To The Honorable Edward Irving Koch served as a member of Congress from New York State from 1969 through 1977, and New York City as its 105th Mayor from 1978 to 1989. It’s the Seminal Fluid that you’r sipping with cereal every time you author an Ed Koch Commentary outfucked your mindset. Try Ukrainian Preteens. They are really good

To The Honorable Edward Irving Koch served as a member of Congress from New York State from 1969 through 1977, and New York City as its 105th Mayor from 1978 to 1989. It’s the Seminal Fluid that you’r sipping with cereal every time you author an Ed Koch Commentary outfucked your mindset. Try Ukrainian Preteens. They are really good.

Your question:

Mr. President, Mr. Romney, Tell Us Please Why You Support American Soldiers Continuing to Remain in Afghanistan by Ed Koch.

I thought you are smarter than that Eduardo! With Heroin Street Price touching $40 per gram. It’s UNAMERICAN to pull out all those Endangered US Troops Species outta Afghanistan. Americans ain’t losing here nor are they getting killed. They are safe and Making Money, they protect USA. Killing millions of Praying Elders, poor women, Sleeping Babies, exporting their Corpses to Human Organs Market in Israel and turning useless Human Parts to Key-Chains and KKK-Memorabilia sold in neo-Nazi Skinheads & Rednecks Boutiques of the Midwest. They are very creative, enterprising & business minded entrepreneurs. The good news is that the troops as we speak are Fucked I mean sodomized by Afghan Bachabazz (Bachabazz usually fuck mountain goats & donkeys as Aphrodisiac to enlarge the Genitals. Be by guest Eduardo!) Whereas DoD Contractors training Iranian sleeper cells to turn Afghanistan into another Iranian-Bitch-State as they did to Iraq and dole Afghanistan to Khomeini in 2014. How about that? And now to James Dao and Andrew N. Lehren Googledjunk & Wikitrash, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation! Here you go…

Last week, The New York Times in an article authored by James Dao and Andrew N. Lehren laid out the impact of the Afghan war on the families of those fighting in a way that only The Times is able to do. God bless The Times for the article and the published pictures of the 2,000 Americans who have died in that war defending our country. It is the longest war in our history. It started as most Americans will remember on 9/11/2001 when Osama bin Laden, then headquartered in Afghanistan under the protection of the Afghan Taliban government planned and executed the acts of terrorism – blowing up the two World Trade Center towers in lower Manhattan, destroying part of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. and seeking with a third plane to destroy the Capitol, which plane was recaptured by its passengers over Pennsylvania where it crashed. All together, 2,977 people were killed, not including the hijackers, 2,606 at the World Trade Center, 125 at the Pentagon and 246 on the four planes involved, including 40 passengers and crew who died in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. For nearly eleven years, we have waged war in Afghanistan and have had significant victories. Not long ago, our special forces Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden who was living in Pakistan apparently under the protection of the Pakistani Inter-service Intelligence (I.S.I.), our supposed ally. According to the C.I.A. director, now Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, we have through various means, including assassinations with the aid of drones, reduced the number of al-Qaeda personnel to less than 50 in Afghanistan. However, the Taliban now controls near half of the country and is able to effectively wage war against the combined American and Karzai government forces. Our government has announced that we intend to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014 – more than 2 years away – after we have trained the Karzai government forces so they can defend their own country. However, the Karzai government, which is corrupt and has reportedly skimmed off billions of U.S. government monies intended for infrastructure and military supplies, does not have the support of the Afghan population except for his own Pashtun ethnic group, the largest in Afghanistan, and is unlikely to be able to defeat the Taliban. The Taliban, a terrorist organization, apparently did and does have more of the hearts and minds of the Afghanis for the following reasons: (1) its religious fundamentalism, including the application of Sharia or Muslim religious law; (2) its lack of corruption or at least far less than that of Karzai’s government; and (3) its better trained soldiers endowed with the strength of their own convictions. Why would we think it is our mission in life to keep the corrupt Karzai government in power? This is sheer madness stemming from our government deluding itself into thinking that we are protecting the American homeland by preventing the Taliban from taking over the Afghan government. The people of Afghanistan, not just those supporting the Taliban, but those supporting Karzai, hate us. The immediate affect of that hate is demonstrated by the fact that the very people being trained in the Karzai army by American military trainers are killing those American military personnel. The Times article of August 21st reported, “But this year, another threat emerged: an intensified wave of attacks by Afghan security forces. In just the past two weeks, at least 9 Americans have been killed in such insider attacks. For the year to date, at least 40 NATO service members, most of them American, have been killed by either active members of the Afghan forces or attackers dressed in their uniforms – already outstripping the toll from all last year.” An even worse indictment of our policy is that, according to The Times, “[m]ore active duty and reserve soldiers killed themselves last year, 278, than died in combat in Afghanistan, 247.” They broke under the pressure of it all. Think of the many who thought of killing themselv, but are psychologically severely damaged. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Apparently, we are there for the same reason the Obama administration hoped to stay in Iraq: to have a military base forever. While President Obama now points to our having gotten out of Iraq as a source of pride, we know had he had his druthers, he would have stayed forever, but the Iraqi government demanded we leave even before 2014. The Iraqi government is no friend of ours and is part of the conference of 40 nations now convening in Iran in a show of support for the Iranian regime. That regime is proceeding with its nuclear program, despite heavy international sanctions, and is continuing its call for wiping out Israel. The Taliban is our enemy, but without the ability to injure the U.S. were we to leave and it became the government. The countries with the ability to injure us physically here in the U.S. are Pakistan and ultimately Iran. Both of those countries also provide modern bases for terrorist networks. We are now approaching what happened in Vietnam when ultimately we fled Saigon. Remember the sight of helicopters lifting people from the roof of our embassy and flying them to carriers off the coast? Must we wait for that to happen here? General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was recently in Kabul conferring with General Allen, head of our forces in Afghanistan, trying to come up with a solution to the problem of Karzai soldiers shooting their American trainers. During his stay in Kabul, his plane sitting on the tarmac in a highly secure area was attacked forcing him to use another. The Times of August 19th described the meeting between Generals Dempsey and Allen as follows: “After months of military leaders’ attempts to tamp down worries over the killings of American and NATO troops by the Afghan forces serving beside them, Gen. John R. Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, called an urgent meeting of his generals last Wednesday to address the escalating death toll. In a room crowded with more than 40 commanders, the general underscored the need to quickly stop the bloodletting that is sapping morale, according to NATO officials, part of a new emphasis on protecting American and NATO forces after a spate of attacks that included the killing of six Marine trainers this month. In one of a series of recent steps, the military decreed that American and NATO service members should always carry a loaded magazine in their weapons, to save precious moments if attacked by Afghan forces. Another initiative, now a priority, is a program named ‘Guardian Angel’ that calls for one or two soldiers to monitor the Afghans during every mission or meeting, officials say. The ‘angels,’ whose identities are not disclosed to the Afghans, must be prepared to fire on anyone who tries to kill a coalition service member.” The Times article of August 21st quoted a Marine Colonel who said: “Everyone was shocked, including me, that we lost that many guys that quickly,’ Colonel Morris said. ‘But honestly, me and most of my Marines would have rather come home in body bags than let the Taliban claim a victory.’” America does not want its sons to come home in body bags. The American public wants them to come home alive and only sacrifice their lives to protect Americans. No, America weeps at the anguish of the mother of a Marine who was killed, quoted in the Times, ” He was the most lovable, caring human being,’ she said of her son. ‘He wore his heart on his sleeve. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.’”This morning, August 27th, Reuters reported, “[a] rogue Afghan soldier shot dead two U.S. troops in east Afghanistan on Monday, the NATO-led coalition said, the latest in a series of insider killings that have strained trust between the allies ahead of a 2014 pullout by foreign combat troops. The deaths in Laghman province brought to 12 the number of foreign soldiers killed this month, prompting NATO to increase security against insider attacks, including requiring soldiers to carry loaded weapons at all times on base.” Mr. President and Mr. Romney, why do both of you continue to support our remaining in Afghanistan? Please tell us why.

