By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: 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 January 12, 2008 at 8:19 PM in Uncategorized
Yes, I have a bias. Until the New Hampshire primary I was keeping my powder dry and my options open when it came to supporting a Democrat for the Presidency of the United States. I was open to both Edwards and Clinton, but Tuesday pushed me over the edge. I will support Hillary Clinton for President and am now a financial donor to her campaign. And for the clowns who insist I’m sucking up in order to get a sweetheart government position or to have a lobbying insider deal I have but one word–horseshit.
If Hillary’s elected I will be happy to offer advice and volunteer time to get her administration up and running. But I do not want the daily grind of going to work. I like to sleep in until 830am if I can. And I like to play golf (call me selfish).
I support Hillary because she is a thoroughly tested, scandal free candidate. No one in the race to be President–republican or democrat–has experienced the scrutiny and attacks that Hillary has. I support Hillary because she has shown a willingness to learn from mistakes and has demonstrated a shrewd, nimble intelligence. I have briefed her in private and she knows how to think on her feet, think spontaneously, and be very smart in the process. I also support Hillary because she has more successful time in legislative and executive positions than either John Edwards or Barack Obama. Finally, I support Hillary because she understands that what she says in the primaries can and will be used against her in the general election and if she is sworn in as President.
So why not Edwards or Obama? The Edwards decision boils down to this–He is not a viable national candidate and lacks the muscle or money to get thru the primaries. I will be happy to be proved wrong and will contribute the max to his campaign if he triumphs. But I don’t think he can pull it off. However, I have given his buddies–Wayne Williams and Brad Parker–full privileges to sing his praises at No Quarter. I believe that John Edwards does have the experience and has been vetted sufficiently to do well in a national campaign.
I cannot say the same for Barack Obama. Obama, although an inspirational speaker, is not qualified by accomplishment nor sufficiently vetted to warrant getting the nod to be the Democratic candidate. Can we at least be honest that there is no legislator in the history of the U.S. Senate who deserved to be President after only two years on the job? Obama’s national level experience in government would not be such a concern for me if his record at the state level was extraordinary. But it was not. Had he eradicated poverty and crime in Illinois during his stint as a state legislator then I would be leading the parade to elect him. But he did not. He did what every other ambitious, smart politician has done–he avoided problems and positioned himself to move up to the next rung. Good on him for that. But he is not the political equivalent of Lebron James–he’s not ready to start.
How about private sector experience? Has he met a payroll or commanded a large, complex organization? Nope. Obama has generated ammunition, however, that can and will be fired at him. For example, the national media has barely probed his ties to crooked political fund raiser, Tony Rezko. Obama himself said it was a mistake and that will become one of the key stories. If Guiliani is going to get hammered for helping nominate someone like Bernie Kerick to be in charge of Homeland Security, do you seriously believe that Obama will get a pass on characters like Rezko? I say no.
And don’t start rattling off the list of Hillary’s sweetheart deals and stock windfalls. My point is those are already fully known, explored, and analyzed to death. I am not holding it against Obama that he may have some of the same dirt in his past that has plagued Hillary. But Hillary has been thru the wringer of independent prosecutors and national public scrutiny. There is no new “news” there. No so with Obama.
While Obama is a good looking, articulate candidate, he is still on the media honeymoon. You know, they love the inspirational story. They love the rags-to-riches, bootstrap mythology. The media are still misty eyed and in their minds hear the refrain,”I was born a poor black child.” But the media honeymoon will end. They are a fickle lot and will become bored with the Obama hagiography. The saintly man will be transformed into a sinful boy (and yes, I deliberately use the term “boy” to capture the racial and ethnic slurs that will be used to sully him).
Fair or not, Obama’s race will become a major issue. The time between March and August is long and the media will hunger for a story line grounded in conflict. If they cannot find one they might even invent one. I am not saying that Democrats should avoid nominating a black man or woman. But do not kid yourselves that most of America is yearning or ready to elect Obama. The first black President will be a man or woman throughly tested at the national level. Obama could eventually be that man, but he is not now a viable black candidate, especially with only two years of mediocre legislative service in the Senate. If Colin Powell was running we would not be discussing his race or qualifications. We would argue about some of his decision making and advice, but not his ability. Obama’s resume does not yet have that kind of heft.
Finally, I am troubled by his apparent ineptness or lack of vision. I think he knew when he entered the U.S. Senate that he would run for President if the opportunity presented itself. So what did he do to start positioning himself for such a run despite the limitations of being a first term Senator? Did he chair any signficant hearings? No. Did he use his position as Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Europe and Nato to burnish his lack of foreign policy experience? No. It is tough to accuse Obama of being a calculating politician because he did such a poor job of positioning himself for the current run. He failed this part of the calculation.
I hope for the sake of Obama that he gets more seasoning and more experience. But I will not support a guy who is less qualified than George W. Bush to be President. Having another likable but inexperienced guy in the White House is a risk I will not take.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I find this especially mystifying. Here he had a plum little job and could have put on a hearing or two to not only build up his resume, but to get himself on C-Span. Then he could have traveled to Afghanistan to confer with Nato generals, as well as to Europe to meet with heads of state — more photo ops, more publicity, more stature-building exercises.
Yet he did none of that. He doesn’t even list the subcommittee chairmanship on his Senate Web site. If I were running for president, I’d put in some travel, I’d get photographs shaking hands with European and Nato officials, and all that.
I just don’t get it.
Don’t forget that Subcommittee hangs on the mentoring of Lieberman. It was meant to do nothing. I believe [?] that Lieberman gave him the chairmanship. Google or Washpostonline.
This is the kind of committee that Biden cut his baby teeth on, and an opportunity to travel abroad is part of the package. Obama met Tony Blair twice, and believe made a trip to Russia. But all of this can be Googled, and to what purpose?
The end wasn’t justified by the means. A lackluster, safe. under the radar performance in DC and a record in Illinois that was calculating and sponsored by Pritzker Chicago billions and local Chicago Pols.
None of this is terrible. It just doesn’t show leadership as he did virtually nothing in US Senate but absent himelf on dicey votes and those he felt why bother, it won’t matter anyway.
On Bankruptcy matters he voted AGAINST the bill that wanted caps of 30% interest for debtors in trouble. Clinton voted for the bill.
If you wish to see more Obama senate votes they’re all on Washington Post on line. Go to Politics, and then draw menu down to Congress. Entire record of
all bills,votes,Senate and House are clearly shown along with committee chairs, etc. Very instructive.
What really matters here is a typical local pols record in Chicago [part time at that], and a mediocre, safe performance that shows neither grit or leadership in the senate. Why?
