In Over His Head
“What bothered Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs was the way emergency state agencies had tried to marginalize presidential authority, by withholding crucial information and then defining his remaining options too narrowly.” Emergency State by David Unger
An informative and dramatic account of the Bay of Pigs was nicely portrayed by David Halberstam in “The Best and the Brightest.” The Cuban Missile Crisis which was an aftermath of this event rendered a more dramatic account of the personality conflicts within the Kennedy administration. What particularly shocked me about both events were the moments of insubordination shown by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were using anything at their disposal to force circumstances and bring the issue to a clash. Numerous instances of provocations have been documented which by most military standards should have justified a military response. Luckily, it never happened.
With the benefit of hindsight, one has the luxury to moralize and indulge in rationalizations. It makes us feel good. It makes for good reading and sells books. Warfare, however, is unforgiving and reason is seldom your friend. Victory being the object of the game, time is a luxury you dare not afford.
Having survived this event in one piece, the Cuban Missile Crisis offers us the opportunity to examine our positions in many different ways. Without doubt, the stakes were unimaginably high. One can not help but wonder at the enormity of it all. However, factors that have contributed to the final outcome are in reality difficult to assess. One can fancy oneself as being in command of the facts but in moments of crisis and emergencies, moments of reflection and thought are few and far between. Given the circumstances, it truly is a remarkable feat that Kennedy was able to pull it off. What made it even more poignant was the sense of family it imparted. In addition to his brother, this is more than evident in the close relationship established with Maxwell Taylor. Without this personal aspect, it seems very unlikely that JFK would have been able to influence events as he wanted. We would have been left with an entirely different legacy.
Based on Halberstam’s narrative, it seems very doubtful that events during the missile crisis would have transpired as they did without the support of Robert Kennedy. Human events being what they are, the possibilities and outcomes were manifold. Decisions being a solitary responsibility, one is usually left to fend for oneself but, being a man of faith, this was rarely the case. What we do know was that during those of impasse which would have triggered a nuclear exchange, both brothers occasionally looked at each other for solace and reassurance. Amongst the Joint Chiefs of Staff, such sentiments were definitely out of place. It was an inconvenience for a mindset that contemplated death and destruction. In a room filled with military men, it was a stark contrast of emotions. Confined within that war room, there was an undertone and imperceptible intimacy and understanding that only both brothers had; a depth of understanding and awareness that when the final moment arrived, only both, as brothers, would have had to make that final decision. When push came to shove, I can just imagine Bobby slugging it out with those men in uniform. It would literally have been a slugfest to die for.
Confronted with such odds, I can not imagine this history any other way. At the moment of final decision, one could only hope that both brothers would have had the confidence, strength, and conviction to have made that decision. Faced with such horror, they were the only two individuals who were connected by blood; connected by fond memories of their families. Death being close at hand, a family shall always come together. It never fails to heed that call; a call to arms. In such circumstances, how much more profound can you get than, when the moment arrived, the Kennedy brothers ultimately made the decision as a Family.
This is one of the many facets and minutiae that accounts for the worldwide appeal of the Kennedy family. One of the many Kennedy traits that has captivated people from all walks of life. It is one of many charms that has continually provided for the enduring myth and legend of Camelot.
Kennedy, however, was not the first to have voiced a concern for the government; a concern for the many aspects of Empire. It preoccupied numerous others in varying degrees.
In 1898, former President Grover Cleveland, arguing that Empire was antithetical to American ideals, warned that expansion was a “perversion of our national mission ….. to build up and make a greater country out of what we have instead of annexing islands.”
