George Tenet won't take the fall.
But after reviewing this list of quotes, I have no idea what to believe except not to believe any of them.
But the falling dollar, and deficits without end, have Asian finance ministers looking very cross. The story appeared on the front page, but below the fold of today's Journal (sorry, subscription required).
Asian Central Banks Consider Alternatives to Big Dollar Holdings
A number of Asian central banks, among the biggest investors in U.S. government debt, are looking at alternative targets for their vast dollar holdings.
South Korea, looking for better returns, plans to hand over as much as $20 billion of its foreign-exchange reserves, which total the equivalent of $157 billion, to private fund managers next year. Taiwan wants to put some of its $200 billion of reserves toward helping local companies and diversifying the economy. Thailand will use $7 billion of reserves to pay off the foreign debts of its government agencies and state enterprises.
Inflows from Asia into this U.S. debt have provided vital support for the U.S. financial system. They have helped to finance the budget deficit and made it easier for the Federal Reserve to boost the economy by holding down interest rates.
Foreign buying of debt is "critical -- it's probably the biggest driver" of the Treasury market recently, says Michael Ryan, a strategist with UBS in New York.
The story adds that the ministers don't want to create a crisis by publicly pulling large holdings and Greenspan and the clown show that is the Bush economics team are certain that there is no imminent threat.
But it seems to me that with U.S. foreign debt standing at 37 percent of the country's total debt, even a quiet shift could have tremendous effects on the house of cards that is the U.S. economy. The dollar could begin falling precipitously and the freedom the central bank has had in keeping interest rates at 1 percent or lower could end very quickly. I'm no economist, but...
But Brad DeLong is one. He cites a budget watcher who notes that "if Eliot Spitzer had jurisdiction over OMB and HHS, Josh Bolten, Tommy' Thompson and their political staffs would be on trial for fraud. Moreover, Bolten and company have taken OMB's analytical reputation--which we in the Clinton administration spent eight years rebuilding--and flushed it down the toilet."
Brad also does a great piece exposing the shoddy excuse for reporting that often comes out of the White House press corps. After all, who has time to question a WH press release. Just throw the contents on-line and see what sticks later on. No wonder, Bush & Co. have nothing but disdain for reporters.
Speaking of that disdain, how about this great exchange, via Alterman.
Q Scott, you expressed some outrage this morning that Democrats are questioning whether President Bush shirked his military duty with the Texas Air National Guard. Is the White House trying to come up with any records or any eye-witnesses to demonstrate that he did show up for his last two years in Alabama?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I would just say that it was a shame that this issue was brought up four years ago during the campaign, and it is a shame that it is being brought up again. The President fulfilled his duties. The President was honorably discharged.
Q Scott, can I follow that up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have a follow-up?
Q Well, the question actually was whether or not you're trying to find any eye-witnesses or any records to prove --
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, this was addressed four years ago, and like I said, it was a shame that it came up then and it's a shame that some are bringing it up again.
Dana, did you have one?
Q The Democrats have been attacking the President for months on a lot of issues. Why this issue -- why is it that you're choosing to respond to this particular issue, where in the past you've --
MR. McCLELLAN: The reasons I said. It is really shameful that this was brought up four years ago, and it's shameful that some are trying to bring it up again. I think it is sad to see some stoop to this level, especially so early in an election year. The President, like many Americans, was proud to serve in the National Guard. The National Guard plays an important role in the security of America. And the President was proud of his service.
----
Q Scott, can I ask you about, again, the National Guard thing? As you know, the President was committed to a six-year term, and what's at issue is the last two years. And the commander of the Alabama unit in which Bush was assigned in 1972 said that Lt. Bush never showed. That is absent without leave, otherwise known as AWOL, which is the charge that the Democrats are making. Can you be specific then about those last two years which are in question --
MR. McCLELLAN: Norah, we already have been specific. We were specific four years ago when this shameful accusation was made. I think you need to go back and look at the facts. The President was honorably discharged. He fulfilled his duties. It is really sad that people are now stooping to this level once again. And people should condemn this.
Q So where was he, then, in that period when his commander says he did not appear?
MR. McCLELLAN: This has already been previously addressed four years ago. Yet some people continue to stoop to the level that they are now stooping to --
Q You're not addressing the substance of the charge --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we already have --
Q So the White House position is that the honorable discharge answers the question, that as far as the President's commanding officers were concerned, he performed his duties honorably, and that's it?
MR. McCLELLAN: People that are discharged honorably are people that have fulfilled their duties. And we appreciate the service of all those people who are currently in the Guard and all those that were previously in the National Guard. We welcome all that they do to help make this country safer and better.
Phil Carter wonders why they just don't dig up a document that proves he was there. There are plenty of ways to do it and he is, after all, Commander in Chief, no?
This story will continue to unfold as long as the White House delivers outrage instead of proof. And Kerry doesn't have to join the fray (though his comments the other day, that he doesn't like to question the decisions or motivations of those who chose to stay out of Vietnam, mentioning guard service and long vacations in Canada...priceless), the press -- and bloggers -- smell blood and rare vulnerability. Soon the Boston Globe won't be the only national media outlet trying to put the pieces together.