Who knows. Perhaps if I were cynical I’d say he was careful and wanted a record to provide cover for his campaign. Felt his message and charisma would carry against Clinton with high unfavorables.
He may have thought it would be the best way to prepare for his run. Or he could just lack decisiveness which sometimes leads to errors, but we all know that real leaders stick their necks out.
Whatever happens I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee. But I feel Hillary is far better equipped to lead on many tested levels. I want her to win because I know the social compact will be carried out as she knows who and how to fight.
We’d better have someone like Richad Hollbrook on our team as Secy of State [Clinton] than Carter’s burnt out Breszinsky [Obama], and am hardly impressed with Asst Secy of State for African affairs and Ms. Rice policy wonks Obama on foreign policy.
As for healthcare there is no one like Hillary who knows all the pitfalls and still has the scars. Obama has a good plan but it lacks the necessary mandate to give it teeth.
And his track record gives me no confidence at all about being seriously knowledgeable or tough enough to implement the best possible plan.
Obama’s “You’re good enough” wasn’t swift, but mistakes are made by everyone in campaigns. Obama will probably make a fine president when he receives the necessary experience and spends some time learning hardball legislating in the big leagues.
Frankly, I wish them both luck but prefer Hillary, but we should all remain open to honest discourse and thoroughly vet Obama.
If you’re going to try to bash Obama, you need to get your facts straight. Obama voted against the CC bill b/c the cap
was too high ! Lots of working class families are crushed under a burden of debt caused by that bill because for no reason the CC companies are able to raise their interest rates to 29,99%. The bill gave a windfall to the CC card companies and saddled the working class with mountains of debt. Hillary and the Dems that voted for that bill were more interested in getting campaigns donations from the CC industry than with the plight of working Americans.
Obama was afraid to stand for anything. Its better to be an empty vessel and let others fill it with whatever they want. His Campaign Manager David Axelrod said early on that they would sell Obama and not his stand on the issues. He even reads his speeches from a teleprompter and has his speechwriter with him in case he changes one word.
This is the problem with American political campaigns in general. Ultimately they are not about issues, but about images, and mostly false images at that.
False images? False testimony and witness?
All of the above.
Add False impressions to that as well.
I agree that from the vantage of self interest it was boneheaded for Obama not to use this position to burnish his credentials. But there is something even more troubling about the fact that he blew off his responsibilities as Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Europe and Nato. If Obama had been truly concerned about what was best for this country as well as for the Democratic party he would have used this opportunity to do everything he could to start to repair some of the damage Bush has caused to our relationship with our European allies. Not to mention he could have gotten experience that would have made him better qualified for the awesome responsibilities of being president. Apparently he thinks that his wit and charm will be enough. We’ve already seen what this kind of hubris can lead to. Let’s not go down that road again.
Obama needs to gain more experience and maturity before he is ready to take on the role of most powerful person in the world. I don’t doubt that he has the potential, he just isn’t there yet. He needs to work harder to earn this honor.
I’m for Hillary but for the life of me I can’t see why she wants this hard job. I’m her age, and I want to sleep in too, not work 18 hour days and be on call 24-7. She’s a hard worker and there is much to be done, but I see the job as only public service at this point in her life, I see it as her sense of duty, since she’s aware of what it’ll take out of her she’s running because she’s prepared and because she’s a public servant.
I’ve met Clinton at private fundraisers, and she is very passionate about making a difference. I know this sounds so corny you probably think I’m a Clinton Clone. Not so. I am rather skeptical by nature and never expected the energy she radiates along with her sense of commitment.
Hard to believe? She might get this through more if she gets closer to people on a one to one basis. I don’t think I’ve seen many people with her energy. It can actually be felt. Her mind is of course exceptional.
Why would you ask why Hillary wants this job? Would you ask Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan.Bush,Clinton. why they wanted this job? All wanted to make a diffference.
Why shouldn’t she want the job? Why did Margaret Thatcher,Golda Meir,Indira Ghandi, and the others want the job? There are woman leaders in Argentina,Germany,Chile, and those I’m leaving out.
They wanted to make a difference, and sometimes
they actually make a difference for the better.
And after seeing the decline of our country under Bush. I would imagine that it probably made her want to take this on more than ever.
Public servant? Sense of duty? Come on! How about ambition? How about a desire for power and prestige? How about the knowledge that she would create a huge historical legacy just by being elected?
The above is not meant as any kind of dig at Hillary, but let’s at least look at this thing realistically!
What the hell is wrong with ambition?
As for a legacy, you don’t get legacies by wanting them.
Bush has felt entitled by coronation to a legacy, but the one he’s leaving is disastrous.
Ambition,power,committment, experience,political know how,vision,and the ability to accomplish something decent makes for a legacy.
A legacy is up to the record left that only history can judge. It’s also about wanting to lead. Some do this badly but tell us they are leaving a legacy.
Power and ambition are assets [among other things] needed for the job of President.
Legacies good or bad are the end results that cannot be controlled.
Did I say anything was wrong with ambition? Did I say anything was wrong with any of the reasons I listed? On the contrary, I took pains to state that I was not making a dig at Hillary.
As for the legacy, if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will automatically have a historical legacy she will not have to build by virtue of being the first woman to be elected to that office. That is what I referred to, and it is a fact.
And for god’s sake, I DO hope that if Hillary Clinton becomes President of the United States, she will never ever belong in the same category with Margaret Thatcher, and even worse, Golda Meier.
I did not and do not approve of Golda Meir or Margaret Thacher. I mentioned that women as THE leaders are accepted..except in America.
Women could only traditionally become leaders through birthright as in royalty. I was pointing out some of the elected women.
Ambition and power are still seen as characteristics not available to women, or endorsed by our establishments. And these qualities are distinctly seen as negatives in women and attributes in men.
You forgot to mention Benazir Bhutto - a deeply flawed, but very ambitious, powerful, beautiful, and glamorous woman who was elected twice to lead Pakistan.
I do not see power and ambition as being any more negative in women than in men, and you should not automatically make the assumption that I do.
Social constucts in the US are arcane and brainwash young women from an early age. Personnaly I think martial arts should be mandatory starting in third grade for female students. Just think of all the issues that would address.
to have a lobbying insider deal I have but one word–horseshit
I hear you. It’s better to want some coffee than need it.
What’s your favorite club?
Getting “caught” makes it a ‘mistake’ in the world of politics. The Dick Morris folks of the world are waiting for the “word” …they have several scripts depending on who is at bat. Both are REALLY ugly no matter how deftly they come across.
I think I understand what you mean…yet I’m not sure I would want that job these days. Someone quailified needs to clean up a huge mess and they better know where the plummers and geeks are from beginning in transition. I keep thinking of Richard Clark attempting to tell the incoming admin what was up only to get flipped off. The incoming admin this time will have a much more difficult time getting their arms around what they are being told ’cause aome of the critical pieces are lies.