In his current book “State versus Defense,” Stephen Glain states: “Like so many of its recent wars, imperial America was a needless extravagance. The country is not an island nation like Britain or Japan, critically dependent on outside sources of raw materials and energy supplies. Nor was it forced to punch above its weight like tiny Belgium or Holland, wedged between rival and often hostile powers. The United States enjoyed a huge domestic market, was rich in natural resources, and was safely distant from potential aggressors…”
Based on the success of Cold War politics, Stephen Glains’ argument may be difficult to sustain, not from any lack of veracity, but from an overwhelming dominance of force. From a more general perspective, America has been largely successful in world politics. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist and Democracy is ascendant. As Francis Fukuyama states, this is clearly “The End of History.” And, yet, we are left with a nagging doubt that, somewhere and somehow, something is amiss. We are left asking ourselves many questions. Are we truly being served by this narrative ?
For the benefit of most people, David Unger provides a concise summary of our predicament; a predicament that affects us all. How much more urgent can one get ? If no less than the President of the United States is constrained in his capacity to fulfill his mandate, where does that leave the rest of us ?
So many others have tried to convey this sense of urgency through books and speeches; a concern for the many intrusive, and abusive aspects of Empire. One aspect, which Kennedy was referring to, was the authority to control information by certain agencies within the government.
Information being the lifeblood of any democracy, it provides nourishment and a foundation for constructive debates, electoral decisions and a whole range of issues affecting our way of life. An appeal to reason is always a wonderful thing. It allows us the ability to make informed decisions and provides a basis for a productive life. More importantly, in a rapidly growing and interconnected world, it endows us with a sense of confidence and responsibility, not only for ourselves, but also for the welfare of others. However, what would happen if that information were compromised ?
The issues surrounding executive privelege and national security have one common denominator; the absolute power to control information. It is the ability to control issues without public consent. Prior to World War 2, this was usually a temporary price paid by a country during times of war; a momentary social sacrifice made for a higher purpose; a higher ideal against evil. But, what would be the consequences if this sacrifice were made permanent ? If this price was justified through a perpetuation of endless wars, would this not offend us on a certain level ? Would this not deprive some of us of certain basic rights ? For certain, many of us may entertain thoughts of relative advantage; a feeling of entitlement and privelege; a few of us, even more so than the rest, but, is this really sustainable ?
NSC 68 was the main document used to create and justify the Cold War. Most historical accounts would indicate that two events justified the need for such a document. The first was the explosion of the Soviet nuclear bomb in 1949. The second was the Korean War. What was left out of the narrative was the climate of fear that existed prior to the Soviet nuclear explosion in 1949; in fact, even prior to the end of World War 2. It was a climate of fear that was created by a small number of powerful officials within the government. A climate of fear created through a series of intentional miscalculations which virtually guaranteed an escalation of events; an escalation of events towards an unavoidable confrontation. This climate of fear, I daresay, was orchestrated by the bankers within the government.
Against the “Long Telegram” intent of George Kennan for a non-military engagement towards the Soviets, Averell Harriman and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal conveyed the Soviet threat in military terms. In no uncertain terms, they both addressed this military threat in a speech delivered to the United Nations. A military threat that, in fact, hardly existed. The Soviets were scarcely in a position to make threats. Their country was in ruins and the economy was in tatters. They were mainly preoccupied with rebuilding their country. In such a condition, they actually needed help im the form of loans for reconstruction and financial assistance. Cognizant of this need, being adversarial would not serve their needs. The Soviets may be a proud culture but, stupid, they were not. With the demise of Roosevelt, Stalin was enough of a realist to realize the uncertainty of his position amongst the western powers. Neither could he fully rely on Churchill, who was out of office. Consequently, the new situation called for caution. In this spirit, the Soviets made several attempts for assistance to rebuild their economy. As an ally during the war who paid more than their fair share in war casualties, this was a normal request in accordance with a mutual understanding with the previous Roosevelt administration; a mutual interest for a shared responsibility in rebuilding the world economy. It was a mutual interest that, based on their countrys’ respective limitations in resources, it was only in unison that both would be able to accomplish this task. These loans, however, were eventually denied by Harriman.
