Crooks and Liars

John McCain: Accountability For Torture is That People's Reputations Have Been Harmed Very Badly

Heather — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:30:29 +0000

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (73)

PLAYS: (226)

Coming from someone who was tortured as a prisoner of war himself, this is pretty astounding. Never mind any accountability for torture, it's good enough that someone has had their reputation ruined. Sadly, he can get away with this sort of talk since he's being enabled by the Obama administration with their refusal to go after Bush administration officials for torturing prisoners.

GREGORY: Speaking about investigations, there's now word from Newsweek magazine today with a story about the attorney general, that he's getting closer to investigating alleged torture during the Bush administration. This is the reporting from Daniel Klaidman, that Holder "may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four sources telling Newsweek that he's now leaning towards appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices." Would that be a good idea?

McCAIN: No. Look, I fought against waterboarding. I said waterboarding was torture. We passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibited cruel and inhumane treatment. I have spoken out as forcefully as possible everywhere against what went on and that we need--it harms our image so much around the world when photographs come out and--we all know that bad things were done. We all know that the operatives who did it most likely were under orders to do so. For us to continue this and harm our image throughout the world--I agree with the president of the United States, it's time to move forward and not go back.

GREGORY: But where's the accountability?

McCAIN: Well, the accountability, obviously, is that people's reputations have been harmed very badly. The question is, is do we want America's image harmed more by dragging this out further and further? You've got to--what's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have, and we are committed to making sure never happens again? I do not excuse it, I'm just saying what's the, what's the effect on America's image in the world? I don't, I don't mean to drag out my answer, but I did meet with a high ranking member of al-Qaeda in a prison in Iraq who said his greatest recruiting tool was the pictures of Abu Ghraib. We don't want to give the, the terrorists and the radical Islamic extremists more tools and bullets to shoot against us and help their recruiting in this ongoing struggle we're in.

McCain was also asked about the CIA being told by the Bush admistration not to inform Congress about one of their programs. Of course McCain just doesn't know enough about it to weigh in on it.

Full transcript below the fold.

GREGORY: But first, Senator John McCain, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

McCAIN: Thank you, David. Thanks for having me back again.

GREGORY: I'd like to--always happy to have you here. I want to start with some breaking news this morning. The front story in The New York Times is that former Vice President Dick Cheney kept Congress in the dark, his orders to keep Congress in the dark about a covert CIA program. It's a program that CIA Director Panetta has now shut down. He's briefed Congress about it. What do you know about this and what's your reaction to it?

McCAIN: Well, uncharacteristically, not a lot. I, I am not on the Intelligence Committee. I don't know what the details of this are. The vice president, I think, should obviously be heard from if the accusations are leveled in his direction. Clearly the Republicans did not sign a letter, apparently, that was written alleging this, so I, I think it's, frankly, too early for me to reach any conclusion.

GREGORY: It doesn't appear as if any lines were crossed, in your judgment?

McCAIN: I don't know because, again, a lot of this is anonymous sources.

GREGORY: Hm.

McCAIN: And this is--if I know Washington, this is the beginning of a pretty involved and detailed story. And I, I don't have enough information, but I think a lot more's to come on this.

GREGORY: Should there be an investigation, do you think?

McCAIN: I don't know if--first of all, I'd like to know the facts of the case before there should be an, "an investigation."

GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. McCAIN: How long did, did the director of the CIA know about this program and when did he terminate it? And all of these things are going to, are probably going to be heavily discussed in the weeks ahead.

GREGORY: Speaking about investigations, there's now word from Newsweek magazine today with a story about the attorney general, that he's getting closer to investigating alleged torture during the Bush administration. This is the reporting from Daniel Klaidman, that Holder "may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four sources telling Newsweek that he's now leaning towards appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices." Would that be a good idea?

McCAIN: No. Look, I fought against waterboarding. I said waterboarding was torture. We passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibited cruel and inhumane treatment. I have spoken out as forcefully as possible everywhere against what went on and that we need--it harms our image so much around the world when photographs come out and--we all know that bad things were done. We all know that the operatives who did it most likely were under orders to do so. For us to continue this and harm our image throughout the world--I agree with the president of the United States, it's time to move forward and not go back.

GREGORY: But where's the accountability?

