Palin and Biden About the Vice Presidency of Cheney

.

McCain Campaign Insinuates Biden is a Liar

"Joe Biden has always had a penchant for stretching the truth, but his made-up stories of being ‘shot at’ in Baghdad and his helicopter being ‘forced down’ in Afghanistan raise serious questions about his credibility," said McCain spox Ben Porritt. "Senator Clinton was forced to come clean after her ‘sniper fire’ remarks, and Joe Biden should hold himself to the same standard. How can Joe Biden lead if he can’t even be straight with the American people?”
Pushing for Biden to get the same scrutiny that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is currently getting, Porritt was referring to a couple incidents recently mentioned in a Fox News column suggesting that there's a double standard for Biden than there was for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

The first, which we covered last week, was when Biden recently told a gathering of National Guardsmen and -women, "If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."
Biden's chopper was indeed forced down, but it was by bad weather, which may not have been the impression given.

The McCain campaign reached back to 2007 for the second incident.
At the July 2007 CNN/Youtube debate Biden said the following about Iraq:
"Number one, there is not a single military man in this audience who will tell this senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today. Let's start telling the truth. Number one, you take all the troops out. You better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die, number one.
"So we can't leave them there. And it's going to take a minimum 5,000 troops to 10,000 just to protect our civilians. So while you're taking them out, Governor, take everybody out. That may be necessary. Number three, the idea that we all voted -- except for me -- for that appropriation. That man's son is dead. For all I know, it was an IED. Seventy percent of all the deaths occurred have been those roadside bombs. We have money in that bill to begin to build and send immediately mine-resistant vehicles that increase by 80 percent the likelihood none of your cadets will die, General. And they all voted against it. How in good conscience can you vote not to send those vehicles over there as long as there's one single, solitary troop there?"

At issue was Biden's reference to his being "shot at" in the Green Zone in Iraq.

The Hill's Susan Crabtree followed up and reported that "Biden described three incidents on two separate Iraq trips in which he felt that he was shot at or might have been shot at. Only one of them took place inside the Green Zone, he said, and involved a 'shot' landing outside the building where he and other senators were staying. He added that the vehicle he was traveling in the day before might also have been hit.
"Biden said the incident happened in the morning while he and at least one other senator were shaving. Although he said it shook the building, he wasn't rattled enough to duck and cover.
"'No one got up and ran from the room—it wasn't that kind of thing,' he said. '…It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head.'
"Thinking about it now, he said, a more accurate comment would have been: 'I was near where a shot landed.'"
Crabtree reported that Biden's aides told her about an early morning in the Green Zone in December 2005 when mortars shook the trailers and buildings where Biden and his aides were getting ready for the day. "A soldier came by to explain what happened and said if the mortar fire continued, they would need to proceed to a shelter," aides said.
During the same trip, Biden's helicopter narrowly avoided a bullet as he flew to the Baghdad airport from the Green Zone.

In December 2004, Biden was on board a C-130 cargo airplane when its anti-missile system was triggered after it had been fired upon by a surface-to-air missile.
"When mortars are fired into the Green Zone or surface-to-air missiles are fired at a plane, they don't have names or addresses on them," Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander told Crabtree. "The nuance of being shot at or shot near means nothing in a war zone. The point Sen. Biden was making is that Iraq is a dangerous place — for our troops, for Iraqis, for everyone."

.

FactCjheck on the VP Debate

Below: Friends and family of Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, listen, in Wasilla, Alaska Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008, to Palin debate Democratic rival, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., during the vice presidential debate in St. Louis.


Update:
We have retracted a portion of our article, "FactChecking Biden-Palin Debate," and have posted the following correction:

Correction Oct 3: This article originally faulted Biden for saying that McCain had voted "the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. We said that McCain was absent for the vote and so didn't vote at all. Biden was however correct.