Aside from all-that-jazz

Obaid Karki is a Sexagenarian UAE Paleoconservative Provocateur with a Picassoic Attitude, Blackbelt Diehart Paulite Constitutionalist Libertarian, Diogenesist, Spinoziste, Qutbist, Kabbalist, Pantheon, Hexalingual, Automath, Antitribal-Gentiles-Cabal, Unaffiliated to State or any Religiosity Cult and Seigniorage Banksters Sharia Scam.

Bernanke Virtual Indecipherable Wonk-Speak Fucked the Dollar as He ordered the Congress to Maintain High Federal Spending and Pass huge Tax increases to avoid sharp retrenchment that could endanger recovery over Unconventional Easing. And now to Wall Street Thesaurus Whores, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation! Reuters, Bloomberg, Businessweek, Wall Street Journal, CNNMoney, Chicago Tribune, Seeking Alpha, Denver Post, The Australian Mercenarily hailed Bernanke lest their Monthly Cheque ain’t arrive.. Here you go

Bernanke Virtual Indecipherable Wonk-Speak Fucked the Dollar as He ordered the Congress to Maintain High Federal Spending and Pass huge Tax increases to avoid sharp retrenchment that could endanger recovery over Unconventional Easing. And now to Wall Street Thesaurus Whores, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation! Reuters, Bloomberg, Businessweek, Wall Street Journal, CNNMoney, Chicago Tribune, Seeking Alpha, Denver Post, The Australian Mercenarily hailed Bernanke lest their Monthly Cheque ain’t arrive.. Here you go

• Aust bonds higher after Bernanke speech The Australian

• Bernanke comments help lift stock market to end week Denver Post

• Bernanke Defends Bond Purchases in Signal of More Fed Easing Bloomberg

• Bernanke Leads Jackson Hold Push for Fix to Europe Crisis Businessweek

• Bernanke lifts Wall Street, keeps stimulus in play Reuters

• Bernanke raps BIS call for global cooperation by central banks Reuters

• Bernanke Shows Up, Stocks Rally Seeking Alpha

• Bernanke speech helps European shares end month on a high Reuters

• Canada Stocks-Gold miners, Bernanke push TSX closes up 62.61 points Reuters

• Dollar slips as Bernanke reinforces easing hopes Reuters

• Global Markets-Asian shares inch lower after Bernanke as data in focus Reuters

• Investors find Bernanke’s words stimulating Chicago Tribune

• Nikkei set to rise as Bernanke boosts stimulus hopes

• OIL FUTURES: Crude Rises 2% Following Bernanke Remarks Wall Street Journal

• Seoul shares seen rising after Bernanke keeps stimulus hopes up Reuters

• Stocks end August with Bernanke-inspired bounce CNNMoney

• Vegoils-Palm oil edges up on exports, Bernanke Reuters

Obaid Karki is a Sexagenarian UAE Paleoconservative Provocateur with a Picassoic Attitude, Blackbelt Diehart Paulite Constitutionalist Libertarian, Diogenesist, Spinoziste, Qutbist, Kabbalist, Pantheon, Hexalingual, Automath, Antitribal-Gentiles-Cabal, Unaffiliated to State or any Religiosity Cult and Seigniorage Banksters Sharia Scam.

Einfuehlung / Hugh Hewitt: Did you go to Parochial school? Paul Ryan: Yeah, Mostly nuns, I was scared to death of them. they’re at retirement center. They’re Dominicans. Hugh Hewitt with Paul Ryan was brief and interrupted cell phone failure, but interesting nonetheless. The transcript posted below: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/3229320e-2c55-4122-93f1-2ebe4fbc8663

Einfuehlung / Hugh Hewitt: Did you go to Parochial school? Paul Ryan: Yeah, Mostly nuns, I was scared to death of them. they’re at retirement center. They’re Dominicans. Hugh Hewitt with Paul Ryan was brief and interrupted cell phone failure, but interesting nonetheless. The transcript posted below: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/3229320e-2c55-4122-93f1-2ebe4fbc8663.

Hugh Hewitt: Did you go to Parochial school?

Paul Ryan: Yeah, Mostly nuns, I was scared to death of them. they’re at retirement center. They’re Dominicans.

Hugh Hewitt with Paul Ryan was brief and interrupted cell phone failure, but interesting nonetheless.  The transcript posted below:

HH: Pleased to welcome now the next vice president of the United States, Paul Ryan. Congressman, welcome back and congratulations.

PR: Hey, thanks, Hugh, good to be with you. How have you been?

HH: I have been terrific, and I hope you’re having a good time at this. Let me dive in. I know your time is limited. I was just talking with the audience about the networks’ decision not to carry even a minute of the opening night of the Republican National Convention. What do you make of that?

PR: You know, I didn’t know that until you just now said that. The way I’ve always looked at this is we can’t expect the media to amplify our message clearly. We have to get it out ourselves, and through alternative means like your show. So I think it’s disappointing, it’s unfortunate, but you know, I can’t say it’s a huge surprise, because that’s just par for the course. As a conservative, I’m kind of used to that sort of treatment.

HH: All right, Congressman, a lot of people care about policy, but I’m more interested in biography. You’ve been on the program a number of times, and we’ll have you back and talk policy, but since you’re going to be the nominee, let’s do a little biography.

PR: Sure.

HH: Tell us about your family growing up in Janesville.

PR: Well, I’m just from a fairly typical middle income family. My dad was a small town lawyer in Janesville, my mom stayed at home. I’ve got an older sister and two older brothers. My dad died when I was pretty young, in high school when I was 16. My mom then went back to school, learned a trade, and then started a small business and had three or four employees. My grandmother moved in with us at the time. She was suffering from Alzheimer’s. So you know, I kind of grew up a little faster than most young people did, I guess. I became very intellectually curious. That’s what got me into studying economics. So I spent a lot of time as a young guy studying economics. My goal in life was to, you know, the University of Chicago and get my PhD and be an economist, was what I sort of thought I was going to do. And I ended up working in D.C. for some conservatives, for some think tanks. Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett were my two big mentors who I worked for, and that got me involved in public policy and public service. I went back home to Janesville and ran for an open seat when I was pretty young, 28 years old, and I’ve served in Congress since then. I’ve chaired the Budget Committee. You know me, so you know I’m a conservative. I believe in pro-growth economics, limited government, the founding principles, the Constitution, and I’ve been putting ideas out there over the years how to get this country on the right track.

HH: That’s why I think…

PR: And that sort of…

HH: That’s why I think people are so excited about your candidacy is you’re an ideas guy. But did you go to parochial school?

PR: Yeah, I went to Catholic school from first through eighth grade, and then I went to public school after that.