McCAIN: Well, the accountability, obviously, is that people's reputations have been harmed very badly. The question is, is do we want America's image harmed more by dragging this out further and further? You've got to--what's going to be the positive result from airing out and ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should never have, and we are committed to making sure never happens again? I do not excuse it, I'm just saying what's the, what's the effect on America's image in the world? I don't, I don't mean to drag out my answer, but I did meet with a high ranking member of al-Qaeda in a prison in Iraq who said his greatest recruiting tool was the pictures of Abu Ghraib. We don't want to give the, the terrorists and the radical Islamic extremists more tools and bullets to shoot against us and help their recruiting in this ongoing struggle we're in.

Destroying the Furniture: This Week's roundtable gagglers gag on the possiblity of torture hearings

John Amato — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:30:19 +0000

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (170)

PLAYS: (817)

(h/t Heather)

The Villagers were up in arms Sunday morning over on the set of ABC's This Week about the possibility that Eric Holder might appoint a special someone to look into the Bush/Cheney torture practices. Watch in awe and see how the Villagers feel about trying to get accountability from the Bush years.

Why, an investigation would just trash the place. Oh, the bitterness in D.C. would be too much to handle, all because those other people (that is, non-Villagers) would like to get to the truth.

Bob Woodward, who's trying to be the next David Broder by living off his long-degraded rep as the man who uncovered Watergate, wonders how we will ever be able to keep secrets again if there is some inspection. Um, isn't that what the Bob Woodwardses are supposed to do? Uncover stuff? Nope, not anymore. He's appalled that there might be a frakking investigation.

And he was all a-giggle with the thought that the CIA could actually lie. What a joke. I didn't hear him open his mouth when Newt Gingrich went all whiggy on Nancy Pelosi.

Cokie goes "Cokie" on us for a while and then after much trepidation comes down on the rule of law. Good for her, but she better take some R&R if it happens.

ROBERTS: I must say, I have very mixed minds about this. Because on the one hand, the whole idea of a prosecution gets Washington into that kind of horrible slog where everybody hates each other and the poison just gets very thick.

DONALDSON: Unlike at the moment, right?

ROBERTS: Well, no, it hasn’t been as bad lately as it was in the last 16 years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And it seems like they’re trying to avoid at least in the design of this, criminalizing of policy.

ROBERTS: And just the whole atmosphere of getting that way again. On the other hand, the rule of law is terribly important. And we have to have it -- you know, we cannot operate in this country without the rule of law.

DONALDSON: So which hand do you come down on?

ROBERTS: I’d probably come down on the rule of law.

Digby writes much more:

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

Full transcript below the fold.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, let me bring you in on these investigations. This headline this morning in “The New York Times” about Vice President Cheney ordering the CIA not to tell Congress about the secret program begun in 2001. We don’t really know what the program was, some kind of a counterterrorism program but we know it never got it off the ground.

WILL: Here’s what Bob Woodward’s “Washington Post” says about the program. It quotes a former senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity says “the program remains hardly secretive.” He said “the program remained in the planning stages and never crossed the agency’s threshold for reporting to the administration and congressional overseers.”

But furthermore, the law, to which Cokie referred, 1947, establishing the CIA says indeed Congress must be kept informed unless -- and there’s a huge asterisk. It says unless, “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources.”

WOODWARD: I can’t tell you how shocked I am, the idea that the CIA would withhold disclosing something.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On direct orders of the vice president?

WOODWARD: Well, it had to be on the authority of Bush. I mean, the vice president, powerful as he was, was not the president. And they would not do it unless Bush backed them up on this. The question here is, how do you keep secrets? You know, if you look at the news, this, and Eric Holder is going to have an investigation of interrogations now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A very narrow prosecution in the investigation.

WOODWARD: Well, still, you know, so much of what we are talking about and living through now is the overhang from 9/11. It just doesn’t go away.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The irony here, Sam, is that President Obama is threatening to veto the intelligence authorization bill because the Democrats in the House want to expand the number of people who are briefed. And the president is saying, nope, I don’t want to go down that road.

DONALDSON: Once again, candidate Obama has met President Obama and has discovered maybe he needs to do different things. I think the key here is the words “planning.” What does planning mean? A bunch of people sitting around, blue skies, let’s have this study. You’re right, I guess under the law, that doesn’t need to be reported.

