From AlterNet
By Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers:With me now is one of America’s leading chroniclers of money, power, and politics, who says what’s happening is the disgrace of Wall Street, its excesses paid for by people like those in Cleveland and millions like them around the country.

William Greider has spent forty years examining how powerful institutions affect ordinary people. Once a top editor of The Washington Post, a columnist for Rolling Stone, and now National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation, he has produced a series of best-selling books: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country, One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism, Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy, and The Soul of Capitalism. He’s working on a new book with the title: Come Home, America.

Moyers: What were you thinking as you saw that report from Cleveland? [The segment preceding this interview with Greider covered exorbitant lending practices in Cleveland].

Bill Greider: Made me angry all over again, even though I know the story. And then I thought, “This is usury.” This is a living example of what the Bible prohibited, which is the sin of usury. Most Americans have never heard of it probably.

Moyers: Usury?

Greider: Usury, to be clear about it, is rich people taking advantage of poor people by lending them money on terms that are sure to make them fail. All three of the great religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, had a moral prohibition against usury because they recognized that society can’t function like that. People of great wealth and their institutions like banks naturally have the power to overwhelm people of lesser means. And you can’t allow that in a decent society. It won’t survive.

Read more Interview

From Der Spiegel

Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama’s troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation.

Comments made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in an interview with SPIEGEL (more…) published on Saturday have stirred up the campaign teams of both Barack Obama and John McCain this weekend. And late on Saturday, Maliki tried to distance himself from the statements, saying his comments were misunderstood.

In the interview, Maliki expressed support of Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of changes.”

Maliki was quick to back away from an outright endorsement of Obama, saying “who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business.” But he then went on to say: “But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.”

A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had “misunderstood and mistranslated” the Iraqi prime minister, but didn’t point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred. Al-Dabbagh said Maliki’s comments “should not be understood as support to any US presidential candidates.” The statement was sent out by the press desk of the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq.

A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki’s office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh’s statement “did not address a specific error.” CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, “how likely is it that SPIEGEL mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by “how little effort was made” to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.

Read more Interview

From Democracy Now
By Amy Goodman

As the country and the world reel from crises ranging from skyrocketing oil prices and global food shortages to housing and climate change, how best to understand the government policies being pushed through? We spend the hour with Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein also discusses Barack Obama’s economic advisory team, whom she calls “Obama’s Chicago Boys”; why she’s suing the US government for spying on journalists like her; as well as her recent trip to China, where she says the government is building a high-tech police state with the help of US military contractors.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush has lifted an almost two-decade-old executive order banning offshore and natural gas drilling. With prices at the pump over $4 a gallon, Bush has been pushing to allow more drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge, amidst strong opposition from environmentalists.

The executive drilling ban was issued by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. His son’s lifting of the ban yesterday is largely symbolic, because a separate congressional ban has prohibited offshore drilling since 1981. Speaking on the White House lawn Monday, the President urged lawmakers to lift the ban.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The failure to act is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me, and it’s unacceptable to the American people. So today I’ve issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, the executive branch’s restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the US Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress’s court.

AMY GOODMAN: In President Bush’s final months of office, the economy is at the top of the agenda. Oil prices now exceed $140 a barrel, more than double $70 a year ago. The high cost of oil has helped exacerbate the global food crisis that threatens to push over 100 million people below the poverty line due to rising food prices. This all comes amidst an ongoing housing crisis, with the US Treasury and Federal Reserve unveiling sweeping steps to possibly bail out the nation’s two largest mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Amidst these multiple crises, how best to understand government policies being enacted? Naomi Klein is the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. The book is out in paperback this month. It was first published in September, and in some ways, much of what Naomi writes about in the book is more relevant today. Naomi Klein joins us in our firehouse studio for the hour. Welcome to Democracy Now!

Read more Interview

From TruthDig
By Kasia Anderson

Critics and challengers of Naomi Klein’s work had better take a close look at her latest book, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” before launching their attacks. This is one writer whose research and documentation are so exhaustive that would-be detractors will not only find her analysis to be dauntingly watertight, even if they don’t share her views about the unnatural disasters enabled by free-market capitalism, but they might also discover that some of her source material seems strangely familiar.