Another crucial miscalculation which strongly influenced government policy were the estimates given as to the likelihood of the Soviets gaining possession of thev atom bomb. Against the better judgement of the scientists that the Soviets would have it in less than five years, the government predicted that the Soviets would not be in possession of the atom bomb for another ten years. Where the government based this prediction, I am at present unable to answer. But, sure enough, the Soviets eventually gained possession in four years time. When the Truman administration acquired the hydrogen bomb in 1952, the Soviets then followed in two years time. Had the Truman administration truly listened to the scientists concerns, they would have understood the error of their ways.
In all honesty, it was foolish and the height of arrogance to believe that one can monopolize the destructive force of the atom bomb. From the scientists standpoint, their concerns were based on an understanding that the progress of the sciences have never been the domain of one country or culture. As an effort in collaboration, scientific knowledge can only thrive in an environment that encourages a free exchange of ideas. The government, however, was arguing from a position of strength. Pragmatism being the foundation of politics, it was foolhardy to squander an advantage in any situation. Both sides were arguing their cases from opposite poles. They were arguing from a conception of different histories. As an institution, the government based its history of success from a position of strength and force, whereas, science has always been an effort in collaboration.
In their concerns for peace, it should be noted that there was a concerted effort by scientists, at the time, to avert a nuclear arms race. As a respresentative of the scientific community, Neils Bohr would be a strong proponent for peace. He would be the first person to advocate for an international organization to control the secrets of the atom bomb. It was an effort he initiated by proposing to share this knowledge on an equal basis with other countries that had the capacity, maturity, and responsibility to utilize this knowledge. As a man of science who recognized that accomplishments were ultimately an effort in collaboration, Neils Bohr was pleading his case from a position of humility.
Another scientist who deserves mention was J. Robert Oppenheimer. In his passion to dissuade the government from its policy to escalate the arms race, he inadvertently slighted Lewis Strauss during a congressional hearing. In retaliation, Lewis Strauss directed a personal vendetta against Oppenheimer by solicitng the help of J. Edgar Hoover. Under intense scrutiny and surveillance from the FBI, Oppenheimer was falsely accused of communist ties and consequently stripped of his security clearance. In spite of the massive outpouring of support from the scientific community and government officials, Oppenheimer was rendered suspect through manipulative channels within the government. Manipulative channels that abused its authority to control information.
In our understanding of current events, the general assumption is that the media is responsible for the control and manipulation of information. Most of us believe that the media controls the narrative through various channels. The written word, internet, visual aids, and radio are some of the many tools used by the media to disseminate information. They are virtually able to touch on all our senses, with the object in mind, to influence our decisions. Being a presence that exists on a continuing and ongoing basis, we are virtually bombarded with an immense amount of information on a daily basis. The media, however, does not generate information. It merely captures and feeds on it. It does not generate its own sustenance to exist. The media depends on other outlets to provide information. As such, the source is the most captive word in the media industry. As the means for its survival, the media will usually ensure its well-being.
Given this basic understanding, we are provided with a few tools to deconstruct this narrative; an ability to simplify the problem.
The best way to control information is through its source. It is where it originates. After WW2, the most sensitive and important source of information for the government was the Atomic Energy Commission. It was a treasure trove of information and secrets that had to be safeguarded. The institution was a database of knowledge that had, not only military uses, but corporate applications as well. As such, it should come as no surprise that, from a profit motive, we should find bankers at strategic points around the institution: Lewis Strauss (Kuh, Loeb & Co), Bernard Baruch (A. A. Housman & Co), James Forrestal (Dillon Read & Co), David Lilienthal (Lazard Freres), James Schlesinger (Lehman Bros., Kuhn, Loeb).