But was there ever any execution? Let’s have a pilot program in the field and try this. On real people. Needs to be reported. And if they didn’t do that, they need to be brought to task. They need to be brought to justice.

ROBERTS: What’s so interesting is that it was people in the CIA who apparently brought this to the attention of the CIA director, Leon Panetta, because obviously, they wanted that out of there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: From the minute he heard about it, he shut it down.

ROBERTS: And went to Congress.

BRAZILE: So why don’t we just put it all out on the table? There’s already investigations. Many of them will be revealed this summer. So there’s no reason why the attorney general should not have a special prosecutor.

DONALDSON: The president doesn’t want to do that.

BRAZILE: Well, you know, the attorney general is a little bit independent of the president.

WOODWARD: After all those independent counsels that Janet Reno when she was attorney general appointed and Clinton would go purple each time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And there has been some tension there between the attorney general and the White House. But based on my reporting overnight, George, the way this has been described, one, no final decision is made yet. Number two, it’s not going to be a broad investigation. Not going to be an investigation of policymakers like Secretary Rumsfeld or Vice President Cheney. Not going to be an investigation of anyone who followed the instructions they were given. This is designed to go after rogue interrogators who just weren’t following the guidance they were given.

ROBERTS: How do you even find those people?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The CIA inspector general report has already got a lot of the specific charges.

WILL: beyond that, is this going to be independent counsel? Because independent counsels have to be independent. Look at the example of Ken Starr. Ken Starr did not want to go all the places he went, but he was drawn by the logic of his unfolding investigation. And if they think they can control the parameters of this, they are very much mistaken.

WOODWARD: Whether it’s an independent counsel or whether it’s just a prosecutor within the -- there’s a momentum that gets going and these things tend to unravel.

DONALDSON: You’re shocked that the CIA keeps secrets. I’m shocked that Vice President Cheney would, you know, give orders, if in fact, he did. It’s unlikely.

ROBERTS: I must say, I have very mixed minds about this. Because on the one hand, the whole idea of a prosecution gets Washington into that kind of horrible slog where everybody hates each other and the poison just gets very thick.

DONALDSON: Unlike at the moment, right?

ROBERTS: Well, no, it hasn’t been as bad lately as it was in the last 16 years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And it seems like they’re trying to avoid at least in the design of this, criminalizing of policy.

ROBERTS: And just the whole atmosphere of getting that way again. On the other hand, the rule of law is terribly important. And we have to have it -- you know, we cannot operate in this country without the rule of law.

DONALDSON: So which hand do you come down on?

ROBERTS: I’d probably come down on the rule of law.

WOODWARD: OK. And that’s where Panetta landed by going to the Congress and saying, look, this was not disclosed. The element in this that’s very important is he stopped it. He said we’re not going further. I don’t think it was particularly sinister. I also think, you’re exactly right, Sam, that candidate Obama has met President Obama and he says I don’t want wide disclosure of our secrets because we need them.

WILL: and here’s why. When someone went to Panetta in the CIA and told him about this and Panetta went to the Congressional Committee, what then happened? It leaked.

WOODWARD: Actually, they wrote letters publicly and the letters circulated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Part of the reason they wrote those letters was in defense of the speaker, Nancy Pelosi who had said --

DONALDSON: Do you know what the program we’re talking about? I don’t.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not what the problem is, but they had said they had been misled and the speaker has said the CIA has lied to us on many occasions. I think she said they lie all the time. So this is a measure of vindication, I suppose, for the speaker, even though she doesn’t want to claim it.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing: Open Thread

John Amato — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:57:51 +0000

We have opening statements this morning and I see they are about to take a break for lunch...Your thoughts?