My 3 wood.
One way I can help is that I have had access to key intelligence and the structures put in place to deal with the terrorist threat. I can flag horseshit.
Larry,
I’m not hearing a definite “NO!” from you whenever the putative post of National Golf Czar is mentioned. Who better to keep our golf links free from terrorist threats? Think of all the photo ops of you touring the golf courses of the U.S. in your armored golf cart–with the “North American Golf Command” logo on it. My God, if Americans can’t golf in peace then the terrorists have truly won!
OK, If offered golf czar I’m in.
Given my personal protection experience, my keen sense of observation and my driving abilities, I am interested in the the position you will need to fill for someone capable of driving the armored golf cart.
I’ll need to brush up on protocol, however. I never did understand the whole ball washer thing—I mean, really, just how is one supposed to mount one of those things, anyway?—and I am simply not willing to wear those leftover disco pants, even if they help me blend in amongst the duffers. Some things, I simply won’t compromise on!
Then you are desperately needed my friend cause flagging horseshit seems to be a lost are in the American psyche.
Hmmmmm.
OK Larry, we get your drift. BUT the right wing wants,would love,cant wait,dream about,cream in their pants thinking about it, WANT TO RUN AGAINST HILLERY!!!! If the GOP wants to run against her, that sends alot of people a message. I like Hillery. I think she could do the job, BUT the GOP wants nothing more than to keep her as a punching bag for 4 years. Hell, those fuc-kers are afraid of Obama, and Edwards. I just dont see Hillery able to get past the evil freaks of Bush for at least 10 more years.
Pardon me.
Who told you that the GOP would be kinder to Edwards: ["I will not work with any lobbyist, and I will take on Esso and all the corporations, etc" and to Obama: "I will unite this country and we all must work together, blah, blah]].
The GOP will be fighting for their life if they lose this election, so no matter who is in the White House there will be monumental struggles.That as they say is politics.
A weak president will accomplish little and still be savaged. An angry president will get angrier and accomplish little, and still be savaged. And I dare say, snookered.
Hillary will be as savaged as the rest but she knows how to work through the system, and she can handle working effectively through the heat. She’s taken more savaging than most people can even dream of.
Your argument is as speculative as mine, but my argument has more legs because Hillary has been tested. She doesn’t give up and she doesn’t let being rejected impede her.
Neither you or I know how Edwards or Obama will react under the terrible pressures of the job, along with the certain undreamt of GOP shenanigans that will be an everyday occurence.
So your scenario does not quite work out as for sure as all three of these future Dem presidents would face a very difficult and dangerous group of problems along with sure misery from GOP.
Obama claims he’s going to unite America.And give us hope and change. I hope we get more than hope.
And as yet he hasn’t explained the change.
Edwards says he’ll fight them all and just for us.
I hope his fights are productive. So far from Edwards out of the courtroom, I ain’t seen this.
Now Hillary is interesting. She’s taken their shit for years and has been elected Senator twice and has co signed with the other side some decent legislation. We know how she handles herself under fire. She’s seen and lived through the workings and idiosyncracies of government from several points of view on all levels.
I think she’s smarter about policy than either Obama or Edwards. And I know she can get things done.
You sure you still know that the Republicans will be wonderful to Obama and Edwards but will only be obstructive to Hillary?
Act I. Scene I.
“BUT the GOP wants nothing more than to keep her as a punching bag for 4 years.”
That assumes she can get elected?
Lets try this from a different point…
I believe that we can all agree we do not want 4 more years of a Republican Administration like the one that is now in place.
So according to conventional wisdom and historical patterns when a sitting president is in a lame duck position it is always tough for his party to hold on to the WH regardless of whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans.
Eisenhower (R) two terms succeeded by Kennedy (D)
Kennedy/Johnson (D) 2 term succeeded by Nixon (R)
Nixon/ford (R) 2 terms succeeded by Carter (D)
Carter (D) 1 term succeeded by Reagan (R)
Reagan (R) 2 terms succeeded by Bush 1 (R)
Bush 1 (R) 1 term succeeded by Clinton (D)
Clinton(D) 2 terms succeeded by Bush II (R)
Bush II (R) 2 terms succeeded by ???????
Ok conventional wisdom and historical patterns clearly point out that only ONE time since the two term limit was put into place has one party held on to the WH for more than 8 years and that of course was Reagan and Bush I.
So if history repeats itself then even in ordinary times a Democratic president may not a shoe in but should not have any problem winning in November 2008 Also helping the situation is the popularity of the lame duck president which I believe Bush has the lowest of any. An additional reason a Democrat should win.
So you say Bill what is your point?
THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY TIMES.
Because these are NOT ordinary times history will NOT repeat itself and and all historical patterns, if you want to use them as one of your basis’s for assuming that Hillary or any of the leading candidates will win, WILL NOT APPLY.
Why?
Because the Rules of Game Changed with the election of George Bush in 2000.
Let me ask you a question…
Do you believe that George Bush won in 2000 and 2004 because the Republicans played by the Rules of the Game?
If the had played by the Rules of the Game Al Gore would be finishing his second term with probably at least decent numbers and the Democrats for the first time as a party would be on the brink of keeping the WH for more than 8 years. HILLARY would easily be the best candidate to succeed Al Gore guarantee the Democrats 8 more years in the control of the WH AND be the first woman president.
Bill..wake up, get out of your fantasy world and get into the Real World!!
OK the Real World started after Nov 2000 when the Republican Neocons changed the Rules of the Game and said the New Rules were “There are no Rules” and then proceeded to do whatever it took to assume control of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth which, by many people’s account they have successfully done to date.
In other words as many have said other than me, a “bloodless” coup was completed on that fateful January in 2001 day when the Supremes gave the election to the Republicans.
So what do people who successfully execute a coup do ? They consolidate their power in any way they can in order to KEEP the power.
What have the neocons done in the last 7 years?
Consolidated their power. How? Well if you can’t see that then you are living with your head in the sand, so I am not even going to waste time trying to explain it to you.
Aha you say..you forget that the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.
Yep you got me on that one the Republican power grab was stopped cold in its tracks, Congress impeached the Pres and vice Pres, President Pelosi took office
(soory Hillary lovers she was not the first woman president) and today we are seeing a great race between the incumbent President Pelosi and the challenger Hilary Clinton whi9ch is indeed is a great day in history for women (yes Shirin women ARE a majority NOT a minority) but wait……
Bill…Bill…BILL!! You have slipped back into your fantasy world again!