That’s because she took a page—or several hundred pages, rather—from just the sort of think tanks, government officials, scholars and publications that would seem to oppose her ideas most forcefully. But instead of trying to explain recurring socioeconomic patterns in the wake of various global crises by using a familiar “lefty” lens to justify her claims, Klein looks to the likes of Milton Friedman, the Cato Institute, Henry Kissinger and the Financial Times to bolster her argument about how “disaster capitalism” was cooked up decades ago and how it can explain what happened following Hurricane Katrina, Augusto Pinochet’s 1973 Chilean coup, and more recent events like Burma’s cyclone and the floods in the American Midwest.

The inner workings and key subscribers of disaster capitalism were exposed when the book first came out last September. Klein called in just before the June 24 paperback release of “The Shock Doctrine” to discuss with Truthdig’s Associate Editor Kasia Anderson this scary piece of nonfiction, as well as the resource-rich Shock Doctrine Web site, and how she believes the notion of disaster capitalism is, unfortunately, still relevant at this moment.

Kasia Anderson: So, I have read your book and was very alarmed, and I think it was a nice wake-up call for me. But let’s start out by talking a little bit about disaster capitalism, which is the central idea of your book. I was reading your L.A. Times article from earlier this year and you say, “Over the last four years, I have been researching a little-explored area of economic history: the way that crises have paved the way for the march of the right-wing economic revolution across the globe. A crisis hits, panic spreads and the ideologues fill the breach, rapidly reengineering societies in the interests of large corporate players. It’s a maneuver I call ‘disaster capitalism.’ ” So that lays the groundwork a little bit.

Now, with all due respect to your keen perception, why do you think this is a “little-explored area of economic history” when you’re looking at events that go back as far as five decades?

Read more Interview

From AlterNet
By Antonia Juhasz

On June 3, Jeremy Scahill’s bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army was released in fully revised and updated paperback form. The new edition includes reporting on the now-famous Nisour Square massacre on Sept. 16 of last year, in which Blackwater mercenaries opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, brutally murdering 17 Iraqi civilians. The killing spree, which the U.S. Army would label a “criminal event,” would reveal the extent of the lawlessnewss enjoyed by private contractors abroad and the lengths the Bush administration will go to protect its private army of choice.

Antonia Juhasz caught up with Scahill on the phone the day the new edition was released. A fellow at Oil Change International and author of The Bush Agenda, Juhasz is also the author of the forthcoming book The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry, and What We Must Do to Stop It. Juhasz and Scahill discussed, among other topics, the story behind Blackwater, congressional inaction, radical privatization, Barack Obama, corporate vs. independent media, GI resistance in the age of private mercenaries, getting real about challenging corporations and the power of dissent.

Antonia Juhasz: I first have to admit that, until now, I had not read Blackwater and that, as someone who had been reading your Nation articles, I had quite erroneously assumed that I knew what you had to say about this company. I could not have been more wrong. This is a fantastic, informative, insightful and critically important book.

Jeremy Scahill: Thank you. I started writing this book by accident. I’d been writing about Blackwater when my [Nation] editors Katrina vanden Heuvel and Betsy Reed sat me down and said, “We’ve published ten articles about one company and you’re doing great work, but you either need to write a book or get a new beat.” Once I began researching the company in the context of a book, I realized that, in many ways, it was a metaphor for so much that was happening with the country, particularly with the privatization agenda of the war machine. So, while there are some parts of the book that are based on reporting I did for the Nation, the vast majority is new investigative research.

Read more Interview

From The Consortium News
By Dennis Bernstein

Bernstein: Let’s cut to the quick and tell us what you see as being at the core of your call to impeach the President and the Vice President.

