Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

[roxtar]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

"Hitler in a head scarf" means nothing to me. I've never heard the term.
I'm sure it must be a phrase coined by the retards who tune in to Fox and avoid a real news outlet like NBC, eh?

I said...IF. I'll repeat it for your thick head: IF he did in fact shout the Muslim cry while gunning down his fellow soldiers, it is highly relevant. For you to claim that even if he did it would still be irrelevant makes you and your opinion irrelevant.

You might want to try posting on the Daily Kos. You'll get a far better reception there.

Raz, I apologize for not allowing myself to get whipped up into a frothy mouthed rage over one maladjusted idiot.
The fact that he was brown and has a funny sounding name seems to be of the utmost significance to you. I suppose we should all now go about our daily lives just a little bit more afraid of those wild eyed Muslims that are ready to crawl up our legs with knives between their teeth and remove our private parts. That would be the most prudent course of action for the whole country. Hell, why not a Patriot Act III?

[jneal3]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

It's funny how Americans always apologize for saying that about Canada, but you almost never hear them say that they could go south of the border. Or stay home.

Just a ruse to get better health care...

[Raz]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Raz, I apologize for not allowing myself to get whipped up into a frothy mouthed rage over one maladjusted idiot.
The fact that he was brown and has a funny sounding name seems to be of the utmost significance to you. I suppose we should all now go about our daily lives just a little bit more afraid of those wild eyed Muslims that are ready to crawl up our legs with knives between their teeth and remove our private parts. That would be the most prudent course of action for the whole country. Hell, why not a Patriot Act III?

I'm not "whipped up into a frothy mouthed rage" about Islam or Muslim terrorist/murderers. I've read VOLUMES about the life of Muhammad, The Koran, The Hadith and two books written by Orthodox scholars on the life and actions of Muhammad, so I'm not ignorant or misinformed on the subject.

I have never supported the "Patriot Act" and I never voted for George W. Bush.

What does move me close to a frothy mouth rage is the foolish [and dangerous] PC lunacy that would say it is "irrelevant" as to whether or not he was shouting "Allahu Akbar" as he shot dead a dozen people whom he had taken an oath to defend.

A republic cannot survive the Imperial Adventurism of an idiot like George W. Dumbass, nor the spendthrift profligacy of a RepubliCrat Congress. That form of government will eventually collapse under such arrogance, foolishness and strain.
But a nation and a people are destroyed by willful blindness to the reality of another nation that by its very definition and religious purpose must seek to establish Dar al-Islam over infidel nations (Dar al-Harb).

I do not intend to discuss this any further on this forum, with you or anyone else. Rant and Rave is the proper venue for such.

[rj1]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Your statement is indicative of how easily too many Americans, like yourself, swallow a truly superficial assessment of these sorts of incidents.

I am trying to encourage you people to apply some critical thinking and put some real context to what is happening in your nation.

And instead of actually doing critical thinking, you fall back on national snobbish arrogance of "we know better than you, you stupid Americans".

If he felt what you said, about how it was a pointless mission that needlessly killed people, then why did he go out and needlessly kill people?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33695256...news-military/

Quote:

Federal law enforcement officials also say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. The officials said the postings appeared to have been made by Hasan. The officials said they were still trying to determine whether he was the author. They say an official investigation was not opened. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case. One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates suicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

Post in question from another message board I post on:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3989813/Martyrdom-in-Islam-Versus- Suicide-Bombing

Quote:

There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that “IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE” and Allah (SWT) knows best.

[rj1]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Evidence that the country is actually changing, and that this assessment does not apply to the majority of Americans, is that Obama was elected president. We have changed leadership from that having a simplistic view of our position in the world, to a complex one that takes antagonistic views into account, and the historical reasons (real or imagined) for that antagonism.

People still believe this?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091...gy_buying_time

Making sense of U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy at this moment is difficult. Not only is it a work in progress, but the pending decisions he has to make -- on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia -- tend to obscure underlying strategy. It is easy to confuse inaction with a lack of strategy. Of course, there may well be a lack of strategic thinking, but that does not mean there is a lack of strategy.




Related Link

• Special Series: Obama's Foreign Policy Landscape

Strategy, as we have argued, is less a matter of choice than a matter of reality imposing itself on presidents. Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices. He seems to be fighting to create new choices, not liking what is on the menu. He may succeed. But it is important to understand the overwhelming forces that shape his choices and to understand the degree to which whatever he chooses is embedded in U.S. grand strategy, a strategy imposed by geopolitical reality.

