of the free world to rally to the side of Georgia," Cheney said

Saakashvili, meanwhile, said Georgia was committed to a peaceful resolution of its disputes with the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia, which has given military, political and financial support to the two areas, has recognized both as independent nations.

A day earlier in Azerbaijan, Cheney said Washington has "a deep and abiding interest" in the region's stability. Georgia hosts a critical oil pipeline that brings 1 million barrels a day from the Caspian Sea shores to Turkey, and on to Western Europe.

Cheney planned to make the massive U.S. aid package a major highlight of his meetings in Tbilisi, but it will likely leave unanswered the question of potential U.S. aid to rebuild Georgia's military.

Since the war in Georgia in early August, Russia has boldly asserted it has what President Dmitry Medvedev called "privileged interests" in its sphere of influence, which includes the former Soviet states in the Caucasus.

Military aid from the United States, with the help of some Western European countries, was key to transforming the Georgian army and navy from their ragged post-Soviet condition into a credible fighting force. Depleted by the war, it will need more Western aid to rebuild the military if it is to join NATO.

But angry Russian officials have repeatedly said that U.S. military aid was instrumental in emboldening Georgia to try to retake South Ossetia by force on Aug. 7. During the five days of fighting that followed, Russian forces routed the Georgian military from South Ossetia and drove deep into Georgia.

U.S. officials have placed at least part of the blame for the war on Russia, but new U.S. military aid to Georgia would further aggravate relations between Washington and Moscow, which are already at a post-Cold War low.

Russia has condemned the U.S. use of warships to deliver aid to Georgia as a form of gunboat diplomacy. The flagship of the U.S. 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean, the USS Mount Whitney, arrived in the Black Sea on Wednesday with a cargo of aid.

The U.S. aid package is about the same as the estimate given by Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze of how much damage Georgia's economy suffered from the war.

Cheney arrived from neighboring Azerbaijan, the starting point for a major oil pipeline that crosses Georgia and ends in Turkey.

Because of the trip's itinerary, "we see this as a very clear sign that alternative energy routes and sources will be secured," Georgian national security council head Alexander Lomaia told The Associated Press.

The pipeline is the only direct route for Europe-bound Caspian oil to bypass Russia. Caspian oil also goes to Georgian ports by another pipeline and by rail.

Cheney is expected to spend only about four hours in Georgia. The stopover contrasts with U.S. President George W. Bush's exuberant visit in May 2005, when Bush spoke to a vast crowd in Tbilisi with Saakashvili.

Medvedev, meanwhile, harshly criticized the United States and urged the Washington to "reassess its relationship with the Georgian regime."

"The United States has actively helped Georgia build its military machine and pumped money and weapons into that," Medvedev said in an interview with Italy's RAI television.

"Regrettably, at some point they have given Mr. Saakashvili a carte blanche for any actions, including the military actions," he said.

Associated Press writers Jim Heintz and Misha Dzhindzhikashvili in Tbilisi; and Jennifer Loven and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this story.