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 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs
I guess Senator Obama was just too busy working for the poor and homeless in Chicago to take time to watch the Tom Cruise movie, The Firm. Because if he had the Tony Rezko case would not be biting him in the ass. In case you forgot, Cruise played a white version of Barack Obama–a charming, up-and-comer fresh out of law school idealist who fell in with a crowd of scalawags who were tied to the mob.
But I digress. Here’s the problem. Why is Barack not coming clean about his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who is facing charges on federal corruption charges? If there really is nothing there, then don’t do the Bill Clinton shuffle. Just tell the truth.
But Obama can’t or won’t do that. And I wonder why? During Monday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton brought up Obama’s past association with Rezko. Wolf Blitzer gave Obama a chance to set the record straight:
BLITZER: I’m going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.
OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.
So he was just associated with a law firm that partnered with Rezko? Just some guy? This is not true. In some circles it is called a lie. Now I don’t know about you, but when someone starts tap dancing about simple, easily investigated facts it means they are covering something up. Obama had more than an incidental relationship with Rezko.
FACT. Obama bought property with Tony Rezko. Here are the facts from Obama’s own mouth:
Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?
A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.
I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?
A: At the time, it didn’t strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.
Doesn’t everybody buy an adjacent piece of property with a casual acquaintance whom you barely know?
FACT. Rezko has been a major contributor to Obama’s political campaigns. According to the Chicago Sun-Times:
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s….Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama….
Tony was one of the biggest fund-raisers.”
FACT. Obama used his political position to lobby on behald of Rezko’s business interests.
Taylor Marsh provides the details:
There’s also been a lot of back and forth about the letters Obama wrote on behalf of a project that Rezko owned. One story has Rezko’s attorney saying adamantly that his client didn’t ask Obama to write the letters. Obama still wrote them. Another letter written by Obama was on behalf of New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Obama’s former boss, Davis, and Rezko.
“I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC’s proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,” Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. “This project will provide much needed housing for Fourth Ward citizens.”
At the time he wrote the letters, Obama was also a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland, the law firm Davis formerly headed. Among the firm’s clients were several companies owned by Davis and Rezko. The firm did not represent New Kenwood.
Davis and Rezko hired Daley & George, the law firm of the mayor’s brother Michael, to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago. … ..
I am sick and tired of the word parsing. I did not like it when Bill Clinton did it, but at least he could argue he was trying to save his marriage. Hillary took too long to admit her mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution in 2002. And George W. Bush takes the prize. We have had seven, going on eight years, of him flat out lying about terrorism and war, and Americans have died because of it.
So excuse me if you expect me to take Senator Barack Obama seriously while he claims not to know some guy who was his neighbor. Yeah he ate lunch with him but only twice a year for several years. Tony somebody. And then there’s that matter about Rezko giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars for his campaigns. Anyone who has ever run for public office does not give a rats ass about anyone willing to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars for their campaign. And I am sure Obama feels the same way. Why would he remember a generous contributor?
And finally, Senator Obama, you don’t know this guy but you’ll write two letters using your good name to shill for his business enterprises? Cut me a break. If you are going to lie at least do it with some style. You don’t know dick about Tony Rezko? I don’t think so.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
But I digress. Here’s the problem. Why is Barack not coming clean about his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who is facing charges on federal corruption charges?
Because there isn’t anything to it. This is so tiresome.
How naive can you be? Then why did he lie about his relationship, longstanding, with Rezko? You cannot in good conscience pretend that he was forthcoming on that.
You make the same pathetic excuses for your boy that the Republicans do for theirs. You are no different from neocons insisting that things are swell in Iraq. It is sickening. You will tolerate any level of shit as long as it comes from Obama’s ass.
Me, I despise the shit regardless of who is putting it out.
Patrick Fitgerald the prosecutor who nailed Libby brought the Rezko indictment. Rezko trial starts 2/24/08
everything said about Onama is true and verifiable through legal,real estate. title. and other records. His own bio written for ethics comm at senate tells this story.
his law firm handled biz for rezko
see chicago sun times at: http://www.suntimes.com
go to Oama files. it’s all there. he’s lied. he’s been evasive, and far more as it all speaks for itself.
all of the thousands of apts and bldgs needed permits for Rezko to get subsidized rehabs.these were obtained in Obama’s districts in state senate.
they were alll left in disrepair and went into foreclosure. government money squandered was ultimately paid by taxpayer.
I came back to post this. What you and Susan are doing to Obama is no different than what was done to Kerry, Hillary and Bill Clinton. Not only should you be ashamed, it doesn’t help your candidate.
Kerry: Obama Being Swiftboated
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:44 PM
Article Font Size
Sen. John Kerry is calling on Democrats to help presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama avoid the fate he endured in the 2004 election — “swiftboating” by political foes.
In an e-mail sent out Tuesday to Obama’s supporters, Kerry wrote:
“I support Barack Obama because he doesn’t seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating — he seeks to end it.
“This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.
As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove’s twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone’s character just to win an election. But as someone who cares about winning this election and changing the country I love, I know it’s not enough to complain about a past we can’t change when our challenge is to win the future — which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.
“The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie.
“This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack’s Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of “Swiftboat” style anonymous attacks.
“These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we’ve learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked.
“But not this time — we’re fighting back.
“And when I say ‘we,’ I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He’ll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can’t do it alone.