Empires and Grand Strategy

American grand strategy, as we have argued, is essentially that of the British Empire, save at a global rather than a regional level. The British sought to protect their national security by encouraging Continental powers to engage in land-based conflict, thereby reducing resources available for building a navy. That guaranteed that Britain's core interest, the security of the homeland and sea-lane control, remained intact. Achieving this made the United Kingdom an economic power in the 19th century by sparing it the destruction of war and allowing it to control the patterns of international maritime trade.

On occasion, when the balance of power in Europe tilted toward one side or another, Britain intervened on the Continent with political influence where possible, direct aid when necessary or -- when all else failed -- the smallest possible direct military intervention. The United Kingdom's preferred strategy consisted of imposing a blockade -- e.g., economic sanctions -- allowing it to cause pain without incurring costs.
At the same time that it pursued this European policy, London was building a global empire. Here again, the British employed a balance-of-power strategy. In looking at the history of India or Africa during the 19th century, there is a consistent pattern of the United Kingdom forming alliances with factions, whether religious or ethnic groups, to create opportunities for domination. In the end, this was not substantially different from ancient Rome's grand strategy. Rome also ruled indirectly through much of its empire, controlling Mediterranean sea-lanes, but allying with local forces to govern; observing Roman strategy in Egypt is quite instructive in this regard.

Empires are not created by someone deciding one day to build one, or more precisely, lasting empires are not. They emerge over time through a series of decisions having nothing to do with empire building, and frequently at the hands of people far more concerned with domestic issues than foreign policy. Paradoxically, leaders who consciously set out to build empires usually fail. Hitler is a prime example. His failure was that rather than ally with forces in the Soviet Union, he wished to govern directly, something that flowed from his ambitions for direct rule.

Particularly at the beginning, the Roman and British empires were far less ambitious and far less conscious of where they were headed. They were primarily taking care of domestic affairs. They became involved in foreign policy as needed, following a strategy of controlling the seas while maintaining substantial ground forces able to prevail anywhere -- but not everywhere at once -- and a powerful alliance system based on supporting the ambitions of local powers against other local powers.

On the whole, the United States has no interest in empire, and indeed is averse to imperial adventures. Those who might have had explicit inclinations in this direction are mostly out of government, crushed by experience in Iraq. Iraq came in two parts. In the first part, from 2003 to 2007, the U.S. vision was one of direct rule relying on American sea-lane control and overwhelming Iraq with well-supplied American troops.

The results were unsatisfactory. The United States found itself arrayed against all Iraqi factions and wound up in a multipart war in which its forces were merely one faction arrayed against others. The Petraeus strategy to escape this trap was less an innovation in counterinsurgency than a classic British-Roman approach. Rather than attempting direct control of Iraq, Petraeus sought to manipulate the internal balance of power, aligning with Sunni forces against Shiite forces, i.e., allying with the weaker party at that moment against the stronger. The strategy did not yield the outcome that some Bush strategists dreamed of, but it might (with an emphasis on might) yield a useful outcome: a precariously balanced Iraq dependent on the United States to preserve its internal balance of power and national sovereignty against Iran.

Many Americans, perhaps even most, regret the U.S. intervention in Iraq. And there are many, again perhaps most, who view broader U.S. entanglement in the world as harmful to American interests. Similar views were expressed by Roman republicans and English nationalists who felt that protecting the homeland by controlling the sea was the best policy, while letting the rest of the world go its own way. But the Romans and the British lost that option when they achieved the key to their own national security: enough power to protect the homeland. Outsiders inevitably came to see that power as offensive, even though originally its possessors intended it as defensive. Indeed, intent aside, the capability for offensive power was there. So frequently, Rome and Britain threatened the interests of foreign powers simply by being there. Inevitably, both Rome and Britain became the targets of Hannibals and Napoleons, and they were both drawn into the world regardless of their original desires. In short, enough power to be secure is enough power to threaten others. Therefore, that perfect moment of national security always turns offensive, as the power to protect the homeland threatens the security of other countries.

A Question of Size

There are Obama supporters and opponents who also dream of the perfect balance: security for the United States achieved by not interfering in the affairs of others. They see foreign entanglements not as providing homeland security, but as generating threats to it. They do not understand that what they want, American prosperity without international risks, is by definition impossible. The U.S. economy is roughly 25 percent of the world's economy. The American military controls the seas, not all at the same time, but anywhere it wishes at any given time. The United States also controls outer space. It is impossible for the United States not to intrude on the affairs of most countries in the world simply by virtue of its daily operations. The United States is an elephant that affects the world simply by being in the same room with it. The only way to not be an elephant is to shrink in size, and whether the United States would ever want this aside, decreasing power is harder to do than it might appear -- and much more painful.