In the Real World none of this happened and the Neocons still have just as much power as they did before Nov 2006.
Now for a Short Two Act Play
ACT ONE
(Opening scene GWB musing and swaggering in the WH)
“I the Great Decider have amassed all this power, made millions for all my rich friends but I can’t run again because that damn piece of paper says I can’t. What are we going to do to hold on to this power?
I know.. I’ll do the RIGHT THING!!!
I will honor the Laws of the land, the Rules of the Game, let elections proceed, let the best man/woman win, take the millions I had stoked away, (what is that Swiss bank account number or did I give the monies to my prince Bandar?) and retire to my ranch in Crawford…no Paraguay.”
But wait….am I nuts?? Those who put me in power would never let me do that! Even if I can’t serve again they will not simply let the others guys win the election. Wait I know..With Turdblossom in charge, the Democrats won’t have a chance because (chuckling) they are so stupid, (whispers) they don’t know we changed the Rules of the Game. (HeeHee)”
Act Two
(A cold day in DC, January 2009…)
“Do you Senator McCain solemly swear to to uphold…….
(Curtain rings down)
Preach Bill.
John Kerry says “We won’t be swift boated again”!! (He is dreaming) I agree with you Bill Keyes that the levers of power are held with a superglue grip and the laws of “Deadwood” apply. The rules have changed, but so has the board this ‘game’ is being played on. Given that your post is THE “crux of the biscuit” and the ability of any candidate to encroach, infiltrate, flank, co-opt, or “work with”, the votes will be measured by Diebold machines and non governmental power structures do create great obstacles.
How do think that can be countered?
{The rules have changed, but so has the board this ‘game’ is being played on. Given that your post is THE “crux of the biscuit” and the ability of any candidate to encroach, infiltrate, flank, co-opt, or “work with”, the votes will be measured by Diebold machines and non governmental power structures do create great obstacles.
How do think that can be countered?}
I would start with thinking of those two systems ( Diebold, and non government power structures, say) as fluid entities, as opposed to static obstacles, comparing and contrasting their interactions with already existing institutions.
You observe the interaction within the context of American law, which has, for the most part, provided an excellent guide, when enforced.
when enforced
By what Justice Dept? By who? By a guy who does not know what torture is? Or even more bizarre, does know what it is and allows it? This 08 election is FUBAR with ILS flight rules and a stuck autopilot.
comparing and contrasting their interactions with already existing institutions.
The “battlefield” preperations are complete.
As much as I don’t want to agree with Bill Keyes’ point, no one questions the fact that the “advisaries” have just about “fixed” our ability to compare and contrast. Weaknesses maybe found to exploit, but time is not an ally at this point.
Thanks Cee
Except I don’t think anyone is listening except you and Shirin(when I don’t piss her off)
I guess I should keep my preaching down to less that 100 words…my wife always says I am too verbose.
Also I guess I should be thankful that Larry lets us “Ramble on” (that was a great LZ song BTW) Huffpo has limited you to 350 words for some time now.
Hmmm….I wonder how many times I could say Hillary cant win, Hillary cant win,…before I use up 100 words. Oh well…..
By my calc…33.3333333333333…that is allowing for the contraction a non terminating number
I can see Bart writing on the blackboard…Hillary cant win…
I made it into the Supreme Court Hearings during the 200O debacle. I stood in line for hours, did not think I would make it in, (they rotate the peasants when it is crowded) but made it in with the last group for 45 minutes. First time to sit in on a Supreme court hearing…learned so much
The rules sure did change it was a Supreme Court Judicial coup…a Presidential Selection.
The rules have changed. I agree if Bill had not fallen prey to thinking with his smaller head giving the radicals a way to distract the public, if Gore would had demanded that the whole state be recounted, if if if the Baker team had not been so ruthless..Hillary would have moved into the line up without some very bloody votes on Iraq and potentially on Iran.
Lots of Iraqi people and Americans would still be alive and many would still have their body parts
If If If
I don’t think they are afraid of Obama at all. In fact, I get the impression they are salivating at the thought of him running. It would take a miracle at this point for Edwards to gain any traction, but I can’t see him not having just as hostile a GOP to run against as any other democrat.
Personally, I think the GOP is much more afraid of Hillary. They know that most of America disapproved of their attempt to ride Bill out of town on a rail. Many democrats would like nothing better than to make them pay for that, and what could be better symbolically then forcing them to deal with Hillary for 4-8 years. That’s something that makes me smile. And just let them try to savage her in the way they did Bill. It will put their blatant misogyny in all its ugliness for all the world to see. What could be better for tearing their party apart even more and marginalizing them to an even greater degree than what George Bush has already done.
I doubt that Hillary is a bit naive about what is coming. Don’t forget that she had to live through that mess, that all the hurt and ugliness was a part of her life every day for the long months it drug on.
I support Hillary for her stands on the issues, for how hard she works, and for what I see as her vision. But I can’t help but think she will be the one who rocks the other side back on their heels and puts them on the defensive as they try to figure out how to deal with her. The GOP doesn’t do a great job in dealing with women. I laugh at the thought of their floundering.
I agree totally. People who think that the right wing hates only the Clintons are kidding themselves. Have they forgotten the trashing of Gore? Many Democrats bought into this crap and voted for Nader. And what about the Swiftboating of Kerry? The right wing thought nothing of trashing a man who risked his life in the service of his country. They would have a field day with someone as green as Obama whose toughest race was against the crackpot Alan Keyes. And our “liberal” mainstream media would play right along with them as usual.
The right was able to defeat both Gore and Kerry, but they have never been able to defeat the Clintons, no matter how much dirt was thrown at them, up to and including charges of murder. You better believe they are afraid of Hillary.
Hillary scares the Republicans to death. The thought of Healthcare for All Americans and keeping Social Security in tact makes them physically ill. The want Obama in the GE because then they can talk about his middle name and his drug use with impunity. They are salivating at the thought of Obama in the GE but if they can’t get Obama they want to smear Hillary so much that she would be weakened in the GE. Don’t forget the full length movie coming out soon in which they will pull out all the stops to destroy her. Wouldn’t it be easier for this mob to do something for the American people instead of destroying those who can?
And just for shits and giggles, I wonder who Prince Bandar would pick out of the Dems race? Hillery? John? Barack? His favaorite, Mr. C.P. did not run. Ohhh Wellll…..
Good question. I’ll have to check on the global leaders.
Hillary is losing votes here
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
What Would César Chávez Say?
César Chávez (1927-1993), the co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, risked his life repeatedly to organize and enfranchise workers in the American Southwest.
What would César say about the lawsuit - “widely seen within Nevada political circles as a hardball effort by Clinton allies to block votes from the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226,” according to ABC News - in Nevada’s January 19 caucuses?