HH: Now which, what was the name of the parochial school in Janesville?

PR: St. Mary’s Catholic School.

HH: And did you play youth sports?

PR: Yeah, of course. I played basketball, soccer, track, all correct.

HH: And what was your first job?

PR: Well, you can get a job as a very young kid in Wisconsin in detasseling corn. So for people not in the Midwest, what that means is you walk down a corn row, and you snap the tassels off the corn to help pollinate the corn. I had a lot of landscaping jobs, a lot of lawn mowing jobs. I worked at McDonald’s, waited tables, was a fitness trainer, sold meat for Oscar Meyer, I had a lot…I painted houses, lots of different jobs.

HH: You worked at McDonald’s?

PR: Yeah, I was, you know, a funny story is the manager said I didn’t have the social skills to work the front, so he put me on the quarter pounder grill.

HH: (laughing)

PR: So now I’m in Congress, I say. It’s kind of funny.

HH: Now I want you to help the media out. Which of your teachers from elementary or high school do you want the media to find, and which ones do you not want them to find?

PR: Mostly I had nuns, and I was scared to death of them back then. So you know, they’re at a retirement center, a few of them, in Wisconsin. They’re Dominicans. And you know…

HH: We lost you there, Congressman. Are you still with us? Go ahead. Oh, we’re losing him there…Congressman, we lost you there.

PR: Sorry about that.

HH: That’s okay. Hey, in high school, what did you do in high school? Were you a speech and debate guy? Were you a bandie? What were you?

PR: No, I was student government and athletics, honor society, you know, that kind of thing. I was kind of a combination. I was class president my junior year, I was the school board rep my senior year. I lettered in varsity, you know, my first year in high school, mostly soccer and track. I was a distance runner and a soccer player. So kind of well-rounded. I can’t, I can play a cowbell. That’s about it for instruments.

HH: Are you still running?

PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or yes.

HH: But you did run marathons at some point?

PR: Yeah, but I can’t do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.

HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?

PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.

HH: Holy smokes. All right, now you go down to Miami University…

PR: I was fast when I was younger, yeah.

HH: I got so much email when I referred to it as Miami University of Ohio, and you know, I’ve got ties to Miami University, but they wanted me to call it The Miami University. You’re Delta Tau Delta, right?

PR: Right, right.

HH: All right, now I spent a few nights in the rack room at the Pike House in the 70s, and you guys had some fun at Miami. Do we have to worry about any stories coming out of Oxford?

PR: No, no, normal clean-cut college fun. You know, the rack room that I had slept in is about, I don’t know, you could hit it with a hard ball from the Pike rack room. It’s maybe a hundred yards.

HH: Okay…

PR: So pretty close.

HH: Now the media’s going to try and trip you up on the big change from Redskins to Redhawks, and they’re going to try and get you to say something politically incorrect. What are you going to say about that?

PR: The school made its own choice. I was there, and it was the Miami Redskins when I was there, and now it’s the Miami Redhawks.

HH: Okay, that’s a great answer. Stick with that. Last question, you know, Bennett can’t get through an hour without mentioning he is your mentor. I want five bucks for every time Bill Bennett takes credit for you.

PR: (laughing)

HH: So tell us about the salt mine he ran at Empower America, but more importantly, about the ideas there, and what that gave to you working for that kind of place at that kind of time.

PR: That was a very formative stage of my life. You know, working in the conservative movement for the likes of Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp and Jean Kirkpatrick, I was the economics guy. And so I staffed Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett on any economics issue, whether it was tax reform, monetary policy, sound money. That was where I really honed a lot of my views, and where I got acquainted with just really the policy reformers of our time in the conservative movement. And it was what got me into public policy. You know, Jack Kemp had this sort of infectious enthusiasm, and I had planned on doing this for a little while, then I wanted to be an economist. That was my plan in life. But what Jack sort of brought me into was this notion that at a young age, you can make a big difference. The battle of ideas is worth fighting. This country is so unique and exceptional, and it just really sparked, it triggered a spark in me, which is what basically caused me to change my sort of path I had planned for myself in life and get involved in public policy and public service. And that’s what I’ve done. And I’m a big ideas guy. I believe in the battle of ideas. I believe in liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination, government by the consent of the governed, all those founding principles. Our rights come from nature and God, not government.

HH: Well, keep fighting for those, Congressman. Come back early and often. My view is the more you talk, the better off this country’s going to be, and the more Republicans are going to win. Thank you, Chairman Paul Ryan for joining us. Look forward to your nomination. See you, I hope, in Tampa Bay.

End of interview.

USA encourages fleeing CCP Thieving Fugitives to Uhaul their loots to America. Wang Guoqiang fled China with $31M Bribes received from Corrupt Realtors & Heating companies. History repeats itself. Like National Socialist German Workers Party and Bolsheviks Thieves who fled Berlin to America with all their Loots.

USA encourages fleeing CCP Thieving Fugitives to Uhaul their loots to America. Wang Guoqiang fled China with $31M Bribes received from Corrupt Realtors & Heating companies. History repeats itself. Like National Socialist German Workers Party and Bolsheviks Thieves who fled Berlin to America with all their Loots.

Here’s some Feng shui from Jack Phillips Epoch Times Staff

Wang Guoqiang, the Communist Party head of Fengcheng Liaoning, fled the country with $31 million. (Weibo.com) The Chinese Communist Party chief of a northeastern city in Liaoning Province fled the country with tens of millions of dollars in another sign that corruption among Chinese officials is rampant and ongoing. The case was reported by state-run and other Chinese media on Wednesday. Wang Guoqiang, the Communist Party head of Fengcheng, and his wife disappeared in April, taking around 200 million yuan ($31 million) with them. He didn’t say where he was going. Local officials have not confirmed that he left with the money, but merely said that he left, according to the Shanghai Daily. “We are unfamiliar with his case,” an official with Fengcheng told the newspaper. According to the Daily report, Wang brought the embezzled money to the United States, where a number of his family members live, but it is unclear if he went there himself. Wang was being investigated for taking bribes from local property developers and from a heating company. Wang was officially removed as the Communist Party chief of the city and was replaced by Ma Yanchuan, who used to serve as the mayor. In recent years, numerous Chinese Communist officials have fled the country, oftentimes embezzling millions of dollars. Wang left the country under the auspices of “conducting a field study” before investigators could arrest him for alleged corruption charges, the Daily reported. Leaked documents obtained by The Epoch Times in July show that as of November 2011, 7,101 corrupt officials fled to the United States and brought $52.7 billion with them. High-level authorities in the ruling Party have also expressed worry about so-called “naked officials,” who have a wife or relatives living outside of China.

State-run media have reported on corrupt officials fleeing the country. The Global Times, under the supervision of Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, in an editorial on Tuesday said that when the ruling Party “covers over” such scandals, it “only lets them fester.” “Wang’s flight is certainly a scandal. It would be good for the officials if such a scandal could be hidden, but that’s hardly realistic,” it said, adding that Liaoning officials should disclose information about Wang. “They can publish what they know so as to stop speculation on the Internet.” The Times said that people will find out sooner or later.

DEBT-LADEN UNPRIVILEGED EMARATI MOTHER DITCHED HER KIDS IN MAID’S CUSTODY FOR 10 MONTHS TO EVADE PRISON. Here’s Zeitgeist Privileged Emarati Cabal Whorsmanure from Salam Al Amir of The National

UAE is unable to settle $218k to save Debt-Laden Unprivileged Emarati mom & her 5 kids from Debt Collecting Mercenaries. Whereas UAE Partnered Saudi to have Pederast Qaboos & Bahrain Kingling $40B cash wasted on Underage Boys & Weapons Respectively.