Obama's challenge is managing U.S. power without decreasing its size and without imposing undue costs on it. This sounds like an attractive idea, but it ultimately won't work: The United States cannot be what it is without attracting hostile attention. For some of Obama's supporters, it is American behavior that generates hostility. Actually, it is America's presence -- its very size -- that intrudes on the world and generates hostility.

On the domestic front, the isolationist-internationalist divide in the United States has always been specious. Isolationists before World War II simply wanted to let the European balance of power manage itself. They wanted to buy time, but had no problem with intervening in China against Japan. The internationalists simply wanted to move from the first to the second stage, arguing that the first stage had failed. There was thus no argument in principle between them; there was simply a debate over how much time to give the process to see if it worked out. Both sides had the same strategy, but simply a different read of the moment. In retrospect, Franklin Roosevelt was right, but only because France collapsed in the face of the Nazi onslaught in a matter of weeks. That aside, the isolationist argument was quite rational.

Like that of Britain or Rome, U.S. grand strategy is driven by the sheer size of the national enterprise, a size achieved less through planning than by geography and history. Having arrived where it has, the United States has three layers to its strategy.

First, the United States must maintain the balance of power in various regions in the world. It does this by supporting a range of powers, usually the weaker against the stronger. Ideally, this balance of power maintains itself without American effort and yields relative stability. But stability is secondary to keeping local powers focused on each other rather than on the United States: Stability is a rhetorical device, not a goal. The real U.S. interest lies in weakening and undermining emergent powers so they don't ultimately rise to challenge American power. This is a strategy of nipping things in the bud.

Second, where emergent powers cannot be maintained through the regional balance of power, the United States has an interest in sharing the burden of containing it with other major powers. The United States will seek to use such coalitions either to intimidate the emerging power via economic power or, in extremis, via military power.

Third, where it is impossible to build a coalition to coerce emerging powers, the United States must decide either to live with the emerging power, forge an alliance with it, or attack it unilaterally.

Obama, as with any president, will first pursue the first layer of the strategy, using as little American power as possible and waiting as long as possible to see whether this works. The key here lies in not taking premature action that could prove more dangerous or costly than necessary. If that fails, his strategy is to create a coalition of powers to share the cost and risk. And only when that fails -- which is a function of time and politics -- will Obama turn to the third layer, which can range from simply living with the emerging power and making a suitable deal or crushing it militarily.

When al Qaeda attacked what it saw as the leading Christian power on Sept. 11, Bush found himself thrown into the third stage very rapidly. The second phase was illusory; sympathy aside, the quantity of military force allies could and would bring to bear was minimal. Even active allies like Britain and Australia couldn't bring decisive force to bear. Bush was forced into unilateralism not so much by the lack of will among allies as by their lack of power. His choice lay in creating chaos in the Islamic world and then forming alliances out of the debris, or trying to impose a direct solution through military force. He began with the second and shifted to the first.

Obama's Choices

Obama has more room to maneuver than Bush had. In the case of Iran, no regional solution is possible. Israel can only barely reach into the region, and while its air force might suffice to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and air attacks might be sufficient to destroy them, Israel could not deal with the Iranian response of mining the Strait of Hormuz and/or destabilizing Iraq. The United States must absorb these blows.

Therefore, Obama has tried to build an anti-Iranian coalition to intimidate Tehran. Given the Russian and Chinese positions, this seems to have failed, and Iran has not been intimidated. That leaves Obama with two possible paths. One is the path followed by Nixon in China: ally with Iran against Russian influence, accepting it as a nuclear power and dealing with it through a combination of political alignment and deterrence. The second option is dealing with Iran militarily.

His choice thus lies between entente or war. He is bluffing war in hopes of getting what he wants, in the meantime hoping that internal events in Iran may evolve in a way suitable to U.S. interests or that Russian economic hardship evolves into increased Russian dependence on the United States such that Washington can extract Russian concessions on Iran. Given the state of Iran's nuclear development, which is still not near a weapon, Obama is using time to try to head off the third stage.

In Afghanistan, where Obama is already in the third stage and where he is being urged to go deeper in, he is searching for a way to return to the first stage, wherein an indigenous coalition emerges that neutralizes Afghanistan through its own internal dynamic. Hence, Washington is negotiating with the Taliban, trying to strengthen various factions in Afghanistan and not quite committing to more force. Winter is coming in Afghanistan, and that is the quiet time in that conflict. Obama is clearly buying time.

In that sense, Obama's foreign policy is neither as alien as his critics would argue nor as original as his supporters argue. He is adhering to the basic logic of American grand strategy, minimizing risks over time while seeking ways to impose low-cost solutions. It differs from Bush's policies primarily in that Bush had events forced on him and spent his presidency trying to regain the initiative.

