Be Obama’s European Tour Guide Contest
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on December 21, 2007 at 5:41 PM in Current Affairs
Calvin Coolidge hearts Senator Obama. Why? Because if Obama is elected President he will be the first president since the reign of Calvin Coolidge who has not visited Europe. What would we say about John Edwards or Joe Biden, for example, if they had chaired the Foreign Relations subcommittee on African affairs but never visited Africa or held a single hearing? This is not simple nitpicking of Obama. It goes to the heart of the matter in judging whether he is ready for prime time. His failure to show even a shred of leadership despite chairing the Subcommittee on European Affairs for the Senate Foreign Relations committee is stunning. As Susan UnPC wrote last week:
That subcommittee oversees “U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), relations with the European Union (EU), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.”
So, just to cover our bets, I am running a contest designed to help Obama get ready for primetime. The contest is simple–In 200 words or less, tell us why you are the best person to take Obama to Europe, what you would show him, and why it is important. Contest ends 3 January 2008, at 7 p.m. eastern standard time.
First prize, apart from maybe getting to be Obama’s tour guide to Europe, includes the following:
Calvin Coolidge: A Biography (Signature Series) by Donald R. McCoy and Katherine E. Speirs (Hardcover - Jun 2000)
Let’s Roll by Etta James, (Audio CD - May 6, 2003) (which features our own Robert “Taters” Murray).
And your choice of any book advertised on No Quarter.
I am going to recruit Steve Clemons, Jim Marcinkowski, and Susan as the judges. Get cracking kids.
I will deliver the winning submission to the Obama for President campaign. Also, for you lawyers out there, can we collect frequent flyer miles and donate them to Obama (to help get him to Europe) without violating any campaign finance laws?
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Do we post our travel suggestions here?
I can’t wait to read the answers. When many Black people that I know travel, they go to places where people look like them…places with flavah.
One friend said “Why should I pay to go to Europe? I got that right here in the US.”
Who can afford to go to Europe anymore?
You get absolutely raped in the exchange rate.
i paid $22 for a lousy hamburger and if it wasn’t for having family who live there, The cost would have driven me bat shit.
But it would definitely be in the best interest of a presidential candidate to have traveled. we already had one who didn’t and look how well that turned out…
I’ve got a Coolidge/Dawes campaign button.
Can he wear that to Europe if he goes?
ok Larry,
So tell us how you REALLY feel about Obama’s qualifications to be POTUS.
Larry. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are so misinformed. Obama has traveled extensively in Europe. You may want to read his biography if you care to learn some facts about the man.
Is your blind support of Hillary clouding your judgment?
Are you hoping for a position in her cabinet if god forbid she gets the nomination and wins the general?
Any of the other democratic candidates would be a much better choice for POTUS in this critical time.
I really am disheartened. I respected your opinion aand your courage in speaking out. No I just find you to be a very immature person with little depth. tthis entire “contest” is just juvenile.
We have serious issues to deal with in this country. Frankly, your idotic slams of other candidates and the vitrol espoused by Susan PAC just makes me run from Hillary even faster than I already have been.
Larry Johnson,
I hope you are having fun brown-nosing for Hillary? Not that I am surprised. It was always clear that the Bush years were a bizaree interregnum that made strange bed-fellows, where Wilkerson appeared on the Amy Goodman Show, Wilson /Plame were liberal martyrs and so on. Now we are all reverting back to type and disgusting national security types such as yourselves get to do what you have always done best: jockey for perks and muddy the waters for the public.
truth be told I favor Edwards over Clinton. This much I do know, Obama is dangerous because of his ignorance and inexperience. You may feel differently. As long as you voice your opinion in a reasonable, rational way we can agree to disagree. Peace.
So, Larry, if you favour Edwards over Clinton (so do I, by the way), then why are you apparently supporting Hillary Clinton? Or does it just look that way?
Agree with Shirin: If you support Edwards, why campaign for Clinton?
Actually, I’d rather vote for Edwards than Clinton or Obama too.
Why campaign for Clinton? It is not a two way race yet and Obama will be the one with out a chair when the music stops?
Larry - I, too, would like to know your answer to that question — partly because I am an Edwards supporter and have no qualms whatsoever about going to bat for him in the caucus (even though WA State may be a moot point by the time we’ve seen the early state results.)
Why not support your first choice in the primary/caucus? I think most people will rally around the whoever the nominee is.
Ohhhhhhhh man. Now I am really confused.
Larry, besides fleshing this out, s.v.p., who are some of the foreign policy team advising John Edwards?
You call your childish assertions and fabrications reasoned and rationale?