McCain did vote against the troop-funding bill in question, H.R. 1591, on March 29, 2007, when it originally cleared the Senate. The vote to which we referred, and which McCain missed, was a later vote on the House-Senate compromise version of the same bill, on April 26, 2007. McCain opposed the bill, which Obama supported, because it contained language calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Biden was responding to Palin's accusation that "Obama voted against funding troops." Obama voted for the bill March 29 and April 26, then on May 24, 2007, following a veto by President Bush, Obama voted against a similar troop-funding bill, H.R. 2206, that lacked any withdrawal language.

Please accept our apology for our error.

-Brooks Jackson

.

Full Vice Presidential Debate with Governor Palin and Senator Biden

Analysis


Debate is a game changer for some


.

Barack and Joe in Greensboro, NC

.

Financial Shockwaves, But It's Also Good for Democracy?

All of the political leaders blessed the deal, but the House of Representatives spit it out anyway. The Wall Street bailout is so odious to public opinion, the "people's house" rejected it today, 228-205. The fever chart in Wall Street -- better known as the stock market -- swooned instantly, with the Dow falling 700 points. The political bedlam in Washington is as real as it gets.

The party leaders will probably try again. I doubt they have the energy or courage to renegotiate the terms in any serious way. A majority of Democrats voted for the measure, but most Republicans took a walk. They will be scolded -- and pounded by captains of industry and finance -- for being "irresponsible." But I doubt the public will agree.

In all of elected Washington, representatives are closest to the people and they know a vote for this outrageous measure is going to end the careers of some colleagues -- maybe many of them. This time, the dissenters can claim principle and say they are voting with the folks, while also voting to save their own hides.

It adds another deep shock to the system, both in politics and economics, but what an invigorating moment for democracy.

The financial bloodbath will continue, but unless the deal on the table changes significantly, Henry Paulson gets to decide who lives and who dies. The former investment banker from Goldman Sachs would be empowered as treasury secretary to play savior or grim reaper, the liquidator who essentially pulls the plug on some banks and financial firms or the man who rescues them from ruin. Of course, Paulson would consult with other government officials. But you can be sure that, behind closed doors, he will ask former brethren in Wall Street to help decide which club members are worthy of saving. This power to pick winners and losers would remain in Paulson's hands until a new president arrives in January.

This the essence of "the deal" Congress worked out over the weekend and was stymied today. Some bells and whistles were added to make the transaction less obnoxious to public opinion, voters and taxpayers. They are not meaningless, but both parties lacked the nerve to tamper with Paulson's basic proposal. This is still a massive bailout of imploding Wall Street, financed with the public's money. And it is still a massive crap shoot for the American people.

If the billions from Washington somehow restore temporary calm and balance to global financial institutions and markets, then the usual cheerleaders will proclaim the "system" has worked. Most Americans, I predict, will not join the cheering. Too much destruction lies ahead, both in the financial system and in the real economy where people live and work. Too much bitterness and rage will be attached to the White Knight at Treasury when he dooms one pension fund or bank, but rescues others. Too much deceptive sleight-of-hand is already embedded in Paulson's approach for ordinary mortals to even recognize what Paulson intends to accomplish.

The essential political failure, in my view, is that Congress did not step up and assert the full emergency powers of government in this epic crisis, that is, take temporary control of the entire financial and banking system so regulators and policy makers can steer the US economy to safer ground, compelling the private institutions to follow their lead. This rescue plan remains essentially voluntary. Yes, the Treasury Secretary would be awarded gargantuan personal powers, but there is not much in writing to compel the banking behavior of private interests he chooses to rescue them. One assumes Paulson will demand some private deals and use his enormous leverage to squeeze anyone who resists. But there is nothing to guarantee this path is taken. The bailout will belong to the club and the club will manage it.

Democrats are the majority party and insisted on some qualifying terms in behalf of the populace -- better than nothing, but weak half-steps. The government can claim warrants or equity ownership from firms in exchange for the public aid. It can put a lid on bloated executive salaries at the rescued banks or brokerages. It can demand more up-close oversight of how the Treasury Secretary performs. The language for all of these measures suggests to me -- I need to read the text again more carefully -- that these are essentially discretionary suggestions.