Here's an article stating that Conservatives on the bench are the activists in our midst:

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

Mike's Blog Roundup

Mike Finnigan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Liberal Values: Fomenting fear and defending the rich

Submitted to a Candid World: NYU Law hires a true homophobe - to teach Human Rights

Bildungblog: Clown

3quarksdaily: The Israeli thought-police is here

Deltoid: Warbloggers' predictions of coalition casualities

Oliver Willis: This is your right blogosphere on...the natch

C&L endorses Presente Action and PCCC's action called 'DenunciaRush' against anti-Latino Republican attacks on Sonia Sotomayor

John Amato — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:00:01 +0000

I'm endorsing this move because the truth is the truth. Presente Action (a new Hispanic organization) and the PCCC are going to run ads in Florida called: DenunciaRush.com to highlight the anti-Latino sentiment that permeates the right wing Republican base, and how that bias is bubbling over with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Adam explains:

We've been pushing hard for health care reform recently, but another big thing is happening this week: The hearings to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as our first Latina Supreme Court Justice are starting today. And it's already ugly. First, congressional Republicans refused to denounce Rush Limbaugh's racist attacks on Sotomayor.

Then just yesterday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee went on CBS and questioned the role of her "ethnic background" in her judicial work. Really? In 2009? Enough! It's time for Republicans to pay a political price for their blatant racism. That's why our friends at Presente Action are going on offense, running Spanish radio ads in key congressional districts -- starting in Florida. These ads will expose Republican racism for voters.

And Blue America's Alan Grayson is also getting big props for stepping up and bashing Limbaugh:

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson -- also from Orlando -- did take on Limbaugh, despite representing a long-time Republican district. He said, "We have an African-American President and, soon, a Puerto Rican Supreme Court Justice. I'm proud of that. You're proud of that. And if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, that's just too bad." Grayson is a bold progressive in Congress. He successfully prosecuted Iraq war profiteers before defeating a House Republican last year and earning a reputation for grilling Wall Street execs this year. Grayson's outspokenness has made him a top Republican target in 2010. When you chip in to help air the radio ads, we've added a place where you can help Grayson's re-election as well. Please consider it.

You can also donate to Alan Grayson's campaign via Blue America here.

Eric Cantor Refuses to Say Ensign or Sanford Should Step Down

Heather — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:30:58 +0000

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (428)

PLAYS: (1274)

On Fox News Sunday when asked if John Ensign or Mark Sanford should resign given that their staying in office is making the GOP look like hypocrites for claiming to be the party of family values, Cantor punts and says they're not a party of personalities, but of ideas. Anyone think he'd have given a different answer if he were being asked about Democrats resigning?

He also completely ignores the part of Wallace's question where he mentions the potentially illegal use private or government money. And like the good little Villager, Wallace doesn't press him on it either. I'm surprised he even asked him the question in the first place. Heaven forbid he'd want to come down too hard on the Republicans' new "rising star", as Cantor was introduced for the segment.

WALLACE: Finally, when you’ve got Republican leaders like Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina or Nevada Senator John Ensign admitting to extramarital affairs and staying in office, questionable use of either private funds or state money, in the case of Sanford, doesn’t the GOP, with all its talk of family values, risk looking like a bunch of hypocrites?

CANTOR: Look, I mean, is anyone happy to see all that have happened? No. I mean, it’s not good. But listen. We have our thoughts with their families and they themselves.

However, look. The party is not just about personalities. It’s about ideas. It’s about our ability to go out and prove that yes, we can lead this country again. So we have got a plan. We are talking about the solutions that actually can address some of the problems that working people in this country are facing, and we’re going to do that over the course of the next 16 months.

WALLACE: But if you’re going to talk the talk, why not walk the walk and say, “You know what? They should step down?”

CANTOR: Well, listen. I mean, again, I say in the instance of the people in South Carolina and Nevada, it is up to them, and those are the elected individuals by those states.

And again, it’s not about, necessarily, these personalities. The direction of this country -- and the challenges that we face are enormous. And we ought to be talking about how to go about creating jobs again. We ought to be talking about the things that matter most to people in this country.

WALLACE: Congressman Cantor, we want to thank you. Thanks for coming in today and please come back, sir.

CANTOR: Pleasure. Thank you, Chris.

Open Thread

Nicole Belle — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:30:37 +0000

Sam Seder talks to Matt Taibbi about his article The Great American Bubble Machine. Part 1 of 4. You can watch the rest of the videos here.

C&L's Late Night Music Club with Benny Goodman

bluegal — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:00:21 +0000

Title: Roll Em'

Artist: Benny Goodman and his orchestra

from the wartime movie "The Powers Girl" (1942), featuring some fabulous Lindy dancers.