Wow…
Hey, could we donate frequent flyer miles to Bush to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before Bush probably leads us into another unnecessary war over non-existent WMD? Although, on second thought, he might get the wrong message.
London is a great place to start. The excellent British Museum still has the Lord Elgin Parthenon marbles, as well as other unbelievable keepsakes from the time of empire. A short tour should include where the senseless War of the Roses started.
Rome has the marvelous Forum and just up the street, the entirely different white marble monument Mussolini built. The Vatican is worth a look-see.
There are still concentration camps open to visitors and they can be quite memorable, especially the ‘ovens’.
Having a background in law, I’m sure Obama would get more out of The Hague than most tourists. Perhaps not as much as Cheney…
The Netherlands is a good example of public transportation that works. Fast and timely trains and buses that interconnect easily can seem like an alternate future for most Americans.
Lastly, a visit to an American military base and it’s environs could put a face on America’s empire.
These are my recommendations, but Obama should have a few professionals guiding him, not me!
I do applaud y’alls obvious passion. And Susan, thanks for “reasons” post. I don’t at all agree that Hillary is as wonderful as you all seem to think, nor do I think Obama is as bad.( And I respect the hell out of Clark and Wilson who are also supporters.) But neither are my first choice. I’m hoping Edwards will still be in it on Super Tuesday when I get to go to the polls. I usually vote in the Rep primary, trying to help the least worst of their candidates.(If you all think Senator Alexander is bad, you should have seen the other guys, LOL.) But in 2004 I voted Clark in the primary and this year will vote for Edwards. So, Larry, welcome to the “dark side”. LOL.
Sorry I read all of todays posts, just don’t have time to comment individually.(My 17 year old son has agreed to watch a movie on DVD with me, and he’s had a lousy day,we had a Memorial Mass for his grandfather(WWII,Korea and Vietnam vet.My ex-father-in-law, but a man I admired and respected.)….. So, from the “Who Obstructed Justice” thread, one of the commentors posted about the spy satelites. Let’s pick a day, advertise it amongst the blogosphere and set an appointed time and all walk outside and flip off the satelites. Wouldn’t do any good, but would make many of us feel better. And I’d giggle. It’s performance art, dammit! ( Hey Gang! Let’s put on a show!”
Am I really the one here that remembers Obama going to visit his paternal grandma in some little village in Africa? The people there were thrilled that one of their own was a US senator….remember? Infact Obama has talked alot about wanting to help Africa. POTUS has given billions to rid that continent of aids. My feeling on charity: it begins at home…
sorry, that was suppose to say, Am I the only one here who remembers. Maybe my comment is off topic since the topic is who has spent the most time bummin’ around Europe. Tony Blair probably gave GWB some good tips on how to have 22+ cameras aimed at everyone 24/7. I seem to recall we fought a war to gain some independence from those people, yeah but that was a long time ago…ole Ron Paul & his hang up with the Constitution is starting to look better all the time.
I’m hoping for Edwards. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not silly enough to believe anyone is without a certain level of corruption….but….I need to believe in this system, this process that we call a Constitutional Democracy. I need to understand and explain to my children why the richest nation in the world can’t seem to educate it’s children, nor provide universal healthcare, nor keep our highest elected officials from committing war crimes. Other countries do…why can’t we. This holiday, as always I will take my 16, 13, 12 year olds to help out at the local soup kitchen. They see normal people who just can’t make ends meet even though they have full time jobs. This year if Connecticut is an example, they will see twice as many. We need true change. I have nothing against Hillary but I don’t want to do the same old establishment. Obama is lacking qualifications at this time of grave, dire need. Edwards is saying what I need to hear for now.
I’d take him to the Holocaust Museum at Auschwitz to bring home to a US president what a policy of aggressive nationalism can lead to.
For most Europeans the invasion and occupation of Iraq was akin to the Nazi attack on Poland in 1939. An attack on Iran would for us, and probably the rest of the world, be like the attack on Russia in 1941. Bush’s fantasy of World War 3 would indeed come to pass because the rest of the world would have no choice but to fight back.
GRC, “..a visit to an American military base & its enviorns could put a face on America’s empire.” Empire?? We’ve been peeing billions protecting europe so they could spend their dollars on transportation, education, health care etc. Empire? Euro welfare is more like it. That’s another thing I like about Ron Paul, he wants to bring the troops home from Europe & Korea. Those people should defend themselves, then we can see what happens to all their amenities, when they start paying for their own defense.
Larry’s stated preference for Edwards aside, I think a European tour for a Presidential candidate is a fine idea, Senator Obama an excellent candidate, and this engaging and talkative Brit a reasonably ideal companion-guide.