—————————————————
The lawsuit against Nevada’s nine at-large caucus sites is being waged fiercely out of court, too:
D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, criticized the lawsuit as “despicable” and “disgusting.”
“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state,” Mr. Taylor said. “I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign.
“If there’s not a renouncing of it,” he added, “then there’s an agreement with it.”
A Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, said in a statement: “We hope the courts and the state party resolve this matter. We will respect their decision and focus our efforts on running a strong campaign.”
In a statement, an Obama campaign official, David Cohen, said, “We believe as a party, and a country, we should be looking for ways to include working men and women in the electoral process, not disenfranchise them.”
Bazinet adds some choice facts:
LAS VEGAS — There are some strange happenings in Nevada politics today that sources say wreak of voter suppression, harking back to the days of the Jim Crow laws — but this time it’s Hispanics who could be kept away from next Saturday’s caucuses…
Although the suit is against the state party, just beneath the surface it pits white collar union against blue collar union. The plaintiff is the Nevada State Education Association and the majority of the shift workers are represented by the Culinary Workers Union. About half the culinary workers — cooks, housekeepers, dishwashers, waiters and waitresses — are Hispanic.
And ABC’s Tapper adds:
Culinary union secretary-treasurer D. Taylor told the Associated Press that the plaintiffs were using “Floridian Republican tactics to suppress cooks, housekeepers, people of color and women.”
The move by the Nevada State Education Association — NSEA president Lynn Warne is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit — is widely seen within Nevada political circles as a hardball effort by Clinton allies to block votes from the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which endorsed Obama on January 9, an hotly-contested endorsement.
What would Cesar Chavez say? About a beef between two unions over whether one is getting a preference? Not sure. Because the lawsuit was brought by a union, with another union possibly about to join it.
But I do know that Cesar’s brother and his sister-in law Dolores Huerta, both heroes in Chavez’ United farm Workers movement, are out campaigning their asses off for Hillary.
This is politics. It’s ok for Obama to busload 17 yr old out of towners to Iowa, to deny he has seasoned lobbyists directing his campaign, and ok for Oprah to intrude into three caucusses and the in NH in a non union arena? It’s ok for back deals to be made to throw votes to Obama and Edwards after caucus votes are tallied? It’s ok that Oprah runs a non union shop but she enjoys membership in 3 craft unions?
It’s ok to push call and say you are from Hillary’s campaign when you’re not- in NH? It’s ok to say you can’t obtain your Illinois records because you never thought they’d be important and now it’s too costly and too late? it’s ok to refuse to state your donors in your next three fundraisers as Obama has done, ? No lists will be avalable. It’s ok that his Campaign Finance Director is Penny Pritzker of the billionaire Pritzkers who have run and own about everything in Chicago? Including the political machine Barack was trained in?
It’s ok that Pritzker money owns along with Hyatt chain, Nursing homes, medical co’s, Savings & Loans of which 2 were shut down for impropriety by the Feds? It’s ok that the Pritzkers have been sued by the gov’t for tax evasion? It’s ok that Obama’s sweetheart real estate deal with recently indicted
Rizik is ok? It’s ok that Obama has scrubbed many of his statements inconsistent to his performance from his site?
Of course, the teachers union and culinary workers were set for a fight long before this. Do you really understand the dyanamics of the leadership involved with the various unions and what their endorsements signify?
And are you really aware that many union members are ordered to vote a particular way by their leaders, when they actually feel differently?
I excuse no one from the games played in the political war they fully know will occur when they run for office, let alone President.
As a successful trial lawyer Edwards knows every trick in the books when it comes to warfare.
Obama comes out of retail politics from the powerful and often corrupt Chicago political machine with heavy Pritzker and corporate money you can only dream of. He keeps their bundled money and their names a secret. His records in Illinois don’t exist publicly.
So it’s all Hillary’s fault?
Thank-you for compiling and posting this important information. To avoid disaster in Nov. we have to make sure this info makes it into the mainstream. So everybody keep spreading the word.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
http://hillaryis44.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title= Barack_Obama_and_campaign_contributor_Antoin_%22Tony%22_Rezko
And of course the indispensable No Quarter.
BTW, I am a black female and I think that Obama’s cynical, inaccurate use of race in S.C. will turn out to be a fatal error.
From the comments section of this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7857.html
by:realdemocrat
“Since when did the word “fairytale” become a racist invective? Barack Obama is a politician who should be up to the challenge of replying to his critics. How will he and his supporters respond to critiques from foreign governments who disagree with American policies? Will they say, “you are being racist so we don’t have to answer?” Invoking the race card when he is criticized by another campaign for misrepresenting his past political behavior is deeply divisive and drives Americans apart. However, I don’t hear Obama telling his supporters that he is capable of answering critiques. By the way, did you hear Hillary pouting about sexism after she was attacked for welling up prior to the New Hampshire primary? No you did not. Stop being such a whiner Obama. You have to toughen up a bit to be President of the U.S. as far as I am concerned.”
I am a black female and I think that Obama’s cynical, inaccurate use of race in S.C. will turn out to be a fatal error.
You jest.He hasn’t used race. His oppenent has.
Identity husksters are irrelevant.
America is sick of them.
you are making a serious charge with these statements; “You jest. He hasn’t used race. His oppenent has.Identity husksters are irrelevant.”
could you post any serious evidence to bolster this claim? it would be apperciated.
bama_barrron,
The level of discourse from so-called Obama supporters has almost become deranged. Anyone who asks, who is Obama and why should we vote for him, is bombarded with irrational name calling,and hate filled personal comments about Hillary. And now I guess I’m a racist. Amazing.
Don’t expect evidence or substance from them. I really think there could be something else going on, these “supporters” sound an awful lot like Karl Rove’s college republicans. Maybe I’m clueless, but I’ve never heard such vitriol from Democrats about other Democrats in my life.
The point of all this for me is that Obama has to be exposed for who he is BEFORE he has a chance to get the nomination. It pains me to have to do this but this is too important. Obama is an opportunistic fraud who lies easily when he needs to.
TIM NOVAK, Staff Reporter at the Chicago Sun-Times has reported extensively on Obama’s ties to the dirty Chicago machine politics and has found info that contradicts many explainations Obama has given. MSM afraid to touch it, don’t want to be called racist.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article
Okay, so now I’m begging, somebody, anybody to read this one page.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=404
“Questions we have raised about the above undisputed facts include:
What value did Obama’s “community organizer” ties have if Obama did not know tenants in his state senate district were freezing in the Chicago winter?
If Obama did not know what was going on in his own senate district why didn’t he know?