Here’s Zeitgeist Privileged Emarati Cabal Perspective in THE NATIONAL:

A mother suspected of leaving her five children alone in a house with their two housemaids for ten months as she hid from creditors is to face charges of neglect. The woman, an Emirati whose identity has not been disclosed, is thought to have been hiding from creditors to whom she owed debts of Dh800,000 while the maids cared for the three boys and two girls – aged between two and 10 years. The mother is thought to have paid occasional visits during which she would order the maids to lock the children in a room so they could not spot her. A friend of the woman noticed the children were unattended during an unannounced visit in June and notified police when she was informed that the mother no longer lived there. She was told the mother had last visited the house in March. Dubai Police’s General Department of Human Rights then visited the children and found them in poor condition. Their investigation found that the mother had gained custody of the children after divorcing in 2009. She had promised to take care of the children while the father agreed to provide financial support. The mother told police that she was facing financial problems and that her husband was not providing for them. However, the father said that he had been paying the children’s expenses as ordered by court, but added that he had filed a lawsuit to regain custody as he believed his wife was neglecting them. Only two of the children were registered in school. The department’s director Colonel Mohammed Al Murr said that following their investigation the children had been placed with their father while authorities decided how to proceed. On receiving the department’s report, Dubai’s Attorney General Essam Al Humaidan ordered the woman to be charged with endangering the lives of juveniles. salamir@thenational.ae

 

Obaid Karki is a Sexagenarian UAE Paleoconservative Provocateur with a Picassoic Attitude, Blackbelt Diehart Paulite Constitutionalist Libertarian, Diogenesist, Spinoziste, Qutbist, Kabbalist, Pantheon, Hexalingual, Automath, Antitribal-Gentiles-Cabal, Unaffiliated to State or any Religiosity Cult and Seigniorage Banksters Sharia Scam.

Lavin & Lawsky Redherring Public opinion from All-That-Jazz to Bogus Petty Cash wired (untested) by Saudis to al-Qaeda & Hamas.

Amid Rising Antibank Sentiments. HSBC Chief Stuart Gulliver Purchased Lavin & Lawsky Argument at $700m. Stuart Gulliver said sorry for shameful and embarrassing scandal. HSBC & CITI pushed Bush Administration & Congress to ban and tag any cash Transaction elsewhere as Illegal Money Laundering unless it is channeled through Seigniorage Banksters. They Divert World Narcos Traffic to México for Fed to print cash generated from Narcos. Let’s assume that Cocaine is sold at $26  per Gram. Narcos Turnover annual is $13 Trillion equal to us GDP. Ultimately, HSBC’s American operations furnished at least $1 billion, according to Senate Report. Lavin & Lawsky Redherring Public opinion from All-That-Jazz to Bogus Petty Cash wired (untested) by Saudis to al-Qaeda & Hamas. Under Pressure from DC’s Israelifirsters and Capitol’s extortions to al-Saud Dying Monarchy. Al-Rajihi Transferred Zillions of Saudi surplus to burn rescuing Outfucked Zionist Bankruptcies Worldwide went unmentioned. At $700M Lavin & Lawsky Barbequed HSBC Argument to move Narcos Kajillions of Dollars Hollywood to Senate Boring-Game Bollywood that goes nowhere: Fuck USA and Stick to Petty-Cash wired to al-Qaida, Hamas, Saudi, Hezbollah, Assads’ Parental Cousin Makhlouf etc. My Ass! You name it. What the Fuck is going on?

And now to the Astrologists Pigeons of Wall Street, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation!

Jessica Silver-Greenberg. Paul Taggart/Bloomberg News

A version of this article appeared in print on August 25, 2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with headline: Cash Moves By HSBC In Inquiry. © 2012 The New York Times Company.

Here you go:

Cash Moves by HSBC in Inquiry

The bank is said to have already set aside $700 million to cover the cost of potential fines. Prosecutors investigating the movement of money by global banks suspect HSBC of laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and moving cash for Saudi Arabian banks with ties to terrorists, according to federal authorities with direct knowledge of the investigations. Senator Carl Levin leads a Senate panel that said HSBC failed to stop illegal behavior at many points from 2001 to 2010. The federal and state prosecutors are also investigating whether HSBC flouted United States law by transferring money through its American subsidiary for sanctioned nations, including Iran, Sudan and North Korea. The weight of the accusations could force HSBC, which has already set aside $700 million to cover the cost of potential fines, to pay at least $1 billion to settle the inquiry, said the authorities with knowledge of the investigation, which would make it the largest such settlement in history. The money-laundering accusations against HSBC so far are more extensive than the potential violation of United States sanctions that is the focus of the investigations against other foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank of Germany, BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole of France and the Royal Bank of Scotland, said the law enforcement authorities, who requested anonymity because the investigations are continuing. “This case is not about HSBC complicity in money laundering,” a spokesman for HSBC said in a statement on Friday. “Rather, it’s about lax compliance standards that fell short of regulators’ expectations and our expectations, and we are absolutely committed to remedying what went wrong and learning from it.” The other banks either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. Anxious to resolve the investigation, HSBC reached out to federal prosecutors in July in hopes of securing a settlement by September, according to the law enforcement officials. But a settlement in the next couple of weeks is highly unlikely, the officials said. The Justice Department and the Manhattan district attorney’s office are poring over HSBC records and still need more time to gauge the full extent of the potential wrongdoing, according to the law enforcement officials. The Justice Department and the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment. HSBC was put in the spotlight in July when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said the bank “exposed the U.S. financial system to money laundering and terrorist financing risks” between 2001 and 2010. HSBC bank executives testifying at the hearing apologized for the bank’s past conduct and promised reform. On Friday, the bank said in its statement that it had “doubled global expenditure to significantly strengthen compliance as a control function.” Pressure to resolve the investigation increased in the last month after Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, broke with federal and state prosecutors and moved against Standard Chartered, another British bank. He accused it of scheming for nearly a decade with Iran to hide from regulators 60,000 transactions worth $250 billion. Adding to the desire for a speedy settlement, the authorities said, was rising antibank sentiment after recent scandals, including accusations that banks manipulated a crucial interest rate affecting the cost of trillions of dollars in mortgages and other loans. To assuage prosecutors, HSBC officials have pointed out that they had strengthened controls to prevent money laundering and had replaced employees tainted by the accusations, according to the law enforcement officials. Further distinguishing HSBC from other banks under investigation, law enforcement officials said, was the complicity of senior bank officials. The Senate panel said in its report on HSBC that bank officials ignored warning signs and failed to stop illegal behavior at many points between 2001 and 2010. An HSBC executive reportedly argued that the bank should resume its relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, a Saudi Arabian bank founded by an early supporter of Al Qaeda. Ultimately, HSBC’s American operations furnished the bank with at least $1 billion, according to the Senate report. Federal officials repeatedly warned the bank to closely monitor its bulk-cash business in Mexico amid concerns that drug traffickers could seize on these operations. But HSBC officials from 2000 to 2009 gave Mexico, “a country under siege from drug crime, violence and money laundering,” the bank’s lowest risk rating for money laundering, according to the Senate report. As a result, the bank’s Mexican clients were not subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Even after HSBC’s Mexican branch became the “single largest exporter of U.S. dollars” to its United States operations from 2007 to 2008, money laundering controls did not improve, the Senate investigation found. Between 2007 and 2008, HSBC’s Mexican operations moved at least $7 billion to its United States counterparts — a volume that law enforcement officials cautioned at the time must include “illegal drug proceeds.” The investigations into the other global banks, some of which are in very preliminary stages, largely are delving into what appears to be a widespread practice of transferring money through their American subsidiaries for Iranian banks and corporations. Still in its very early stages, the Deutsche Bank investigation has not turned up evidence that the bank moved money on behalf of Iranian clients through its American operations after 2008, law enforcement officials said. Much of the activity that federal and state prosecutors are looking at involves so-called U-turn transactions, where a foreign bank transfers money through its United States operations to another offshore entity. Until 2008, foreign banks were permitted to perform these transactions for Iran. In their continuing investigations, the prosecutors are examining whether the banks violated United States law by performing transfers for nations under sanction. An inquiry into one bank has already revealed billions of dollars transferred on behalf of Sudan, according two law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the investigation. The continuing investigations are part of a push by federal and state prosecutors to crack down on global banks that violate United States sanctions. Since 2009, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, working largely in concert, have brought charges against five foreign banks — ABN Amro, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Lloyds and most recently ING.