No NATO or Brussels yet, because this would be a visit designed for engraving memory with depth of impression: hence ceremonious (royal, religious), touching on tragedy (the holocaust, the poor) and peaceable (including times for refreshment, recollection, inspiration)). Visits of state come later.
Europe is a moveable feast: our eventual target would be Istanbul, once Europe’s capital, magical in its own right, where the Big Question Mark is found. We’d go via Stonehenge, for ancient, Runnymede, for constitutional monarchy, Stratford, for swans and Shakespeare, the Paris bainlieu, for poverty, extinguished hope, and the gathering European presence of Islam, the Loire valley for a walk in dappled warmth, fine wine — one of the camps for brute eruptive reality — Zurich for shopping and sheer wealth, Venice, because it is lovely and sinking (I want to see it too), St Peter’s for pontifical High Mass, greatest of spectacles, most profound of rituals, and a cordial visit next day with Benedict XVI, thence onwards, to Istanbul Constantinople Byzantium.
My dream ticket: Gore-Edwards, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Edwards I think is my preference from the field of front runners too. But like Larry, I don’t think its realistic to predict he will be the nominee.
Actually, Edwards has the same problem Obama has: he hasn’t been around long enough to build a big solid political machine, and for voters to feel they know exactly what they are getting if they vote for him.
Obama knows how to campaign. He has risen relatively quickly from obscurity to household-word status. That’s a key political skill needed to get elected, and he has proven he has that skill. He can wow you, he can give a great speech, he can sell dreams, and that’s how politicians have always seduced the voters.
The problem is that everything else has taken a back seat to campaigning. Unfortunately, it’s not all his fault, because the system rewards the eternal campaign monster, and ignores people who get the job done without making a fanfare. “Fanfare” runs the show. In a sense, you can’t blame Obama for understanding that truth.
It’s about PR, it’s about looking good on talk-shows, it’s about fund-raising, it’s about telling voters what they want to hear, its about getting mega-star endorsements, and these things demand 24/7 campaigning. So that’s what he does, and it has been generating results for him.
Unfortunately, our political system has no rewards for elected officials who actually show up at their offices and get work done. And our system actually punishes politicians who want to be honest and do good works. If you are a politician, and you want to fade into obscurity and be forgotten, then show up and do a good job everyday, and that’s what you’ll get.
The system is completely loaded against doing the right things and has great rewards for doing the wrong things. The occupants of the current White House are my proof-of-concept here. Further evidence: Rudy and Huck.
Who is trying to do the right thing out there - those are the candidates that don’t stand a chance. That’s why we all like Edwards, but we know, he’s a good guy, soo…and Al Gore apparently concluded you can’t be a good guy and be President too, so he chose to opt out of the whole rotten-to-the-core system. Really, you can’t blame him.
That leaves the crooks as the front runners.
Choose your poison carefully: all types of pain are not equal.
Ah! The Gore fantasy again! How quickly reality fades from the minds of the devoted!
I would like know what itinerary Tyler Drumheller would recommend.
There is a passage in his book when he was writing about standing outside of Langley on 9/11 wishing “they” had paid more attention to Europe.
i am a strong edwards supporter who has found myself defending hillary on various liberal sites. why? i cant speak for others but for me it started to happen when i felt the attacks on her went over the line. these attacks were based on her sex, her previous role as first lady and some were even echoing right wing talking points. the more i read these attacks the more it became readily evident they originated from obama supporters. when questioned about their attacks this group almost as a whole replied with ad hominum replies … i was even troll rated on a couple sites by these people … i guess questioning them was over the line.
you know i really disliked ronnie raygun but one of his favorite lines went something like this … dont speak evil of fellow republicans … i think us democrats might learn something from the ol gipper in this regard. i want a clean contest … no underhanded personal attacks. diasagree by all means but keep it professional … perhaps i’m asking too much … after all we are the disorganized and messy democrats.
peace to all during this holiday season … keep up the “good” fight for whomever you support. for me, it is quite simple … I like john!
Obama simply isn’t prepared, and I sort of have to wonder about his intellectual curiousity if he has yet to visit Europe. I don’t find him inspirational, as so many claim him to be. He’s a bit too professory for me, and if people thought Bill Clinton too often bashed the Left to score points with the Right, well I don’t see how they find solace in Obama. I say, send him back to the Senate. Let’s see him actually effect someone’s life other than his own. I disagree with Larry. I much prefer Hillary, thought Edwards would be my second choice.
And what, specifically, do you prefer about Hillary?