Obama himself says the question is should he have known? Obama has never answered that question. Should state senator Barack Obama have known about his freezing constituents?
If Obama did not know what was going on in his small state senate district, in tenements his benefactor and slumlord friend Rezko owned, why is Obama ready to lead an entire, much larger country?
Did Obama know about his freezing constituents? Did Obama turn a blind eye, ignoring the freezing constituents and protecting his slumlord friend and fundraiser? Who was Obama really representing?
The Republicans are ready to pounce on Obama’s Rezko entanglements. Some have overtly commented in great detail about Obama/Rezko already.”
It’s all in the family. (suntimes link above)
Its ok for Obama to do all those things because he has the media covering his back. If Hillary sneezes the media will say she is giving the nation Pneumonia.
The winds aloft move faster than one may relize. Politically agressive and blind averice can be turned on itself with the same force with which it arrived. The candidate /president will have to do this before and after being sworn in and the ability to co-opt existing power stuctures while “cleaning out the closet” is only going to happen if we get a individual with some #$%^. Trust was not a part of the Constitution and it’s a good thing too.
People wonder why Hillary took Murdocks money….When in Deadwood watch your back. 10 years? 10,000 years maybe… going anywhere?
see video: It’s Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot
see video: Petty Clinton Omits Gravel, Hillary Shows Her True Colors
see video: Noam Chomsky applauds Senator Gravel’s past and present accomplishments
The whole worlds just waiting for BushCo. to be gone:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103413.html
Good for you, Larry! I love independent thinkers who realize that the presidency is not a personality contest, and it will take some serious skills and dedication to undo most of Bush’s damage.
Give me the workhorse, not the showhorse.
I agree and appreciate Larry’s judgements.
His post was very instructive and constructive.
I think that Mr. Johnson said it very well. Senator Clinton is far from perfect; but she is very bright; has been a good Senator, well respected by the people of New York; is well acquainted with how Washington works; and has been thoroughly vetted for any national campaign. In contrast, Senator Obama, while also very bright; has not been a distinguished Senator; seems to prefer voting “Present” on key issues, rather than taking a risk; and has not been vetted at all.
When Obama’s legislative record is thoroughly explored, people are going to see it is that of a rather self-indulgent person who didn’t seem to care much about his constituents, or the nuts and bolts of legislating, just about being the “chosen one” to ascend to our highest office. Clinton seems to really care about doing the job she was elected to do. And I don’t think many would doubt that, at least at this point, she has the greater grasp of issues, particularly foreign matters. If this were a domestic-issues-only campaign, Obama might get away with his skimpy record; but as we all know, we are going to keep hearing about a number of foreign danger spots. I don’t think Obama can convince sufficient voters to be comfortable with putting him in charge.
Frankly, I don’t think Obama should even have run; but of course his massive ego wouldn’t have it otherwise. This was really a setup election for Clinton; and she has been a progressive voice in the Democratic Party for the last 16 years. Certainly anyone has the right to run; but how often have you seen a 42-year-old with three years of national experience under his belt (and apparently the second worst absentee record in the Senate, where his subcomittee never once met), run for President? Just like the long grind of a poker tournament almost always separates the weaker players from the stronger; I think that even if Obama obtains the nomination, his sketchy record is going to get the Democrats defeated in a campaign we cannot afford to lose.
“at least at this point, she has the greater grasp of issues, particularly foreign matters.”
I don’t know about that. When it comes to Iraq, for example, there isn’t a jot of difference between the record for the two of them except that Obama has skipped out on a few votes, and he was not part of the Senate at the time of the vote to approve the aggression against Iraq. Sure he made a speech against invading Iraq, but he has also been very equivocal on how he might have voted. I tend to think he either would have voted for it, or perhaps, as is his wont he might have skipped out on that one too to avoid going on record for or against. Their plans for some sort of pseudo-withdrawal of perhaps half to two-thirds of the forces in Iraq, and to leave tens of thousands of troops for an indefinite period to do this, that, and the other thing - against the will of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people - are virtually identical.
When it comes to Middle Eastern matters in general, particularly as pertains to Israel, Hillary has always been an AIPAC gal. Obama, since he has become a serious candidate, has abandoned his previous relationship with Palestinian interests and has moved a lot closer to Hillary’s total support of Israel.
And scariest of all, both of them have declared their intention to significantly increase the size of the military. What is the need for that if they intend to withdraw from Iraq, and to refrain from invading and occupying more countries?
PS I forgot to mention that in preparation for the vote to authorize invading and occupying Iraq, Hillary Clinton did not even bother to read the NIE, which contained information calling into question the justification for the invasion. To me this is huge! Initiating massive violence against another country - violence that is guaranteed to kill and destroy the lives of many people, including women and children whose rights are supposedly the greatest concern of Hillary Clinton’s heart - is the most serious thing any state can do. I cannot imagine myself voting for or against initiating violence without educating myself as thoroughly as is humanly possible regarding the case for and the case against doing so. Hillary could not be bothered to do this before voting in favour of what has turned out to be one of the worst crimes against humanity committed by any government of this country.
“she has been a progressive voice in the Democratic Party for the last 16 years.”
Hillary has many excellent personal and professional qualities that make her a good presidential candidate, but progressive?! Certainly her foreign and military policy positions, her positions on international law, the UN, and human rights are very far from those of a progressive.
Just for starters, since when is it progressive to increase the size and budget of a military that already has a budget greater than that of every other country in the world combined? Since when is it progressive to take a consistent “Israel right or wrong” position? Since when is it to enthusiastically support military action as an option at nearly every opportunity? Since when is it progressive to continue to vote for attacking a country that has never attacked or threatened to attack the United States, and then to continue to vote over and over and over again to support the military, political, and economic dominance of that country?
Sorry, but whatever positive things Hillary Clinton might have to offer, she is no progressive.
For Alan. I appreciate your post and the salient points you make.
I have always wondered how such an untested and still inexperienced person like Obama could have been endorsed?
Apparently it’s the glamour charisma thing and the opportunity that the Chicago Democrats saw as their opportunity. Especially the rhetoric of the Kerry nominating speech. Channelling Dr. King is heady stuff.
As a rather listless lightweight I wonder when hope and change will be examined for content.
All of the points you address are pertinent. Thanks.
I am very torn between Hillary and Obama. It’s true that she has been fully vetted but her negatives are so high. As to the point about his experience, Lincoln served one term in the House when elected.
The latest CNN poll shows that 43% say they “will not vote for” Hillary, and 38% say they won’t vote for Obama.
She is trending down, he is trending up on that negative. Oh, and 43% also say they will not vote for McCain the exact same numbers as Hillary. Yet one doesn’t hear people freaking out that “half the counry hates McCain, he is so polarizing.”