For various reasons, many issues have been deemed inappropriate for dissemination and consequently withheld from the public. In most countries, they fall under the rubric of classified and top secret information. In our attempts to tackle the problem, there seems to be a prevailing tendency to confuse the issues. One is understandably overwhelmed by the complexity and vastness of this bureaucracy that we are unable to formulate an appropriate response. Moreover, classified information is usually withheld from the public for about thirty years. As a result, by the time the information has been declassified, we are subjected to a dislocation of issues. Through the passage of time, they lose their impact. By the time the information is made available, other issues have taken precedence. Other than scholars, the average person is usually unable to resume the past train of thought. From a pedestrian point of view, he is engrossed in current issues that appear to have immediate importance to his life, community, and family. He feels a sense of disconnect with issues created before his time.
Ever since the declassification of NSC 68 in the 70’s, this has been our ongoing state of affairs that, in certain respects, it has become very tiresome. It feels like a needless chore that has been put on our backs. This situation will continue unchanged until, of course, a threshold is breached. At that point, we will then be forced to deal with the situation. We will be forced by circumstances to face two basic choices. We either deal with the truth, or we create a new falsehood. The first choice will entail a new beginning, whereas, the second will perpetuate the same old cycle.
Another reason for our state of confusion in these matters is due to an unaccountable an unpredictable aspect in the affairs of government. A regrettable aspect of our government bureaucracy is the unconscionable use of information in psychological warfare. We have been deluged with misinformation, distortions, and outright lies. If we are to begin any semblance of understanding on current issues, we need to sift through all this information. We need to be able to identify the falsehoods and rectify the situation. We need to clear away all the cobwebs. It is only through a clear path that we are able to provide a constructive flow to engage current problems. Otherwise, we encounter frustration and despair in most of our efforts; a regression and downward spiral in major areas of human affairs.
A common feature found amongst liars, cheaters, and warfare is the propensity to use diversion. As a form of distraction, it allows a primary or more relevant objective to be accomplished. But for a more critical understanding, one needs to discern and establish a context in this respect. One needs to distinguish a lie established in a personal context and a lie promulgated on the basis of a national interest.
On a personal level, most of us are sufficiently equipped to engage in social affairs. We are competent enough to deal with our families and communities. No doubt, many of us have a few among members of our families, friends, and associates who are liars and cheats. Probably even someone who happens to be an inveterate liar. In these instances, we have various ways and means at our disposal to deal with these problems. More often than not, the circumstances are not life-threatening and, in most cases, the problem is usually self-contained. On the other hand, a lie that has been sanctioned and established on a national level becomes a different matter entirely. It becomes a matter with major and worldwide consequences. They invariably result in unaccountable consequences which none of us have been brave enough to face.
Designated as classified by the government, this lie acquires a cloak of invincibility. It will, henceforth, create and establish a bureaucracy. To dispute it would be sacrilege, it becomes sacrosanct. At a certain stage, it becomes a matter beyond the capacity of any one individual to deal with, much less understand. On inertia alone, the bureaucracy will feed on istelf and create a life of its own choosing. And, in the process, it will create its own reasons for survival. It becomes a machine that will be accountable to no one.
In human relations, this predicament is fairly similar to most problems we encounter in our daily lives. These are problems that have been ignored, unresolved, and undiagnosed. More often than not, one common result in these kinds of problems is the element of surprise. We are caught flat-footed by the turn of events. In any case, though it may be a problem that may challenge us, they usually resolve in an outcome that we understand and accept; an outcome we embrace. And, herein, lies the focal point of interest.
In a larger context, what are we prepared to accept ?
If we were to examine the narrative for the Cold War, what has been the overall theme ? The overweening argument has always been a choice between Democracy and Capitalism, verus Socialism and Communism. This has been the constant issue since the Cold War. In fact, even with the demise of the Soviet Union, this is presently still an ongoing narrative in the media and the forthcoming presidential elections. In framing the issue as a choice between both pairs, the implied assumption is that they are somehow compatible with one another. We are led to believe that both Capitalism and Democracy share the same or similar values as opposed to Communism and Socialism. The overall objective, of course, being an appeal to our sense of values.