Why I Should Be Obama’s Tour Guide (not an official submission)
Dear Sen. Obama,
Like you I am bi-racial, grew up on two languages, spent much of my childhood overseas and my parents practiced
two different regligions.
Also, like you, I have foreign policy experience. As a Little Leaguer, we played against
the Japanese All Stars. And I’ve also served as an unofficial tour guide on the continent for friends and colleagues.
(Since you’ve already been to Great Britain, we’ll go there along with Scandinavia,
the Baltic States, Germany and Eastern Europe the next time around.)
.
I will also share with you the European idea of Heaven and Hell.
Heaven
The Germans are the factory workers.
The French are the cooks.
The English are the police.
The Swiss are the bankers.
And the Italians are the lovers.
Hell
The French are the factory workers.
The English are the cooks.
The Italians are the bankers.
The Germans are the police.
And the Swiss are the lovers..
Respectfully,
Taters
Good one, Taters.
By the way, did you know that Barak Obama’s father was an avowed atheist? So much for the Muslim connection!
Brilliant and funny. Well done.
LJ
Thanks, no I didn’t know that.
Once in Belgium, I commented to two guys (We were hangin’ out and having fun, (one was Dutch and the other French) that our Belgian host was a a nice guy, gracious and generous. They both looked at me somewhat surprised and said, he is supposed to.
I asked why.
They said that he must concede to me for I was the superior man, after all he was Belge. And that he’s probably grateful I didn’t take his wife.
I was somewhat taken aback and to this day I don’t know if they were serious or not.
China.
Europe’s relevance decreases daily. China however has a stranglehold on the American economic system.
And let us not forget that Calvin Coolidge was the third best president the USA ever had. Only William Henry Harrison and James A Garfield did more for freedom and liberty and caused fewer problems during their terms.
Thanks Larry.
Like Obama, I don’t have special knowledge of Europe outside of my public school education. However, they say the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone. So I could teach Obama and get learnin’ for both of us at the same time!
I know, far-fetched logic, but so is the logic of electing the inexperienced Obama as president.
I figure if I can Wow him with mis-direction, using stories about my family and ancestors, I’m in. You know, the way he’s Wow’d folks with a single speech at the ‘04 convention.
I’m related to some people like president Millard Fillmore and Major General Ed Landsdale, and Francis Scott Key was the family’s lawyer. None of this has anything to do with touring Europe, but that’s OK. If Obama’s campaign is any clue, it’s the Wow factor that counts.
That is good, yb. You make a great case.
You know what they say about Tennis players. “If you don’t win any matches, be an Instructor”. And then there’s the Mexican that gives English lessons. He can’t really excel due to his inferior command of the English language so he teaches it with a Spanish accent.
Call me crazy, but after the Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson supporters re-allign with Obama on Caucus Night and everyone at Obama for America has to start working overtime, I have a feeling they’re not going to have time to even glance at your petty bullshit.
I can volunteer for the tour guide post if expenses are paid. I will take him to Spain and explain how the 20th century affected the world that was built around Spain and the preemptive fascist takeover.
We may be able to let him know about how the inquisition was popular there, how the arabic civilization brought their knowledge to Europe and brought us out of the dark ages.
Well oldtree, you got me thinking about paella now - good post.
http://www.cyberspain.com/friends/paella.htm
[...] Social Security — and hasn’t thought out real global concerns. Partly, it’s that he hasn’t traveled much; Steve Clemons is still trying to get an accurate statement from Obama on his travel history. [...]
[...] Obama, who hasn’t convened a single hearing of the Foreign Relations subcommittee he chairs. (It IS an important committee. It not only [...]
Well, does Obama get to go to Europe?
Travel to Zurich…
Hope you will write more information for us!. Who advice? Hello topic starter! Hi, very interesting.Hi there. What can I say, it’s…
Hey Travel to Zurich, what a lovely city! We stayed at the Seegarten, a wonderful hotel with all the amenities of home. Gracious hosts and a superb restaurant. I hope to return.
Guess what, Pres Bush never visited Europe prior to his first term in office. I guess you missed that Larry.
I would recommend that he visit Brussels, and, time permitting make a stop to acquaint himself with NATO headquarters there. I’m sure he could browse the archives of NATO’s participation in Afghanistan to confirm that, in fact, Arabic is no spoken there. While there, he could enjoy some Belgian waffles with a little sausage in peace.
[...] Gorgegirl on Hillary: “It’s About What’s Right For Oregon” [UPDATE!]john b on Be Obama’s European Tour Guide ContestGorgegirl on Hillary: “It’s About What’s Right For Oregon” [UPDATE!]Catriley on Two [...]
Or some Trappist beer and Belgian chocolate. Good post!