The interesting point from where we sit is not only how deeply embedded Obama is in U.S. grand strategy, but how deeply drawn he is into the unintended imperial enterprise that has dominated American foreign policy since the 1930s -- an enterprise neither welcomed nor acknowledged by most Americans. Empires aren't planned, at least not successful empires, as Hitler and Napoleon learned to their regret. Empires happen as the result of the sheer reality of power. The elephant in the room cannot stop being an elephant, nor can the smaller animals ignore him. No matter how courteous the elephant, it is his power -- his capabilities -- not his intentions that matter.

Obama is now the elephant in the room. He has bought as much time as possible to make decisions, and he is being as amiable as possible to try to build as large a coalition as possible. But the coalition has neither the power nor appetite for the risks involved, so Obama will have to decide whether to live with Iran, form an alliance with Iran or go to war with Iran. In Afghanistan, he must decide whether he can recreate the balance of power by staying longer and whether this will be more effective by sending more troops, or whether it is time to begin withdrawal. In both cases, he can use the art of the bluff to shape the behavior of others, maybe.

He came into the presidency promising to be more amiable than Bush, something not difficult given the circumstances. He is now trying to convert amiability into a coalition, a much harder thing to do. In the end, he will have to make hard decisions. In American foreign policy, however, the ideal strategy is always to buy time so as to let the bribes, bluffs and threats do their work. Obama himself probably doesn't know what he will do; that will depend on circumstances. Letting events flow until they can no longer be tolerated is the essence of American grand strategy, a path Obama is following faithfully.

It should always be remembered that this long-standing American policy has frequently culminated in war, as with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Bush. It was Clinton's watchful waiting to see how things played out, after all, that allowed al Qaeda the time to build and strike. But this is not a criticism of Clinton -- U.S. strategy is to trade time for risk. Over time, the risk might lead to war anyway, but then again, it might not. If war does come, American power is still decisive, if not in creating peace, then certainly in wreaking havoc upon rising powers. And that is the foundation of empire.

[jneal3]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

People still believe this?

Yes. Definitely a different approach with Obama:

In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," said the president, who recalled hearing prayer calls of "azaan" at dawn and dusk while living in Indonesia as a boy.
At the same time, he said the same principle must apply in reverse. "Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-cairo-speech-video_n_211210.html&cp

Obviously this was just a gesture, but at least in my view it was part of a strategy to reduce tensions and thus reduce the pressure on America to police the world. Debatable whether it has born fruit, but it absolutely was a change in strategy.

And just as obviously, none of this has anything to do with the fact that an immature, self-pitying, pathological loser used his 'faith' to justify treason and murder.

[seanm123]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Liberals always have a reason why, when a muslim commits an atrocity, it's no reflection on Islam.

First, they argue that there's no evidence the perpetrator's religion had anything to do with it.

Then, when the evidence comes out the perpetrator shouted "allahu akhbar", was dressed in traditional muslim dress just hours before the massacre (even though he was born and raised in an environment where that was not done), prayed daily at the local mosque, and was known to make emphatic religious statements, the liberals change their approach and argue that he was just an emotionally disturbed person - and strongly suggest that the reason for his rampage was that Americans weren't nice enough to him, that they hurt his feelings with insults.

There's always an excuse. With the 9/11 hijackers it was that they were the products of poverty or resentment of past U.S. "wrongs". It's never, ever, because Islam commands its believers to conquer the world by any means necessary. It's never, ever about Islam - which, by the way, literally means "submission".

You can by definition say that anyone who commits a murder is "mentally disturbed". Then, by that definition, Islam is always innocent. Those who murder in the name of their religion and prophet are always excused because they were "disturbed", and, oh, by the way, it's our fault they're disturbed. We didn't erase our identity thoroughly enough and it made them uncomfortable.

So, liberals, tell me: what would have to happen for you to agree that Islam is the cause of the problem? You tend to have no problem blaming Christianity and capitalism for things you don't like about the West. But Islam seems to be off-limits for you. Koranic teaching opposes almost everything you believe in: they stone homosexuals to death, enslave women in the kitchen and bedroom, prohibit free sexuality, strictly censor art and literature and speech, and yet you can't bring yourself to condemn Islam and its followers. How many of us are going to have to die before you recognize the problem?

The "problem" as you describe it is really a simple one, and it is not necessarily Religion specific.

For example the perceived conflict between science and Christianity may also be partially explained by a literal interpretation of the bible adhered to by many Christians, both currently and historically.