In an appreciation of both choices, it is not my intent to point out the differences and nuances. To argue on this basis would be exhaustive to say the least, I shall leave that question for others to ponder. But, what has to be addressed is the simplistic nature of the argument, which in reality is never the case. It leaves us with no other choices except for those two ideologies. Whether due to a lack of imagination, lack of sophistication, or more than likely, control issues, this simplification does not serve our interests. It ignores a larger reality of the infinite number of ways for manknds survival and happiness. It discounts the fact that one can be patriotic and nationalistic without being either a capitalist or a communist. It denies a fact that one can be a radical who loves ones country without being any of the above. It denies a further fact that there are many more people in this world of ours who define themselves based solely on religion, language, and culture; and are none of the above.
By virtue of this fact, we must and will eventually come to an awareness that the policies of the Cold War have been a violation of many of our basic principles. Upon further reflection, we will realize that the ramifications and repercussions of Cold War policies have actually resulted in a violation of basic pinciples found in the human family; central notions of balance and morality. Central beliefs of our basic fundamental and universal rights to life and liberty. It is a fundamental right derived from a basic need to ensure our survival and happiness. Both terms, furthermore, are relative. Survival and happiness are in essence individual and personal values. They are values that are distinct and different for each individual based on a combination of many innumerable factors and conditions: geography and culture among many others. In this effort, we must recognize that each path is different; each path is deserving. We should be obliged to call each path our own.
So, again, we must ask ourselves, what are we prepared to accept ? If no less than the President of the United States is constrained in his capacity to fulfill his mandate, where does that leave the rest of us ?
A Hidden Truth ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/opinion/the-cias-misuse-of-secrecy.html
What situation justifies the authority to classify information? What circumstances would be regarded as a legitimate excuse for classified information?
To begin with, secrecy has always been a part of government affairs; probably, ever since the beginning of civilization. As a general unspoken rule, it was considered standard practice by the ruling elite for the attainment of many different objectives. In the past, this was a practice found mainly in diplomatic channels and, to a lesser degree, among the military agencies. It was only with the advent of professional armies, during the late nineteenth century, when secrecy became a growing feature in the military. But, even then, it was hardly an obvious presence in civilian life. Furthermore, one can find evidence of this practice, not only in government affairs, but also in corporate affairs. However, prior to World War 2, this was an area of expertise that had always been discretely professed by the State Department. In foreign affairs, it was deemed necessary in diplomatic conduct. To ensure the safety of procedures and affairs between governments, secrecy was an indispensable part of diplomacy. In a sense, one could say that secrecy was an artform in the area of statesmanship.
With the advent of the Cold War, this artform attained independent status. It was released from captivity. In its basic structure, it found its origins from the “Manhattan Project.” In its foundations, this bureaucracy found its impetus from NSC 68.
The main distinguishing feature of this aspect of government in our modern era has been the scale and the amount of resources involved in its functions and operations. Never before, in the history of government, has the art of secrecy been centralized under one structure devoted exclusively to this artform. The practice had always been a part of multiple larger heirarchies. As a pivotal point in their evolution, the second world war was a transition point for their eventual transformation into a centralized organization. In its basic structure, The “Manhattan Project” formalized this framework. The conditions that prevailed at the end of the war provided the basis and rationale for establishing this centralized structure. These were conditions that were disputably considered a threat to America.
These institutions of secrecy were initially established and designated under the NSA (National Security Agency). It was a response to Communism as a threat to Capitalism. From this basis of a presumed threat, these institutions derived its rationale from the basic right to survive. As a significant component of the government, it found its genesis through both the “Manhattan Project” and NSC 68. Furthermore, on this basis, these institutions of secrecy have their counterparts in most other countries; surprisingly, even in third world countries. Consequently, the institution of secrecy has been established on a global basis.