But after reviewing this list of quotes, I have no idea what to believe except not to believe any of them.
But the falling dollar, and deficits without end, have Asian finance ministers looking very cross. The story appeared on the front page, but below the fold of today's Journal (sorry, subscription required).
Asian Central Banks Consider Alternatives to Big Dollar Holdings
A number of Asian central banks, among the biggest investors in U.S. government debt, are looking at alternative targets for their vast dollar holdings.
South Korea, looking for better returns, plans to hand over as much as $20 billion of its foreign-exchange reserves, which total the equivalent of $157 billion, to private fund managers next year. Taiwan wants to put some of its $200 billion of reserves toward helping local companies and diversifying the economy. Thailand will use $7 billion of reserves to pay off the foreign debts of its government agencies and state enterprises.
Inflows from Asia into this U.S. debt have provided vital support for the U.S. financial system. They have helped to finance the budget deficit and made it easier for the Federal Reserve to boost the economy by holding down interest rates.
Foreign buying of debt is "critical -- it's probably the biggest driver" of the Treasury market recently, says Michael Ryan, a strategist with UBS in New York.
The story adds that the ministers don't want to create a crisis by publicly pulling large holdings and Greenspan and the clown show that is the Bush economics team are certain that there is no imminent threat.
But it seems to me that with U.S. foreign debt standing at 37 percent of the country's total debt, even a quiet shift could have tremendous effects on the house of cards that is the U.S. economy. The dollar could begin falling precipitously and the freedom the central bank has had in keeping interest rates at 1 percent or lower could end very quickly. I'm no economist, but...
But Brad DeLong is one. He cites a budget watcher who notes that "if Eliot Spitzer had jurisdiction over OMB and HHS, Josh Bolten, Tommy' Thompson and their political staffs would be on trial for fraud. Moreover, Bolten and company have taken OMB's analytical reputation--which we in the Clinton administration spent eight years rebuilding--and flushed it down the toilet."
Brad also does a great piece exposing the shoddy excuse for reporting that often comes out of the White House press corps. After all, who has time to question a WH press release. Just throw the contents on-line and see what sticks later on. No wonder, Bush & Co. have nothing but disdain for reporters.
Speaking of that disdain, how about this great exchange, via Alterman.
Q Scott, you expressed some outrage this morning that Democrats are questioning whether President Bush shirked his military duty with the Texas Air National Guard. Is the White House trying to come up with any records or any eye-witnesses to demonstrate that he did show up for his last two years in Alabama?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I would just say that it was a shame that this issue was brought up four years ago during the campaign, and it is a shame that it is being brought up again. The President fulfilled his duties. The President was honorably discharged.
Q Scott, can I follow that up?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have a follow-up?
Q Well, the question actually was whether or not you're trying to find any eye-witnesses or any records to prove --
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, this was addressed four years ago, and like I said, it was a shame that it came up then and it's a shame that some are bringing it up again.
Dana, did you have one?
Q The Democrats have been attacking the President for months on a lot of issues. Why this issue -- why is it that you're choosing to respond to this particular issue, where in the past you've --
MR. McCLELLAN: The reasons I said. It is really shameful that this was brought up four years ago, and it's shameful that some are trying to bring it up again. I think it is sad to see some stoop to this level, especially so early in an election year. The President, like many Americans, was proud to serve in the National Guard. The National Guard plays an important role in the security of America. And the President was proud of his service.
----
Q Scott, can I ask you about, again, the National Guard thing? As you know, the President was committed to a six-year term, and what's at issue is the last two years. And the commander of the Alabama unit in which Bush was assigned in 1972 said that Lt. Bush never showed. That is absent without leave, otherwise known as AWOL, which is the charge that the Democrats are making. Can you be specific then about those last two years which are in question --
MR. McCLELLAN: Norah, we already have been specific. We were specific four years ago when this shameful accusation was made. I think you need to go back and look at the facts. The President was honorably discharged. He fulfilled his duties. It is really sad that people are now stooping to this level once again. And people should condemn this.
Q So where was he, then, in that period when his commander says he did not appear?
MR. McCLELLAN: This has already been previously addressed four years ago. Yet some people continue to stoop to the level that they are now stooping to --
Q You're not addressing the substance of the charge --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we already have --
Q So the White House position is that the honorable discharge answers the question, that as far as the President's commanding officers were concerned, he performed his duties honorably, and that's it?
MR. McCLELLAN: People that are discharged honorably are people that have fulfilled their duties. And we appreciate the service of all those people who are currently in the Guard and all those that were previously in the National Guard. We welcome all that they do to help make this country safer and better.
Phil Carter wonders why they just don't dig up a document that proves he was there. There are plenty of ways to do it and he is, after all, Commander in Chief, no?
This story will continue to unfold as long as the White House delivers outrage instead of proof. And Kerry doesn't have to join the fray (though his comments the other day, that he doesn't like to question the decisions or motivations of those who chose to stay out of Vietnam, mentioning guard service and long vacations in Canada...priceless), the press -- and bloggers -- smell blood and rare vulnerability. Soon the Boston Globe won't be the only national media outlet trying to put the pieces together.
posted by John at 6:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home