You’ve been sold a bill of goods as far as Hillary’s “polarizing problem” goes. She won the MOST votes in the most conservative sections of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Shee beat McCain among Independents by 10 points.
Hilary is more mature and disciplined than her husband, and would make a better President. And he was a very good President.
We really should insist on this going beyond Feb. 5. I might be wrong, but Barack could prove to be a “prarie fire” candidate who fizzles when it is too late to do anything to recover.
What the next president will face:
A depression. Unlike previous depression where there were factories standing around empty, there are few factories left in the USA. Little manufacturing and less wealth creation.
Raging inflation: food costs, energy costs, imported goods costs
The baby boomer retirement: the largest chunk of brains and creativity the country ever had is removing itself. This is going to put pressure on the social security system
Illegal Mexican immigration: mostly will be solved by the coming depression.
Monetary system crash: the subprime mortgage mess is already extending to the packaged autoloans and packaged credit card loans mess. Commerical paper and commercial real estate are twitching and the next fall will be prime mortgages and bank failures.
( BofA takes over Nationwide but only if it gets a 100 million a year tax write off paid for by the american taxpayer )
A destroyed national guard system. Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much hosed the Nat Guard system.
A defeated army and marines, defeated by overuse, undertraining and perfumed prince leadership. The air force and navy are still in fighting trim of course.
A decrepit infrastructure. Already various states are selling off their toll roads to international consortia—privatizing the expressways. Leaving the bridges, dikes, levees, airports, non-toll roads, etc all needing repairs that have been elided for years.
An educational system that now is a Federally controlled and mandated system of teaching to the tests to keep the inflated cash flowing.
A prison population of over 2million ( largest in the world ) wherein 30% of black males between 20 and 29 are either in it or on parole or probation from it. Mostly for inappropriate pharmacuetical
choices.
( cont.)
You forgot to mention the Surpreme Court.
The supreme court is not amenable to policy changes only to the slow march of time. The Supremes do follow the election returns and are well aware that the laws and national security letters and mandates published under the Clinton/Bush administrations make it even easier to arrest a justice or chief justice and eliminate the court should some really serious President decide to do so. Lincoln tried it. Rooseveldt tried it. Bush could do it today if he so willed. Any dem could do it in a heartbeat and it would all be legal. Or to put it another way How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?
Your point is well taken.
How many divisions do 250 million people make? The recent marches in the streets regarding “illegal immigration” got the attention of certain VIP’s. I had this very nagging thought watching the marches -protest…what if they were all armed?
Internationally:
#1 with a bullet: China. China that is an economic powerhouse and that will be re-unified with Formosa on PRC terms.
#2 Japan and the carry trade. Our major enemy in the east.
#3 A rearming and not very trusting Russia with a leader who is loved and admired by the citizenry
#4 A south america that is finding China a much more polite and profitable neighbour
#5 Mexico and its narco trafficante issues
#6 A south east asia that is increasingly finding the USA to be an irrelevancy
#7 Three losing wars against Islam ( possibly 5 if the present administration finally gets off the schnide and attacks Iran and Pakistan)
The worst thing that can happen to the republican party this year is to win the presidential election.
The best thing that can happen to the republican party this year is to keep enough senate seats to roadblock any attempt any democratic president might try to solve any of the above problems.
Who do the republicans wish to run against? whichever democrat has the shortest/flimsiest coattails.
It will be brutal for any Dem who wins if the Congress doesn’t go Dem as well.
If Dems don’t take Congress solidly you can -
Forget healthcare: the right won’t let anything change the Big Pharma/Insurence Co. feed troughs.
Forget getting out of Iraq-The rightwing sqawkbox will go into overdrive branding all movements “Anti-Pat” or “Lose-Lose”.
Forget recession, tax and corporation reform- Repugs swill at the feed trough and won’t give it up. Why should they when they can thrwart any opportunity?
Forget Lobbyist reform - they won’t bite that hand that feeds and feeds and feeds them.
The next President will be facing a horrible hill to climb. They won’t make it without a Congress willing to do things. If Dems don’t pull 67% of Congress to their side, you can elect Jesus and he ain’t gonna make a bit of difference.
And don’t forget the All Saints version of the Supreme Court just waiting to help their fellow wingnut whack jobs!
“If Dems don’t take Congress solidly you can -
Forget getting out of Iraq”
You can forget getting out of Iraq if Hillary or Obama win no matter what the Congress looks like. They are showing all the signs that they have every intention of establishing a permanent major military presence there, and keeping that Regional Command and Control Center laughably called an “embassy” fully staffed and operational.
So many of the Congressional votes are business driven.
There is far less concern about democrats and republicans, to me, as there is concern about Shell oil, and Exxon.
If I can get Shell to agree, I can get Senator X to agree, too.
And that’s what needs to change, either by bringing in new, independent congressional members, or weakening the global corporate infrastructure.
We will not need a 67% margin in Congress if we get a Democratic president. That kind of margin only matters for overriding vetoes from a Republican president (and fending off filibusters from Republican Senators).
This is not to say I wouldn’t love to see a 67% Democratic majority in Congress!
I’d say more but they’re playing Kate Rusby on my college radio station… I love her singing. Back later.
SHirin:
There are two candidates who have said that they will remove the troops entirely from Iraq. Neither one is considered worthy of comment. War is always the health of the state, especially wars that require no sacrifice on the part of the homefolks. As long as China is willing to buy US debt, the war in Iraq will continue. I believe the Chinese have done the math and realized it is cheaper to allow us to bankrupt ourselves fighting in unwinnable conflicts than it is to go against us militarily. So they loose a few hundred billion when the dollar goes to 0 and is no longer used in international trade, as the biggest creditors they will pick up whatever remaining real assets are around.
When one’s enemy is drowning, throw him an anchor.
Never try to stop your enemy’s train wreck.
Enemies may share larger enemies temprorarily ( see WW2, see US as shared larger enemy, see India’s PM doing the state visit thing to the PRC, see Japan’s PM having done likewise )
There is a third who has said he will reduce the troop presence to only the number required to guard the Regional Imperial Command and Control Center - aka the “embassy” - and he would abandon the permanent bases. That candidate is John Edwards. That is by far the best offer we have from a mainstream candidate.
[...] is former CIA agent and current National Security expert extraordinaire Larry Johnson explaining why he’s making the switch from John Edwards to Hillary Clinton. While he mentions [...]
The re-election of George Bush proved to me that Americans are really stupid. I don’t think they are smart enough to elect Hillary. She is the only one even remotely qualified to begin solving the problems listed above. I shudder when I think of anyone else being elected. I am holding my breath from now until election day and pray the “stupids” will stay home.