From this brief summary, we can somehow appreciate the circumstances by which national security protocols may precede and override other issues. Its objectives and motivations are presumably self-explanatory. Based as it is on legal foundations, it assumes responsibility for the nations’ security. However, since security through this legal foundation was never sufficiently defined, we are left with a structure with no set boundaries. Precautionary measures were never placed to prevent unaccountable and unforeseen events. Hence, security, by this very general definition, can have progressively wide applications. A security risk can depend on many different and constantly changing variables. What may not have been considered a security risk before may, due to many factors, change in the near future. Additionally, a security risk can cover non-military aspects. Anything deemed as a risk to the economy, the physical well being of the people, and the structural integrity of the military will be subject to certain restrictions. In essence, anything that compromises the survival of the country will be subject to security measures. As a result, national security can cover diverse areas that the government may consider pertinent to this objective.
As an institution that is averse to a certain level of risk, we are then able to relate this concern to our current dillema with the banks: “Too Big To Fail !”
The question remains; whose interests are ultimately being served ? And, by the same token, whose interests are being denied ? These are questions that normally concerns any form of society. As a form of democracy, our government should presumably be faithful to established democratic principles. And, in accordance with these principles, it is often stated that, “the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.” Ideally, most of us would hope for such an outcome. We all believe that the government has this concern in mind.
Perhaps, from a larger context, we may be able to perceive certain flaws and inefficiencies in this institution. We may somehow infer an imbalance. In this way, many of our concerns may be allayed to our satisfaction.
In the pursuance of national security objectives, many countries have adopted the American framework in their respective governments. Not all countries, however, are created equal. Each country will have relative advantages and disadvantages in its relations with other countries and entities; by entities, I am referring to multinational corporations which in many cases tend to be more powerful than a number of smaller countries. And, in the scheme of things, being a participant who wishes to enjoy the fruits of our globalized economy, a country will unavoidably have to submit to established parameters; parameters that have been formulated and constructed based on western standards.
Now, if these parameters are perceived to be based on a foundation of fairness and equity, then the system will find coherence and agreement among its members. The system finds validation and reinforcement. Otherwise, in the absence of a minimum level of tolerance and compromise, the system will have to resort to force through various ways and means.
With the breakdown of the Soviet Union, western civilization has never been more secure. America has never been more reassured of its position as a superpower than it is nowadays. Given the complications and risks involved in the previous Cold War between the two superpowers, one would think that our situation has improved. Given a choice between an adversary equipped with comparable weapons and a lesser threat that resorts to acts of defiance and desperation, one would normally recognize the difference between both threats. And, yet, in spite of the relative improvement in Americas’ position and in the affairs of governments, we have, for the past few years, been subjected to a belief that our way of life and, our very civilization will come to an end. Formulated by the establishment, we have been told that terrorism has endangered our very survival. We have been told through a convoluted act of mental gymnastics that Islam is antithetical to all our values. Reinforced by pundits through the art of pursuasion, we have been conditioned to accept the inevitable “Clash of Civilizations.” From a Cold War threat, our situation has somehow transformed into a larger threat by virtue of the larger commitment of resources towards national security. In addition to the Cold War institutions and relics, we have now created and added the Homeland Security to our arsenal of defense.
I don’t know how any of you feel about this narrative, but, it reminds me of Professor Smith from “Lost in Space”: “We’re doomed ! We’re doomed ! ” At least, the Robot is more believable when it flails about and shouts: “Danger! Danger!” You know the Robot is basing his reaction from facts. The Robot happens to be more rational. Furthermore, there is a distinct difference in their reactions. One is a reaction predicated on a sense of despair and hopelessness while the other is not. And, this is exactly what it amounts to folks !!!