Same holds true for any other religion. Instead of using the historical writings of men as a guide on how to live your life by the examples shown, people take the literal as opposed to the symbolic.

This man either lost his ability to think symbolically about religious narratives, or never moved away from the literal acceptance of religious narratives to the rejection of these narratives, which generally happens during the teen years for most people.

It is only one factor for this man, one of many we shall soon find out. He is alive and will be subject to allot of mental screening for sanity.

Let's hope the military takes the time to learn what made him snap before they send him off to the firing squad.

[c1ue]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices.

Frankly this is more Stratfor nonsense.

George W. Bush was forced to invade Iraq? I think history shows quite well that there was a deliberate and concerted effort to use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq - actual evidence to the contrary.

George W. Bush failed to act in the Israel/Palestinian issue? Again, a choice.

Obama? He has plenty of choices. He just doesn't have the balls nor the vision to make them.

Stratfor is making excuses based on some 'grand strategy' which is nonexistent. Calling a few manipulative bastards and their goals for enriching themselves via a Central Asian pipeline isn't a plan, it is a greedy pig's wet dream.

[Raz]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Frankly this is more Stratfor nonsense.

George W. Bush was forced to invade Iraq? I think history shows quite well that there was a deliberate and concerted effort to use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq - actual evidence to the contrary.

George W. Bush failed to act in the Israel/Palestinian issue? Again, a choice.

Obama? He has plenty of choices. He just doesn't have the balls nor the vision to make them.

Stratfor is making excuses based on some 'grand strategy' which is nonexistent. Calling a few manipulative bastards and their goals for enriching themselves via a Central Asian pipeline isn't a plan, it is a greedy pig's wet dream.

I agree. (Although I'm not sure about "enriching themselves via a Central Asian pipeline ...") :confused:

George W. Dumbass had a chance to do well for the United States, but by surrounding himself with "yes men" and other loyal sycophants who told his ignorant ass what he wanted to hear, he took a difficult situation and turned it into a disaster.
And his "compassionate conservatism" (spend money as if we had it, ignore the unarmed invasion on our southern border, take down our civil liberties, ignore the Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war, etc.) has managed to discredit the true Conservatism of Ron Paul and Raz.

And because of him we've been handed over to this hard-leftist lightweight agitator from the most corrupt political machine America has ever had - outside of Tammany Hall.

(On second thought, perhaps the Fed-Goldman-Treasury Triangle is the largest and most corrupt cartel in American political history.):mad:

[cjppjc]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Ron Paul and Raz.

Now there's a ticket I can get behind.

[rj1]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

Yes. Definitely a different approach with Obama:

Obviously this was just a gesture, but at least in my view it was part of a strategy to reduce tensions and thus reduce the pressure on America to police the world. Debatable whether it has born fruit, but it absolutely was a change in strategy.

It hasn't borne fruit. The Europeans are just as antagonistic toward Obama's requests of them as they were to Bush. Europeans want to become like Switzerland or 1915 American isolationists where no demands are made on their comfort, and if that's what they want to be they are completely useless as allies. Iran are still every week pushing "we've got a nuke" and their grand style of negotiation is to be ambiguous and continuously stall. Just this past week the IAEA "discovered" (it was discovered because the Iranians wanted them to discover it) that Iran had experimented with a two-stage missile in their nuclear facility. This is a highly classified process that means lots of existing outside expertise is involved.

[GRG55]

Re: Bubblevision Begins to Break Ranks...

...Bloomberg too...:eek:

Journalist David Reilly takes a few undisguised swipes at the banks...

Chanos Condemns ‘Monstrous Idea’ That Banks Love: David Reilly

Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Famed hedge-fund manager James Chanos in recent speeches has outlined lessons from the financial crisis. A top one: “Accounting matters a lot.”

Chanos, who has flagged numerous accounting frauds over the years including the one that ultimately brought down Enron Corp., is concerned investors will quickly forget this and other warnings from the implosion of the financial system.

He doesn’t have to worry about banks missing this point. As Congressional debate over financial reform intensifies, banks are committed to ensuring that accounting rules serve their own needs.

Their latest push concerns the possible creation by Congress of a council of regulators charged with overseeing firms whose failure might blow up the financial system. Banks want any such council, consisting primarily of banking regulators, to help determine how accounting rules are set, or have the power to shelve them during a crisis.

The result would be more politicized accounting rules and a process that gives Congress a more direct way to influence what companies must tell investors. It would also mean investor interests take a back seat to those of the banking industry.

As Chanos, head of Kynikos Associates Ltd. and one of the most successful short sellers on Wall Street, said in an e-mail, this is “a monstrous idea.”...