I had just the same reaction you did to the reelection of George Bush.
Hillary will not solve the Iraq problem, she will only change the scope and the nature of it. And given her stated intention to enlarge the military and its budget, she fully intends to continue to use the military to “project power around the world”.
Ditto Barak Obama.
John Edwards is the only one of the top three Democratic candidates who has stated other intentions, and it looks like he doesn’t have a chance.
The re-election of George Bush proved to me that Americans are really stupid
I heard this opinion voiced in Scotland as well last year. Worldwide people have one thing they can agree on. That is the sentiment the next folks at Motel 1600 will have to deal with. UGH!
Oh now I get it no more comments through that criticize Hillary’s vote for war with Iran
Data that does not fit the preconceived frame will not be included in the PDB. All aluminum tubes can only be used in nuclear reactors. Any action by the preferred candidate that does not fit today’s meme will get the Red Square airbrush treatment.
We have always been at war with Iran.
Well that’s obvious from the overthrow of an Democratically elected leader to according to Flynt Leveretts claims ignoring all efforts by Iran to negotiate with different administrations. Leverett seems to have the deepest understanding about Iran.
I go over to the New American Foundation to read everything he has to say.
So Larry you know far more from the inside. If Clinton knows so much…why the fuck did she vote for that Kyl Lieberman amendment which Senator Webb described as ‘tantamount to declaring war on Iran” Why the fuck was that necessary? Why? For money from the Lieberman crowd to seal her deal with those who would like to pre-emptively attack Iran. What the fuck was that vote about?
She seems to have learned absolutely nothing from her 2002 war resolution vote. Millions of Iraqi people are now refugees, anywhere from what the 200,ooo thousand dead Iraqi people that the Un has reported to the 650,ooo dead that the Lancet reports.
Why give this administration any more opportunities to attack Iran? Obviously you know a great deal about the inside. But it does not take much to realize that Iranian peoples lives are on the line here and it appears that there are a whole lot of so called “insiders or informed” people do not give a rats ass about those lives
a whole lot of so called “insiders or informed” people do not give a rats ass about those lives
That’s harsh. I dare say some have given everything to that end.
One of the articals I read recently pointed out that the NIE had taken some external pressures of the minds of Iranian peoples and refocused it on domestic issues.
I am specifically pointing at Hillary and anyone else who voted for that K/L amendment.
“Harsh” maybe. Lives are on the line here.
Why didn’t Obama even show up for the Kyl-Lieberman vote? Oh I guess he knew it was a minefield so he didn’t want to go there. If he ran into a minefield as President would he just not show up for work that day?
When you are in doubt about a Clinton just remember Rickey Ray Rector and Sistah souljah and Russel Means and the civilians and diplomats of Belgrade, and Madelaine Allstupid’s remarks about the children of Iraq, and the children of Waco.
I never knew this!!
Ricky Ray Rector, an African American mentally retarded man who saved part of his last meal for later.
I feel nauseous.
What about Russell Means?
My apologies: Leonard Peltier not Russel Means.
Brain farts happen when one is posting and that was mine for yesterday, today’s brain fart is still awaiting the most proper time to cause maximal embarassment.
President Clinton made big noises about pardoning Mr. Peltier. Comes January and he pardons loads of people ( including Scooter Libby’s client Marc Rich ) but Peltier is nowhere on the pardon list.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
The hot air obtained Clinton some diversionary press towards the end of his last year in office but came to nothing.
Rector however was the corpse that raised Clinton to electability.
Let’s not forget that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, is brilliant and capable…far far more than Bush. Obama’s daddy was not 41.
Comparing Obama to Bush is a huge dis-service to Obama
Kathleen — Obama is not brilliant. He wants the job so much he will do anything to get it. How about having some experience first? The problems are too big for this basically lazy individual who has to read his speeches off a teleprompter.
Completely disagree. Wish he would have taken a solid stand on issues these last few years. Wish he would have voted no on the Kyl Lieberman amendment. This would have demonstrated that he is a real anti “unnecessary” war candidate.
Obama sat on the fence too often. Obama is brilliant and dynamic! Just sits on the fence too much for me.
Sen. Clinton’s legislative performance is a matter of public record, of course, but I have to admit that I am uncertain about her performance in executive positions. It would be a great service if one or more knowledgeable persons would elaborate with regard to what those positions were, and what her performance was, both successes and, if any, less than successes, while in those positions. In this effort, I think that citations from campaign and partisan websites (of any stripe) should be avoided so as to achieve as much analytical objectivity as possible. Many thanks.
It is widely recognized that Mrs. Clinton did a superb job during her seven years on the board of directors of Walmart.
Nothing has surfaced about her accomplishments while on the board of TCBY Yogurt
INCOMING>>>>>>
It appears to be time for a “reality check” on this thread!
(1) Neither the Clintons or Obamma are progressive or liberal in their public policy. They are status quo conservative Democrats who, in modern parlance, espouse neoliberalism in all of its ugly forms.
(2) The statement that a super majority in Congress is “ONLY” important for over-riding Presidential vetoes is a typically ignorant remark!
(3) What self respecting progressive citizen is not “angry” about the take over of our representative democratic republic by imperialists and fascists, and their corporate facilitators?
We would all be much better off if we force the ‘closet conservatives’ out into the sunshine, so we can get a good long look at what they really stand for. We need a Congress and an Administration that will take back the public commons from the privatizers, and regulate them for the public good instead of for private advantage!
3) I have been angry about that point since Lincoln was elected over my protest vote. Didn’t need no damn railroad lawyer/lobbyist then don’t need the equivalent now.
1) Don’t see much difference between Hillary and McCain, Obama and Mitt, and Edwards and Huckabee to tell the truth. 6 versions of the senator from Boeing.
[...] on foreign policy. But like her husband, she’s backing Clinton. By the way, so is her former C.I.A. colleague Larry Johnson. The podcast of the interview is also [...]
Jessie…
Thanks, I recently started my own business so this type of post is of great interest to me. Keep it up :)…
[...] New Hampshire campaign chair (and pharmaceutical lobbyist) Jim Demers. On Jan. 12, Johnson announced that he was “all in for Hillary”; the next day, he pounded the drug theme again after [...]
[...] All in for Hillary [...]
[...] All in for Hillary [...]
[...] All in for Hillary [...]
[...] All in for Hillary [...]
[...] All in for Hillary [...]
[...] Great line. In the end, no matter what candidate you support, Valerie nails it. Democrats have it hands down over the Republicans, especially on foreign policy. But like her husband, she’s backing Clinton. By the way, so is her former C.I.A. colleague Larry Johnson. [...]