“We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let’s prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful. …
“Barack Obama is committed to bringing our country together to meet the challenges we face, but he knows that power gives up nothing without a struggle — and to win the chance to change America, we must first defeat the hateful tactics that have been used to tear us apart for too long. …
“The fight is just heating up — we won’t let them steal this election with lies and distortions.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Cee…don’t mix the issues. Swiftboating is a twist of the truth… or making stuff up about his religious background because his middle name is Hussein, and his father is a Muslim. Still it is legitmate for to ask and verify! HOWEVER … the Renzo stuff.. is factual and documented. He can not escape the facts! So it is not swiftboating. What Kerry refers to is the e mails going around questioning his faith… NOT coming to defense about Renzo. Kerry is headed for policital suicide because he is swiftboating all of us….through the above message. Throwing everything in a pot, under the disguise of the “aww poor Obama” these rumor email going out, distorting.. and this is where the HOPE comes in to play.. Obama is HOPING we are all naive enough to mix evertyhing together and say… everyone is picking on me.. Remember me? I am the candidate of change? HOPE on….
It has become clear to me after reading several lenthy dossiers at both Chicago papers, and Google, Factoid, etc., that when the records from state senae are recovered [if right hasn't already]… Tim Novak and investigative team from Sun Times did a thorough and fair job and asked Obama to respond.
There will be No Quarter…….. as this is despicable stuff. Using your people to advance your career while helping a thief because he donates for your campaigns as a payback! And taking a sweetheart piece of land…greedy.
And the poorest people imaginable living in squalid deplorable unheated South Side slums that were paid by for by the government,fed,city,state, to be rehabbed, but were screwed over and abandoned in exchange for patronage. This story has legs and it has nothing whatever to do with swiftboating. Leave that to the GOP, because they will do the Muslim and every rotten thing. But this stuff is factual. All the money wound up in Rezko’s pocket and in his company Remzar Corp.
Barack fight for the truth. He refuses to admit the truth. And you admire that nonsense? Scary.
“Barack fight for the truth. He refuses to admit the truth. And you admire that nonsense? Scary.”
What’s even more scarier is your obscene level of hackery - utterly shameless.
Apparently the Oborg can’t read if the story is not positive about Sen Obama. I don’t have a clue if any of this is illegal or just run of the mill Chicago politics. I do know that if it’s not looked at now, the republicans will use it on him like a sledgehammer later.
At least they haven’t called you racist, yet.
So far, there’s no evidence to indicate Obama has done anything illegal.
I don’t believe Larry is accusing Obama of illegal activity. Larry just wants Obama to be forthcoming about the nature of his relationship with Rezko. As Taylor Marsh says:
So we’ve now moved the discussion on to Obama’s statement about Reagan.
He went from being a self proclaimed mirror image of Bush policy in Iraq in 2004 to being in praise of Reagan in 2008.
At least people forgot about him saying in 2004 he’d have the same Iraq policy as Bush.
For the record, when he mentions Bill Clinton’s critical review of his words again, reporters will ask of Hillary about the exchange. Barack hasn’t even shown the sense to bury it.
She should simply remind them that Bill pointed out Barack’s expressed 2004 desire to reflect Bush policy in Iraq. She and others criticized him for pandering to Nevada conservatives in their newspaper’s op-ed praising Reagan and republican ideas of the 1990s in 2008.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/17/clinton_attacks_put_focus_on_iraq_record/
Obama really hasn’t distinguished himself with response to either concern, but to confuse the two statements with who leveled the criticism is to continue being disingenuous.
Bill pointed out words of Obama in 2004, Hillary pointed out words of his in 2008.
After reply by Obama others may have invited similar response from Bill in the media, but the article I see claiming this on the first two pages of a search are by Politico(right wing crew given unfair visibility in the beltway, staffed with former republican operatives) and Malkin, attributing Bill the initial claims about Reagan.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems Barack replied with both of them and invited response from both. Were he to try and keep it clear who said what he would have done himself better. That’s probably the difference between lecture and instruction, something a lay person as myself wouldn’t be quite as familiar with. Maybe Northwestern has a noncredit course on the difference…
Oh, Obama voted against Kerry’s own proposal to set a one year timetable for starting withdrawal, something that would facilitate political change.
Now he’s amazingly using that as part of his own campaign strategy, aiming for sixteen months, just past a year to perhaps begin withdrawal. Somehow this is supposed to be consistent with Obama’s “against the war” position, and his funding request approvals for the war.
So if you keep talking about it, it would well appear that you leave open the room for notice that you opposed setting timetables, and could perhaps use that as a default position for plausible continuation of policy.
Plenty of starch on the collar there, Barack, because it’s been a heavy spin cycle you’re going through.
The problem I have with Obama’s Reagan remark is that he said, the GOP was THE party of ideas. Uh, Obama, the Dems had/have plenty of ideas too!
Other than that, the analogy Obama was drawing was that he wants to be the “transformative” candidate for the Left, the way Reagan was for the Right. I didn’t see Obama’s comments as an endorsement of Reagan’s dismal record on civil rights, poverty, etc. Others may disagree.
Regarding Iraq, both Obama and Clinton have problems on that subject as far as I’m concerned.
What happened to the Sibel Edwards page? SUddenly it goes 404? Not the old one, the one LJ posted up today. And to make it even more maddening, it goes 404 right in the middle of a brilliant post by moi.
Why it is almost enough to make a conspiracy theorist out of a firm believer in co-incidence.
It was either Marc Grossman or the FBI. I’m checking. Actually, a consequence of moving to a new server. Moses (not the Ten commandments guy) is trying to recover all.
With the stock market taking a nose dive, I’m glad that the Republican idea for privatizing Social Security was overwhelmingly rejected. And if we didn’t waste all that money on SDI (Star Wars), maybe we would have enough funds to end the Iraq War. As for Tony Rezko, if someone raised that much money for me, I’d sure remember who he was. Who picked up the check at their lunches?
[...] “Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm?“ [...]
[...] “Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm?“ [...]
2lThank’s for greate post.3f I compleatly disagree with last post . vpw
ламинат и паркет 8x
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]
[...] Didn’t Obama Watch The Firm [...]