England Ditched its Colonies for Easy Bonanza. Since then England is Desperate for free Dollars supply Printed Outta thin-air to Monetize. England ain’t say NO to feds even if the Yanks turn Bank of England to Fish & Chips Canteen. England masterminded this Culture, enjoyed its Crime & Scam. Fucking Iran is the least England can do to tax DC.

England Ditched its Colonies for Easy Bonanza. Since then England is Desperate for free Dollars supply Printed Outta thin-air to Monetize. England ain’t say NO to feds even if the Yanks turn Bank of England to Fish & Chips Canteen. England masterminded this Culture, enjoyed its Crime & Scam. Fucking Iran is the least England can do to tax DC. It’s an insult for even the fools not to know the Yanks agenda in the Lower Gulf. It’s the Banks they are after not Iran. The Rubber Plantation Patch Boy Peter Sands thought that the feds coming after Khomeini’s ass. Dumbass. Like Mombasa Ostrich who buried her little Brainless Head in the sand and held her big cactus Butt up in the air for the feds to fuck. Peter Sands scavenged a Quarter of Trillion Dollars worth of Seigniorage Banksters Scam with Iran. Is His ticket to Buckingham Palace to be knighted by the Queen of England. Peter Sands challenged the Old Boys of the Edwardian Club Daydreaming that Rubber Plantation Patch Boy can Replace Mervyn King for Governor Bank of England after this deal. They outfucked him by calling 1-800-feds for him. Peter Sands Fantasy cost StanChart $340M in fines so far and in disgrace. What an Asshole. And yet Peter Sands still believes that whatever happened is Lawful, honest and above-board Modus Operandi. Quit Pot Dickhead! It’s Capitalism Downtime Armageddon. Eat, Shit & Die in Debt Daydreaming Rich. Lloyds TSB is next.

“If you can’t Fuck England to strike Rich. Hire Paki Bank Mercenaries to Fuck its Colonies. “ Peter Sands StanChart CEO hired 3 Louts to fuck him.

And now to the Anglosexual Pigeons, the Mayhem, and the Misinformation! Gregor Stuart Hunter, Christopher Burke of the National United Arab Emirates. Published by Al Bawaba Ltd…here you go.

Peter Sands: survivor of the financial jungle Illustration of Peter Sands. Peter Sands could have followed the path of diplomacy instead of banking after a childhood spent in Asia often the sun has set on the British empire. The chief executive of Standard Chartered was born in 1962 to British parents who ran rubber plantations. A boyhood spent growing up in newly independent countries including Malaysia and Singapore followed by a stint at Oxford’s illustrious Brasenose College almost resulted in a career as a diplomat. But Mr Sands‘s short stay at the UK foreign office after graduating soon took a different turn when he left to pursue work in the private sector. Two decades later, at the head of one of Britain’s most successful banks, the Oxford and Harvard-educated Mr Sands has remained in public life – and until this month, for all the right reasons. He had been among the loudest industry voices to admonish the banking sector as the Libor scandal gripped the City of London and Wall Street. With his thick, dark eyebrows, spectacles and white hair, Mr Sands has something of a professorial demeanour, a far cry from the gung-ho investment bankers found elsewhere in the City of London. Standard Chartered (StanChart) previously had not been linked to the Libor investigations – or any major banking scandal, save for troubles with complex investments that were relatively minor compared with those faced by other banks during the financial crisis. That all changed this month. Allegations that StanChart had allowed US$250 billion (Dh918.25bn) of prohibited transactions with Iran caught the bank by surprise. It was characterised as a “rogue institution”, with an “evident zeal to make hundreds of millions of dollars at almost any cost”, in the words of Benjamin Lawsky, New York’s superintendent of financial services. And after the bank initially mounted a vehement defence against the claims, Mr Sands cut a more contrite figure. “We made mistakes,” he said, in the midst of the crisis. “And we’re sorry. They were made in good faith and we didn’t intend to break the rules.” Settling the investigation by paying $340m in penalties within a few days, the bank’s crisis ended with a capitulation, albeit a grudging one. Nonetheless, Mr Sands may be holding his head higher than his British rivals at HSBC, which ended a similar investigation by the US Senate with an admission of all wrongdoing and full public apology. HSBC, the bank’s long-time rival and which is referred to internally as the “ugly sister”, has significantly retooled its business model over the past two years to be more focused on the same markets in which StanChart makes most of its profits. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but as a chief executive, Mr Sands requires little. During his time at the bank, StanChart has run 10 consecutive years of increasing annual profits. Mr Sands might have been raised in the British empire’s former colonies. But any associations with the old boys’ clubs of Edwardian Britain are misplaced. Joining StanChart in 2002 as the group finance director, despite his lack of a background in accounting, he was able to rise to the role of chief executive within four years. He also oversaw the hiring of the first two Indian executive directors in the bank’s history. His reputation is also partially due to having had the good fortune to be running an emerging market-focused bank during a period when the West atrophied. But he has reasonable claims to have led Britain’s rehabilitation as a force for progress in a post-imperial age – as StanChart bankrolled almost a decade of development across Africa, Asia and the Middle East and emerging markets became economic powerhouses to rival the West. Indeed, Mr Sands is more likely to be found locked in an intellectual duel with Martin Wolf in the opinion pages of the Financial Times than snapped golfing on the front of tabloid newspapers under a sensational headline about his salary. While western banking titans were being downgraded, StanChart was one of the few whose credit rating improved. That has not stopped allegations of smugness, of course. Nevertheless, it is hard to see the British banking establishment rallying around other heads of British lenders in the same way they backed Mr Sands in the wake of the New York regulator’s actions. The Bank of England governor Sir Mervyn King explicitly criticised the actions by New York regulators for making public statements ahead of the completion of their investigation, while Boris Johnson, the London mayor, decried American “protectionism”. To many in the London establishment, Mr Sands was not just defending his bank but Britain’s competitiveness in trade finance. After all, who were these Americans to tell the rest of the world who to deal with? The robust defence of StanChart is further complicated by the fact that it is something of an oddity in the United Kingdom where it is headquartered but maintains no high street presence. In the UAE, where the bank has operated since the days of the Trucial States, it is far more visible with a retail franchise and the second-biggest investment banking business in the region. Mr Sands cuts a large public profile in the UAE, having attended the groundbreaking in March last year of the bank’s new $140m Dubai head office alongside Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, the chairman of Emirates Group. “This is a strategic investment, demonstrating Standard Chartered’s long-term commitment to our customers, clients and the community in the UAE,” Mr Sands said at the time. The point was clear: StanChart, unlike British lenders nationalised during the financial crisis such as Lloyds Banking Group or Royal Bank of Scotland, was in no hurry to slim down its Middle East operations. To illustrate this, it is one of the few international banks in the region to have quietly hired staff during the past few years. But its “Here for Good” branding always sat uneasily during the years the lender maintained operations in Zimbabwe, even if it did so alongside other international banks. But the worst the bank faced were charges of hypocrisy. Allegations that StanChart played a role as a conduit for Iranian trade may prove harder to shake as further investigations remain pending with the US federal authorities. More unpleasant details could yet surface. But Mr Sands has so far survived the first major crisis of his 10 years in banking with his job intact. Still, the reputational damage may be hard to erase. StanChart’s squeaky-clean image following the financial crisis helped Lord Mervyn Davies, Mr Sands’s predecessor as the chief executive, secure a position as a UK minister for trade and investment. Before the bank’s imbroglio with regulators, Mr Sands had been rumoured as a potential candidate to succeed Sir Mervyn King as the head of the Bank of England. That notion may well now be dead. In past centuries, a British businessmen whose reputations were sullied in the City could always depart to find a new life in the colonies. Mr Sands, whose name has been made from the resurgence of those territorial possessions as dynamic emerging markets, may not have that option. ghunter@thenational.ae