Terrorism is essentially an act of desperation. And, being an act of desperation, it will necessarily be open to other sympathizers who may not even share any of their political or ideological aspirations. Given the circumstances, our responses have proceeded from a very irrational and volatile basis. It is irrational, not only based on the disproportionate use of resources against a minimal threat, but also due to our inaccurate understanding of the problem. Not only has the problem not been addressed correctly, it has been manipulated to the disadvantage of many innocent civilians. Instead of a concern for substantial issues, the establishment has manipulated the debate towards trivialities. The public has been driven into a form of paranoia in their neurotic concerns for veils, hoods, and other trifles. As such, there is a pervasive sense of unease and disharmony on many levels.
Our currrent situation is due, in no small part, to the many misconceptions, distortions, and disinformation. The establishment has not been fully upfront in accounting for the actual threats involved. We have not been given a complete picture of the basis for their decisions. The total amount of resources employed does not match the actual threat. In short, the whole situation does not add up. As a result, due to the many inconsistencies, many concerns have not been appropriately addressed. Many questions have yet to be answered. These are answers that are way overdue; answers that we may have to demand from no one else but, ourselves.
May The Odds Be Ever in Your Favor.... →
Unemployment or Inflation. You Decide…..
Photo with 1 note
Eleven days since the Santa Ana winds hit los angeles and, finally, we see signs of the city cleaning up the debris. Although, large trees that have been broken are still left untouched as in the case of this photo of a tree by the pasadena library.audymm.wordpress.com
” ‘Twas the days before Christmas when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse……”
Two days after the encampment of the OWS in los angeles was raided and vacated by police…..
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html →
A clarion call ? But, for what ?
Two things stand out from this article. Irrespective of where you stand on the issue of its legality, Paulson deliberately misled and lied to both the public and the government.
On July 21, Paulson, in his capacity as Treasury Secretary, in a disclosure addressed to the markets and the public at large through the New York Times, gave assurance and confidence as to the reliability of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - now, commonly referred to as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Uncharacteristically and in an undignified revelation of the dysfunctional state of government, Paulson immediately after this interview and on the very same day had a meeting with the Titans of Wall Street at Eton Park, New York. In this meeting, he gave and divulged information that portrayed a completely different viewpoint of the situation. At the very least, this sequence of events detailing Paulson’s behavior gives new meaning to the word Trust. A defiled value in a society that prides itself in being at the avante garde of modern culture.
Without this confession by one of the Hedge Fund managers who attended the meeting, this exposure would not have been possible. Instead, down the road, we would have ended up with conjectures and myths based on second and third hand accounts. For the moment, what would prove relevant for a critical analysis is that it establishes a timeline. It is this timeline that would prove crucial to understanding the gravity of this whole episode when Paulson lied to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) which was commissioned by both Obama and Congress to probe the causes of the financial collapse. In this Inquiry, Paulson told and lied to the Commission that he found out by mid-August, and not July as more priveleged sources are aware of, that the GSE’s were “unsafe and unsound.”
A common trajectory would try to understand this situation from a presumably natural inclination to financially profit from it through inside and non-public information. An understandable position but far from a more demanding standard expected from any writer worth his grain of salt; especially one attuned to the intricacies of political intercourse and manipulation. A more critical analysis of this situation should have approached it from the standpoint of any political animal whose appetite, so to speak, changes as he moves up the predatory food chain. And, in this manner, only one target will suffice to explain his motivations and desires: POWER.
As such, what has proven more revealing is his blatant disregard for the institutions of government. In effect, by lying to the FCIC, which was commissioned by both Obama and Congress, two conclusions are readily appreciated by any honest appraisal. Either the Treasury Secretary in more ways than one is the most powerful person in government, or, Paulson whose behavior has remained unchastised by both Obama and Congress must, in light of this circumstance, have an unavowed agreement and approval from both Obama and Congress. Neither of the two would prove very appealing for public consumption. The first for its implications for America as a democracy and the second for its portrayal of Americans as Fools.
Downtown Los Angeles building of the Police Department….. situated right next to city hall and the encampment of the OWS movement, the police is a symbol of many things for many people…..
Page 1 of 15