Paulson can do them if he chooses. Or, if he likes, he can wiggle around them in the fine print. The Dems do not want to assert real control over Paulson's decisions for fear they will then be blamed if and when everything fails.

Republicans, as usual, are playing their own political game -- trying to evade the blame, now and later. Their proposal for an insurance program that financial firms must pay for is ludicrous. It's like trying to buy hurricane insurance on your house after the storm has already blown it away. But the GOP already is in ruin, so its members are thinking long-term survival and creating a predicate for revival. Blame the government, blame Wall Street, blame the go-along Democrats -- maybe people will start liking Republicans again.

Democrats are still in recovery from twenty-five years of deferring impotently to the wise men of Wall Street and retreating tactically from conservative initiatives. I see this crisis as the Democrats' hesitant first step toward rediscovering their nerve and abandoned convictions. They are not there yet. But this crisis is not over. I predict they will get another opportunity to stand up for something and rather soon.

In the nature of this crisis, the next president will be compelled to clean up Paulson's irregular mess. He will be forced to act, not only because of the rising popular anger and enveloping recession but because the Paulson approach is founded on private deal-making and his deceptive statements of purpose.

By January, whoever wins the White House, it will be clear that Washington cannot cure the disease by relying on one smart guy from Wall Street. A new federal agency will be needed to supervise the bailout and restore defined public purposes and enforce them on the system. The government will have to assert its powers forcefully, because by then it will be obvious the "voluntary" approach helped some losers to become winners, but it neglected to save the country.

.

Here Is a Better Bailout Plan

By Joseph Stiglitz, TheNation.com.
There are four fundamental problems with our financial system. The Paulson plan addresses only one.
The champagne bottle corks were popping as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced his trillion-dollar bailout for the banks, buying up their toxic mortgages. To a skeptic, Paulson's proposal looks like another of those shell games that Wall Street has honed to a fine art. Wall Street has always made money by slicing, dicing and recombining risk. This "cure" is another one of these rearrangements: somehow, by stripping out the bad assets from the banks and paying fair market value for them, the value of the banks will soar.
There is, however, an alternative explanation for Wall Street's celebration: the banks realized that they were about to get a free ride at taxpayers' expense. No private firm was willing to buy these toxic mortgages at what the seller thought was a reasonable price; they finally had found a sucker who would take them off their hands -- called the American taxpayer.
The administration attempts to assure us that they will protect the American people by insisting on buying the mortgages at the lowest price at auction. Evidently, Paulson didn't learn the lessons of the information asymmetry that played such a large role in getting us into this mess. The banks will pass on their lousiest mortgages. Paulson may try to assure us that we will hire the best and brightest of Wall Street to make sure that this doesn't happen. (Wall Street firms are already licking their lips at the prospect of a new source of revenues: fees from the US Treasury.) But even Wall Street's best and brightest do not exactly have a credible record in asset valuation; if they had done better, we wouldn't be where we are. And that assumes that they are really working for the American people, not their long-term employers in financial markets. Even if they do use some fancy mathematical model to value different mortgages, those in Wall Street have long made money by gaming against these models. We will then wind up not with the absolutely lousiest mortgages, but with those in which Treasury's models most underpriced risk. Either way, we the taxpayers lose, and Wall Street gains.
And for what? In the S&L bailout, taxpayers were already on the hook, with their deposit guarantee. Part of the question then was how to minimize taxpayers' exposure. But not so this time. The objective of the bailout should not be to protect the banks' shareholders, or even their creditors, who facilitated this bad lending. The objective should be to maintain the flow of credit, especially to mortgages. But wasn't that what the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout was supposed to assure us?