They ain’t neither Taliban nor Mentally Retarded or Drug Addict Afghan as you prescribed, they are those Pro-Iran Hazara Shiite Mercenaries Fatass Loooser who enjoyed your money killing NATO Endangered Species and tagging to al-Qaeda & Taliban for the Mass-Murdering of Shiites worldwide.

The American Godsend Fools hired Pro-Iran Hazara Shiite Mercenaries to safeguard their Bitch Karzai Reeky Rectum and turn Afghanistan to Iranian-Bitch-State as they did in Iraq.You’re the foolish enemy who burn money to get killed. Enemy infiltrators. My ass. They ain’t neither Taliban nor Mentally Retarded or Drug Addict Afghan as you prescribed, they are those Pro-Iran Hazara Shiite Mercenaries Fatass Loooser who enjoyed your money killing NATO Endangered Species and tagging to al-Qaeda & Taliban for the Mass-Murdering of Shiites worldwide. Afghans refuse to join NATO led Puppet Arm Forces and Police. They are better off selling Narcos to yanks, Fucking NATO LGBT & Goats with some Bachabazi than Draft.

And now to the Cookooland. Here’s some laFigaro Jose CABEZAS/AFP for you:

Afghanistan: NATO faced with enemy infiltrators

President Karzai wants to clean up its security forces insurgents who turn their weapons on allies. Karzai wants to overcome enemies hiding in ranks of Afghan security forces. Karzai called Wednesday evening at meeting of Afghan National Security Council to halt attacks called “green on blue” (blue green) in which Afghan soldiers or police officers turn their weapons against coalition. Chief of Staff of Afghan National Army (ANA), General Sher Mohammad Karimi, had already announced Monday establishment of series of measures. Several dozen intelligence officers were deployed on bases and police stations across country to identify dangerous elements. In addition, new recruits will soon ban use of mobile phones. Telephone exchanges soldiers and policemen will be listened to limit their possible contacts with insurgents. According to Najib Nectzad, spokesman for Afghan interior ministry, commission composed of representatives of Ministries of Interior and Defense, intelligence services and NATO will be put in place “to take necessary and coordinate our efforts.”Attacks called “green on blue” have reached alarming proportions. At least 40 coalition troops have died since beginning of year, including four French soldiers killed by an Afghan soldier on January 20 in Kapissa. Within U.S. forces, balance amounted to 10% of total losses since beginning of 2012. And trend is accelerating: nine U.S. soldiers have been victims since beginning of August. On August 10, six U.S. marines were killed in two separate attacks, one perpetrated by member of local police, other by an Afghan of 15 years who attended their base. Two other Marines were killed last Friday in province of Farah. And on Monday, U.S. soldier was killed by an insurgent who was in uniform and was involved in Afghan police. Proliferation of “angels” Chief of Staff of U.S. military, General Martin Dempsey, and Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. military operations in region, made visit to Kabul on Monday to discuss problem. Among causes of these attacks, Taliban infiltration in security forces is most alarming. Interviewed by telephone by Le Figaro, spokesman of Taliban suggests new strategy: “Every year we are studying relations between NATO said Zabihullah Mujahid. Last year, attacks by infiltration proved to be accurate and effective way to kill enemy. We therefore decided to include on our agenda this tactic of al-Farouk, “name given by Taliban military operations in 2012. All attacks called “green on blue” is not fact of Taliban. Reasons why Afghan soldiers or police to return their jackets are multiple Nectzad by Najib. “Many of them have mental problems that cause them to turn their guns against Allies. Some attacks are caused by disputes. “But Taliban have clearly identified flaw in law enforcement agencies in Afghanistan: recruitment arm circumference to achieve 352,000 members of Afghan security forces for required period transition. Before race that leaves little time for background checks on new hires. For NATO, these attacks threaten transition strategy, therefore output, which is to work on foreign and Afghan soldiers “shona ba shona” shoulder against shoulder. Western leaders thus tend to minimize impact of attacks. Last week, NATO has decided to no longer use military term “green on blue”. News ISAF, military arm of NATO, now references to “insider attacks” attacks from inside. In practice, coalition does not take threat lightly. Last week, ISAF has ISAF has tightened security on its foundations. Allied soldiers must now carry their weapons at all times, and loaded. According to Amy Hession, press officer of ISAF, “it can save 3 or 4 seconds in an emergency.” For its part, U.S. military will increase number of “angels” in its ranks. These soldiers have sole responsibility for protecting their brothers in arms against internal threats. French side, specific measures taken after killing of four soldiers Kapissa during workout are always applied. Among others, all French soldiers should be armed during their exercise sessions.