This Week: In Memoriam

Nicole Belle — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:42:19 +0000

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (613)

PLAYS: (329)

(h/t David)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks the passings of former Kennedy/Johnson Sec. of Defense and Vietnam War architect Robert McNamara and processed meat magnate Oscar Mayer. In addition, the Pentagon released the names of 15 servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army PFC Justin A Casillas, 19, of Dunnigan, CA
Army PFC Aaron E Fairbairn, 20, of Aberdeen, WA
Marine LCpl Charles S Sharp, 20, of Adairsville, GA
Navy PO2 Tony Michael Randolph, 22, of Henryetta, OK
Army SPC Christopher M Talbert, 24, of Galesburg, IL
Army PFC Nicolas H J Gideon, 20, of Murrieta, CA
Army CPT Mark A Garner, 30, of North Carolina,
Army 2LT Derwin I Williams, 41, of Glenwood, IL
Army SGT Brock H Chavers, 25, of Bulloch, GA
Army SPC Chester W Hosford, 35, of Hastings, MN
Army SPC Issac L Johnson, 24, of Columbus, GA
Navy AO Darren Ethan Tate, 21, of Canyon, TX
Marine Sgt Michael C Roy, 25, of North Fort Myers, FL
Army PVT Lucas M Bregg, 19, of Wright City, MO
Army SPC Gregory J Missman, 36, of Batavia, OH

According to iCasualties, the total number of allied servicemembers killed in Iraq is now 4,640, in Afghanistan, 1,240. During this same week, Iraq Body Count lists 123 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Bill Moyers Weighs in on the Washington Post's Pay to Play Scheme

Heather — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:00:42 +0000

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1058)

PLAYS: (3011)

Bill Moyers on what's wrong with our government, citing the Washington Post's recent embarrassment, asking for lobbyists and CEO's to fork out a load of cash for a cozy dinner at their publisher, Katharine Weymouth's house, until they decided to cancel it after one of the lobbyists leaked the story to The Politico.

MOYERS: Quality, affordable health care's on the critical list in America. And so is the newspaper business. So maybe it's not surprising that one of the most powerful papers in the country attempted an unholy alliance, trying to turn a profit from its newsroom's coverage of the fight for health care reform.

You may have missed the story because it broke on the eve of the July 4th weekend. The publisher of THE WASHINGTON POST, Katharine Weymouth — one of the most powerful people in the nation's capital — invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

But she then invited CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry to come, too — providing they fork over $25,000 a head, or a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy little get-togethers. And what is the inducement she offers them? Nothing less than — and I'm quoting the invitation verbatim — "An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done." The invitation reminds the CEOs and lobbyists that they will be buying access to "those powerful few in business and policy making who are forwarding, legislating, and reporting on the issues."

Remember, the invitation promises this private, intimate, and off-the-record dinner is an extension "of THE WASHINGTON POST brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard."

Let that sink in. The "stakeholders" in health care reform in this case do not include the rabble — the folks across the country who actually need quality health care but can't afford it. If any of them showed up at the kitchen door on the night of this little soiree, a bouncer would drop kick them beyond the beltway.

In other words, before you can cross the threshold in Washington to reach "the select few who will actually get it done," you must first cross the palm of some outstretched hand. The dinner was canceled after the invite was leaked to the website politico.com — by a health care lobbyist, of all people. But it was enough to give us a glimpse into how things really work in Washington. A clear insight into why there is such a great disconnect between democracy and government today, between Washington and the rest of the country.

According to one poll after another, a majority of Americans not only want a public option in health care, they also think that growing inequality is bad for the country, that corporations have too much power over policy, that money in politics is the root of all evil, and that working families and poor communities need and deserve public support when the market fails to generate shared prosperity. But when the insiders in Washington finish tearing worthy intentions apart and devouring flesh from bone, none of these reforms happen. Oh, they say, "it's all about compromise, all in the nature of the give-and-take of representative democracy." That, people, is bull — the basic nutrient of Washington's high and mighty.

It's not about compromise. It's not about what the public wants. It's about money, the golden ticket to "the select few who actually get it done." And nothing will change. Nothing. Until the money-lenders are tossed out of the temple, and we tear down the sign they've placed on government — the one that reads: "For sale."