There are four fundamental problems with our financial system, and the Paulson proposal addresses only one.
* The first is that the financial institutions have all these toxic products -- which they created -- and since no one trusts anyone about their value, no one is willing to lend to anyone else. The Paulson approach solves this by passing the risk to us, the taxpayer -- and for no return.
* The second problem is that there is a big and increasing hole in bank balance sheets -- banks lent money to people beyond their ability to repay -- and no financial alchemy will fix that. If, as Paulson claims, banks get paid fairly for their lousy mortgages and the complex products in which they are embedded, the hole in their balance sheet will remain. What is needed is a transparent equity injection, not the non-transparent ruse that the administration is proposing.
* The third problem is that our economy has been supercharged by a housing bubble which has now burst. The best experts believe that prices still have a way to fall before the return to normal, and that means there will be more foreclosures. No amount of talking up the market is going to change that. The hidden agenda here may be taking large amounts of real estate off the market -- and letting it deteriorate at taxpayers' expense.
* The fourth problem is a lack of trust, a credibility gap. Regrettably, the way the entire financial crisis has been handled has only made that gap larger.

Paulson and others in Wall Street are claiming that the bailout is necessary and that we are in deep trouble. Not long ago, they were telling us that we had turned a corner. The administration even turned down an effective stimulus package last February -- one that would have included increased unemployment benefits and aid to states and localities -- and they still say we don't need another stimulus. To be frank, the administration has a credibility and trust gap as big as that of Wall Street. If the crisis was as severe as they claim, why didn't they propose a more credible plan? With lack of oversight and transparency the cause of the current problem, how could they make a proposal so short in both? If a quick consensus is required, why not include provisions to stop the source of bleeding, to aid the millions of Americans that are losing their homes? Why not spend as much on them as on Wall Street? Do they still believe in trickle-down economics, when for the past eight years money has been trickling up to the wizards of Wall Street? Why not enact bankruptcy reform, to help Americans write down the value of the mortgage on their overvalued home? No one benefits from these costly foreclosures.
The administration is once again holding a gun at our head, saying, "My way or the highway." We have been bamboozled before by this tactic. We should not let it happen to us again.

There are alternatives.
Warren Buffet showed the way, in providing equity to Goldman Sachs. The Scandinavian countries showed the way, almost two decades ago. By issuing preferred shares with warrants (options), one reduces the public's downside risk and insures that they participate in some of the upside potential. This approach is not only proven, it provides both incentives and wherewithal to resume lending. It furthermore avoids the hopeless task of trying to value millions of complex mortgages and even more complex products in which they are embedded, and it deals with the "lemons" problem -- the government getting stuck with the worst or most overpriced assets.
Finally, we need to impose a special financial sector tax to pay for the bailouts conducted so far. We also need to create a reserve fund so that poor taxpayers won't have to be called upon again to finance Wall Street's foolishness.
If we design the right bailout, it won't lead to an increase in our long-term debt -- we might even make a profit. But if we implement the wrong strategy, there is a serious risk that our national debt -- already overburdened from a failed war and eight years of fiscal profligacy -- will soar, and future living standards will be compromised. The president seemed to think that his new shell game will arrest the decline in house prices, and we won't be faced holding a lot of bad mortgages. I hope he's right, but I wouldn't count on it: it's not what most housing experts say. The president's economic credentials are hardly stellar. Our national debt has already climbed from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion in eight years, and the deficits for 2008 and 2009 -- not including the bailouts -- are expected to reach new heights. There is no such thing as a free war -- and no such thing as a free bailout. The bill will be paid, in one way or another.
Perhaps by the time this article is published, the administration and Congress will have reached an agreement. No politician wants to be accused of being responsible for the next Great Depression by blocking key legislation. By all accounts, the compromise will be far better than the bill originally proposed by Paulson but still far short of what I have outlined should be done. No one expects them to address the underlying causes of the problem: the spirit of excessive deregulation that the Bush Administration so promoted. Almost surely, there will be plenty of work to be done by the next president and the next Congress. It would be better if we got it right the first time, but that is expecting too much of this president and his administration.

.