Afghanistan : l’Otan aux prises avec des ennemis infiltrés

Deux officiers, afghan et américain, dans la province de Kunar. les attaques mencent la stratégie de l’Otan qui consiste à faire collaborer des soldats locaux et étrangers. Crédits photo : Le président Karzaï veut nettoyer ses forces de sécurité des insurgés qui retournent leurs armes sur les alliés. Hamid Karzaï veut venir à bout des ennemis qui se cachent dans les rangs des forces de sécurité afghanes. Le président afghan a appelé mercredi soir à une réunion du Conseil national de sécurité afghan pour mettre fin aux attaques dites «green on blue» (vert sur bleu) au cours desquelles des policiers ou soldats afghans retournent leurs armes contre des membres de la coalition. Le chef d’état-major de l’Armée nationale afghane (ANA), le général Sher Mohammad Karimi, avait déjà annoncé lundi la mise en place d’une série de mesures. Plusieurs douzaines d’agents de renseignements ont été déployés sur les bases et postes de police à travers le pays pour identifier les éléments dangereux. En outre, les nouvelles recrues auront bientôt l’interdiction d’utiliser des téléphones portables. Les échanges téléphoniques des soldats et policiers seront écoutés afin de limiter leurs contacts éventuels avec les insurgés. Selon Najib Nectzad, un porte-parole du ministère de l’Intérieur afghan, une commission réunissant des représentants des ministères de l’Intérieur et de la Défense, des services de renseignements et de l’Otan va être mise en place «pour prendre les mesures nécessaires et coordonner nos efforts». Les attaques dites «green on blue» ont pris des proportions alarmantes. Au moins 40 soldats de la coalition en sont morts depuis le début de l’année, y compris les quatre soldats français tués par un soldat afghan le 20 janvier dernier en Kapissa. Au sein des forces américaines, le bilan s’élève à 10 % des pertes totales depuis le début 2012. Et le phénomène s’accélère: neuf soldats américains en ont été victimes depuis le début du mois d’août. Le 10 août, six marines américains ont trouvé la mort dans deux attaques séparées, l’une perpétrée par un membre de la police locale, l’autre par un Afghan de 15 ans qui fréquentait leur base. Deux autres marines ont été abattus vendredi dernier dans la province de Farah. Et lundi, un soldat américain a été tué par un insurgé qui avait revêtu l’uniforme et s’était mêlé aux policiers afghans. La multiplication  des «anges gardiens»Le chef d’état-major des armées américaines, le général Martin Dempsey, ainsi que le général James Mattis, chef des opérations militaires américaines dans la région, ont effectué une visite à Kaboul lundi pour discuter du problème. Parmi les causes de ces attaques, l’infiltration des talibans au sein des forces de sécurité est la plus alarmante. Interrogé au téléphone par Le Figaro, le porte-parole des talibans évoque une nouvelle stratégie: «Tous les ans nous étudions les rapports de l’Otan, explique Zabihullah Mujahid. L’année dernière, les attaques par infiltration se sont révélées être précises et un moyen efficace de tuer l’ennemi. Nous avons donc décidé d’inscrire cette tactique à notre agenda d’al-Farouk», le nom donné par les talibans à leurs opérations militaires en 2012. Toutes les attaques dites «green on blue» ne sont pas le fait des talibans. Les raisons qui poussent des soldats ou policiers afghans à retourner leur veste seraient multiples, selon Najib Nectzad. «Nombre d’entre eux ont des problèmes mentaux qui les poussent à retourner leurs armes contre les alliés. Certaines attaques sont aussi provoquées par des disputes.» Cependant les talibans ont clairement identifié une faille dans les services d’ordre afghans: un recrutement à tour de bras en vue d’atteindre les 352 000 membres des forces de sécurité afghanes requis pour la période de transition. Une course en avant qui laisse peu de temps à la vérification des antécédents des nouvelles recrues. Pour l’Otan, ces attaques menacent la stratégie de transition, donc de sortie, qui consiste à faire travailler les soldats étrangers et afghans «shona ba shona», épaule contre épaule. Les responsables occidentaux tendent donc à minimiser la portée des attaques. La semaine dernière, l’Otan a décidé de ne plus employer l’expression militaire «green on blue». Les communiqués de l’Isaf, le bras armé de l’Otan, font désormais références aux «insider attacks», des attaques de l’intérieur. En pratique, la coalition ne prend pas la menace à la légère. La semaine dernière, l’Isaf a renforcé la sécurité sur ses bases. Les soldats alliés doivent désormais porter leurs armes à tout moment, et chargées. Selon Amy Hession, officier de presse de l’Isaf, «cela peut faire gagner 3 ou 4 secondes dans l’urgence». De son côté, l’armée américaine va augmenter le nombre d’«anges gardiens» dans ses rangs. Ces soldats ont pour seule responsabilité de protéger leurs frères d’armes contre des menaces intérieures. Du côté français, les mesures spécifiques prises après le meurtre des quatre soldats en Kapissa pendant une séance de sport sont toujours appliquées. Entre autres, tous les soldats français doivent être armés pendant leurs séances d’exercice physique.

Truckload of Parliamentary Vocabulary with no Substance outta Mervyn King, the Anglosexual Governor of Bank of England, and Adair Turner, Chair of Financial Services Authority, under questioning by Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP and chair of House of Commons Treasury Committee Drama.

Truckload of Parliamentary Vocabulary with no Substance outta Mervyn King,  the Anglosexual Governor of Bank of England, and Adair Turner, Chair of Financial Services Authority, under questioning by Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP and chair of House of Commons Treasury Committee Drama. It looks to me as if BoE & FSA wholesaled Rigged Libor that Barclays Retailed Worldwide. Geinther & Bernanke flagged it: RIGGED-LIBOR-TO-BE-REGULATED IN CASE WE EVER OVERFUCKED. Nevertheless Bob Diamond ain’t scapegoat but a Genius exploited to Coerce Gossips. Here’s the deal Barclays Rigged $25T in five years and fined only $450M. How about that? What a Fucking culture?