Kucinich: An attempt to destroy constitutional governance by violating numerous constitutional provisions, U.S. code and international law, taking us into a war based on lies, making a false case for the war, saying falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that it had the intention of attacking the United States, that there was a readiness to imminently attack, pursuing policies of torture, illegal detention, wiretapping, spying, rendition. I mean, there’s…you know these articles…

Bernstein: When you say rendition, you are talking about kidnapping…

Kucinich: Right. Kidnapping someone against their will, moving them to another country, where they’re tortured. … If you read the articles, you will see that a pattern has been laid out that gives plenty of information to the Judiciary Committee and gives rise to not just hearings, but I think we have provided enough evidence to lay the basis for the impeachment. …

I think that this resolution is seen as an opportunity for a re-establishment of the imbalance of power which has happened over the last six years in this country since 9-11, where the President, through deception, has seized enormous amounts of power and has diminished the role of the legislative branch through deception. This gives Congress an opportunity to re-establish itself as a co-equal branch of government, providing an effective check and balance to executive abuse of power. This is what the founders anticipated in putting in the Constitution, in seven different places, the impeachment power and in making the House the sole guardian of that power. And so this is really an attempt to re-establish democratic governance, have the principle of accountability and the rule of law made central again to our public affairs and to take America, return America to a condition of true democracy.

Read more Interview

From Think Progress

During an interview with President Bush on Britain’s Sky News yesterday, Sky political editor Adam Boulton noted that while Bush talks “a lot about freedom,” there are many who say that some of the Bush administration’s torture and detention policies represent “the complete opposite of freedom.” But Bush quickly snapped back, saying those criticizing his policies are slandering America:

BOULTON: There are those who would say look, lets take Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, and rendition and all those things and to them that is the complete opposite of freedom.

BUSH: Of course, if you want to slander America.

Watch Interview

From Der Spiegel

Should Barack Obama win in November, many think that Republican Senator — and Bush critic — Chuck Hagel could become part of his cabinet. SPIEGEL spoke with him about the current administration’s mistakes and the disarray in his own party.

SPIEGEL: Senator Hagel, your friend and Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that the United States Army has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq. Is he right?

Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.

SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?

Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.

SPIEGEL: The question is: Should the US go or should it stay?

Hagel: We need to get out, but responsibly. Much depends on how we are going to engage Iran. That spills over into the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It spills over into Lebanon. It spills over into the relationship with Syria. We need a regional strategy, and in my view that means a permanent Middle East conference in which all Middle East nations participate. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to implement such a process. Many of the Arab nations don’t trust us.

Read more Interview

From The Guardian UK
By Jonathan Freedland

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

“I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made,” said Carter. “That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates.”

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: “If you take that 50% who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds.”

Carter, who insisted that he would have been equally against an Obama-Clinton pairing if the former first lady had won the nomination, made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian’s Weekend magazine, to be published on Saturday. The interview was conducted before the final round of voting last night confirmed Obama as the party’s presumptive nominee.

The intervention of the former president - regarded as the senior elder of the Democratic party by some, and as a walking reminder of electoral failure by others - comes just as speculation of a joint Obama-Clinton ticket is building in the US. Lanny Davis, a close Clinton adviser and friend, has launched a petition drive and website - and written directly to Obama - urging him to appoint his defeated rival.

Read more Carter

From The Raw Story
By David Edwards and Mike Sheehan

’O'Reilly Factor’ host Bill O’Reilly became visibly upset as he questioned Scott McClellan about Iraq war propaganda and the CIA leak case.

McClellan, the former Bush White House press secretary whose recently released book has caused a sensation with its scathing criticisms of the administration he once worked for, appeared on the show to promote his memoirs.

O’Reilly was particularly incensed with McClellan’s critique of President Bush’s reasons for invading Iraq, overtly to find weapons of mass destruction.

“If the director of the CIA believes it, British intelligence believes it, John Kerry believes it, Hillary Clinton believes it, and President Clinton believes it…” said O’Reilly, “If they all believe Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, sir: don’t you have a nerve accusing me of not being vigilant enough?”

O’Reilly later thundered, “If two presidents of the United States (sitting), the former CIA guy who works for both presidents, Tony Blair, and The New York Times all tell me and you [Saddam has] got [WMDs], we can’t say ‘no, he doesn’t!’

McClellan attempted to explain himself continuously through the interview, but O’Reilly could not be satisfied. “The central theme of your book is wrong,” accused O’Reilly.

Watch Interview