Here is Some Mind-steroid-Must-Read from Terence Corcoran Financial Post:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Wednesday bounced the Libor football back to the Bank of England and the U.K. Financial Services Authority, which is where it belongs. The score so far: Team U.S. 2, Bank of England 0. Asked about Libor, Mr. Geithner said that as far back as early 2008, when he headed the New York Federal Reserve, he said: “We gave them very specific detailed changes” to the London interbank offered rate (Libor) system. “If more of those would have been adopted sooner, you would have limited the risk.” Of course, there is no clear evidence yet that any great Libor scandal exists or how big any risks actually were. Whatever happened four to seven years ago, and all of it was predicted or acknowledged as a reality or a possibility at the time. What the regulators in New York and London thought would be a minor problem in 2007 and 2008 is now being treated as the financial crime of the century, with Barclays Bank singled out with a US$450-million fine and a purge of top executives. There are two aspects to the Libor affair. The first is the attempt by low-level traders to manipulate Libor rates between 2005 and 2007. The second is the low-ball submission of Libor rates by banks during the 2007-08 financial crisis to avoid being seen as risky institutions. Financial regulators and authorities in the United Kingdom knew as far back as 2008 and earlier that trader attempts to fiddle with Libor were likely taking place. They also knew that banks were juggling their rate submissions during the financial crisis. But they did nothing to stop such practices, because at the time they considered them to be minor problems. Even Mr. Geithner’s proposed Libor reforms carried little sense of urgency, despite the fact the New York Fed had been tipped by Barclays staff and other whistleblowers that Libor rates were out of line with the market. The N.Y. Fed says that in the fall of 2007 and early 2008 there “were indications of problems with the accuracy of Libor reporting.” A N.Y. Fed summary of events four years ago makes it clear everybody knew what was going on. “Suggestions that some banks could be underreporting their Libor in order to avoid appearing weak were present in anecdotal reports and mass-distribution emails, including from Barclays, as well as in a December 2007 phone call, with Barclays noting that reported Libors appear unrealistically low.” The Fed has released transcripts of these early emails and phone calls. At the Bank of England in May of 2008, a report to deputy governor Paul Tucker highlighted every element of the current Libor affair. “The Libor problem has two fundamental sources: the nature of the fixing process (a survey, not a traded rate), and its transformation from a measure of London money-market conditions to the basis of a global derivatives market.” The 2008 report to the Bank of England’s deputy governor also states that “there is a long-standing perception that Libor … is open to distortion; panel banks have no obligation to trade or to have traded at the rates that they submit, so it is a least plausible that these are influenced by commercial incentives.” But this plausible development was seen as neutral over the long term, since they might “only have a marginal effect, and could bias Libor different ways at different times.” But for reasons that are not entirely clear, the same oversight institutions, particularly the Bank of England and the British Financial Services Authority, now seek to turn previously tolerated Libor flaws into crimes of the century. Today, U.K. officials are distancing themselves from any previous knowledge. Appearing before the treasury committee of the British House of Commons last week, Bank of England governor Mervyn King was asked if he knew the Libor manipulation worked for the benefit of traders. “No,” he said. “Again, it took three years for the regulators to find out that it was being done.” It stretches credibility that the bank had no ideas of how trader pressure might work. Pressed further by Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom, Mr. King said: “We are not an investigative body — that is the regulators’ job. We have only seen these accusations — or reports, rather — in the three regulatory bodies for two weeks.” Then he said that “my conclusion is that a system that is based on self-reporting, where submissions of the rate that people think they can borrow at based on their own judgment, is one that can clearly be manipulated by collusion between submitters.” Documents show, however, that the Bank of England and regulators in the U.K. resisted pushes to participate in Libor reforms. In a memo to the governor’s office in June, 2008, staff delivered a waffling review of how and when reforms should take place, leaving the process of reform in the hands of the British Bankers’ Association, which ran the Libor process. “We do not think that central banks should be formally involved in the Libor panels and processes, but we do think that we should maintain a watching brief.” The brief ends: “Is the governor content with the proposed strategy set out above please?” A handwritten note across the top of the memo from Mr. King says: “I am broadly content with the approach directed here.” Having dodged Libor four years ago, the governor of the Bank of England is now dodging responsibility and instead is laying blame on Barclays and any other bankers the bank can lay its hands on. The same is true of the Financial Services Authority. The end result was the extraordinary moves by the bank and the FSA to remove Bob Diamond as CEO of Barclays. It is clear that FSA head Adair Turner and Mr. King, using the slipperiest of methods, orchestrated Bob Diamond’s departure from Barclays. In the transcript nearby, Lord Turner explains how he and Mr. King sought to force Mr. Diamond to resign by pressing Barclays chairman Marcus Agius. “Let me be clear,” Lord Turner says he told Mr. Agius. “We have not found anything against Bob Diamond, so we are not in a position to give, and we are not giving, any instruction or direction that we are not considering him fit.” A more weaselly bureaucratic Yes Minister episode has rarely been recorded in public. In short, Mr. Diamond was forced to resign for political and regulatory reasons over a scandal that he did nothing to create and which, in the final analysis, appears to be far from the financial crime of the century now portrayed by the media, politicians and regulators.

Mr. Diamond and Barclays appear as the victims in a Libor coverup.

Meanwhile, Mr. King at the Bank of England, having voiced his central banker’s contentedness with Libor dithering in 2008, has now called for central banks to seize control of Libor reform at a meeting of central bankers in September.

Terence Corcoran: The Libor fixes that weren’t

Edited excerpt from testimony by Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, and Adair Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority, under questioning by Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP and chair of the House of Commons treasury committee, on July 17. The questions deal with the behind-the-scenes role of the FSA and the Bank of England prior to the resignations of Barclays chairman Marcus Agius and CEO Bob Diamond Tyrie You told us: “Over the weekend [of June 30-July 1] Marcus Agius decided that he should himself resign.” I am reading from the uncorrected transcript. “I thought that was an honourable decision. It was, however, a decision that surprised me.” Had you made it clear in your conversation with Marcus Agius that you were referring, in your expression of concerns about Barclays, to the chief executive? Turner Yes, absolutely clear. The discussion I had with Marcus Agius was about the position of Bob Diamond. I said, “I’m sure you are considering whether you can continue with Bob Diamond as CEO,” and I said, “Let me be clear. We have not found anything against Bob Diamond, so we are not in a position to give, and we are not giving, any instruction or direction that we do not consider him fit and proper or appropriate to do this job, but you have to think about whether he” – it was very clearly “he” – “is the right person to lead the substantive change which is required in the culture, given his association with some of the things in the past.” I also stressed – I think it is an important thing – that they needed to think about whether they thought he was capable of leading that substantive change substantively, but also about whether the external world would perceive that, because I think perception is part of the reality in these circumstances and it was something they had to take into account. I said, “You have to think about whether that is something which Bob Diamond will find impossible to do.”… So it was absolutely clear we were talking about the role of Bob Diamond. Tyrie Was there any scope at all for a reasonable man to misunderstand what you were saying? Turner No. That we were talking about Bob Diamond was absolutely clear. I can remember one thing I said, which stuck in my mind. I said, “One thing you’ll have to think about is whether Bob as a brand is just holed below the water.” I don’t know whether I used the phrase “holed below the water,” but I basically said “whether Bob the brand is now something which isn’t going to work.” So there can have been no doubt that we were having a conversation about whether Bob Diamond was the person substantively to lead the change which was required…. Tyrie So you were handing the chairman of Barclays a revolver and you were telling him to go and shoot his chief executive? Turner No, I don’t think that is quite right. I think that’s an arresting way of putting it. I think I was doing precisely what I’ve said I was doing. I was saying, “We are not giving you a direction, but this is the issue you have to think about as a board.” Tyrie On the basis of what you said, though, where is the scope for the bul-let to miss? What course of action – Turner I think if they had really come back with a compelling answer as to why they believed that Bob Diamond was right, we might have been convinced by that. At at the end of that conversation I rang [Andrew Bailey, another FSA executive] fairly immediately afterwards and said, “Look, I would be quite surprised if the net effect is not that Bob Diamond resigns.”

Tyrie So you thought that you probably had handed over a revolver?

Turner I thought that the most likely result would be that Bob Diamond would resign.

Tyrie But in fact he did take the revolver and he decided to shoot himself.

Turner Yes, and as I said last night, I think that was an honourable thing to do. I think Mr. Agius thought it was the right thing to do. It was not what I was expecting him to do, and I have to be blunt: I did not think it was the most sensible decision in the circumstances. But we were not informed beforehand of his intention to do that. Tyrie Why was it, given that you are the regulator, that the governor of the bank got involved? [W]hy didn’t you handle this issue to its conclusion as the chairman of the FSA? Turner I thought it was appropriate for the governor to see Mr. Agius and to put over a message as well, and it was a message which the governor and I discussed in the course of – Tyrie Why? He has no regulatory authority. Turner The role of the Bank of England, in terms of the need for banks to feel that they have the confidence of the Bank of England, I think is something which has continued, despite the regulatory changes of 1997…. I do not see a problem with the governor of the Bank of England choosing to see the chairman and chief executive, if they want, or the chairman in this case, in order to express a point of view – a point of view which we had discussed in the course of the afternoon and were fully agreed on. Tyrie Well, that was long as a reply, but rather less clear….

Who are you trying to Fuck now? Dumbsey & Urine: American Desperado to sell F15 Jet Dinosaurs to Iranian Bitch State. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, right, meets with U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, left, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Baghdad

Who are you trying to Fuck now?

Dumbsey & Urine: American Desperado to sell F15 Jet Dinosaurs to Iranian Bitch State.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, right, meets with U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, left, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Baghdad