And I try to put up an Open Thread every day or so for discussion about ANY topic. …. you can post any thoughts there, about any foreign affairs matter, and people will respond to you.

That’s certain to win over a lot of undecideds…

Ah, the gun for hire.

Everyone should read this.

Abu Nidal : A Gun for Hire : The Secret Life of the World’s Most Notorious Arab Terrorist
http://www.amazon.com/Abu-Nidal-Secret-Notorious-Terrorist/dp/0679400664

Clinton hasn’t returned cash from firm under investigation
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/442035,CST-

Lawyer with Rezko link helps Hillary
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/442034,CST-NWS-clinton25.article)

June 25, 2007

BY CHRIS FUSCO, DAVE MCKINNEY AND LYNN SWEET Staff Reporters
A lawyer referenced in a public-corruption indictment of Wilmette businessman Tony Rezko is among the hosts of a Chicago fund-raising dinner tonight for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) has no direct connection to Rezko. But one of 20 “chairs” for her Palmer House Hilton event is Myron Cherry, who is among a large circle of people to be enmeshed in two federal indictments Rezko is fighting. Most of those people, including Cherry, have not been charged with any crimes.

Rezko figures more centrally to Clinton’s chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Rezko has donated money directly to Obama’s state and U.S. Senate campaigns, hosted fund-raisers for Obama and once owned a parcel of land next to Obama’s house.

In a rare confluence, the Obama campaign tonight will be raising money just blocks away from Clinton’s during an event at Fulton’s on the River restaurant.

Philip Singer, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment about the ethics of Cherry helping host an event for the New York senator. Cherry himself said he has done nothing wrong and that his role “if any” in Rezko’s prosecution “might be as a potential witness.”

Cherry is a longtime Democratic contributor and “bundler” who has been valuable to campaigns because he can land donations from a large network of acquaintances. In March 2000, Cherry hosted President Bill Clinton at his Lincolnwood home for a fund-raiser that raised more than $700,000 for the Democratic National Committee.

In October, Cherry surfaced as “Individual H” in a Rezko fraud indictment that involves pension investments made by the Teachers’ Retirement System of Illinois. He allegedly was slated to be the recipient of a fee on one proposed investment deal even though he did no work.

Unlike other people identified as “individuals” in the Rezko cases, Cherry has spoken publicly about the matter. He has said his name was inserted in the deal without his knowledge, and that he is cooperating with authorities.

“My efforts in support of numerous Democratic candidates are quite more than a few over the years,” Cherry wrote in response to a Chicago Sun-Times inquiry. “I support Senator Clinton and will support her if she is the nominee for the Democratic Party, and if the nominee is a Democratic candidate other than Senator Clinton, I will support that candidate as well.”

Cherry’s emergence as a host of the Clinton event comes as Obama has given to charity more than $37,000 from Rezko and five people referenced in Rezko’s indictments. Obama, however, has kept $2,850 from two other donors involved in the Rezko cases, though those donations are under review, Obama press secretary Bill Burton said.
===================================================================================

continue

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/06/sweet_blog_special_clinton_oba.html

I am appalled at the attempts by Senator Clinton to fashion additional pre-convention support by publicly declaring that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be ’seated at the table’ so to speak, as if this was some sort of ‘let every vote count!’ issue. That’s patently ridiculous.

A clearly safe, but feeble and politically stupid move to make. Rather like supporting the effort to do the opposite in Nevada, in supporting an attempt by a third party (and a not too distant one, I might add) to effectively suppress the votes of Las Vegas workers in the at large caucuses. Unbelievable, and a clearly expedient and blatantly self-interested move in both cases. Calculated according to projected (or, in the case of Michigan) known results.

It is just this sort of behavior that drives those of us who see the Clinton dynasty as something more than the one-dimensional second coming of Camelot. This would actually, of course, be Act III - Act I being the Kennedy years, and Act II being the eight year ‘reign’ of President Clinton.

Memo to Senator Clinton: shut the hell up about issues such as this. Run on whatever merits you can muster, and quit trying to skew the outcome while bravely defending the rights of the ‘disenfranchised’ others. Whomever, they may be.

Unbelievable. Oh, and did I mention that Senator Obama is essentially no better?

I am an avowed supported of Senator Edwards. Quite honestly, I don’t know who triggers the gag reflex for me most: Senator Clinton, or Senator Obama. While either one is a better choice than ANY of the Republican nominees at the moment, I do not look forward to pulling the lever for either one of them.

To paraphrase Secretary Rumsfield, who I absolutely despise:

As we know, there are known knowns.
There are things [insert Senator Clinton] we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say, we know there are some things [insert Senator Obama] we do not know.

It sort of comes down to the evil we know, and the evil we do not know. Alright, maybe evil is too strong a word. I’ll let you choose a descriptor, but it must be the same for each of these candidates. You get the point.

I wish that neither one were running in the primary, but I was anointed to make that choice. Sigh…

I have being meaning to ask you are they sunnyside up or over easy? LOL.

The story here is not that Tony Rezko or any of his family members contributed, bundled or otherwise raised money for Senator Obama, or anyone else, either by lawful or unlawful means, in exchange for explicit favors or apparently for no benefit at all.

The story is that the Obama campaign had declared the issue moot, because it had chosen to divest itself of sums of money equal to what it stated had been raised by Tony Rezko and his family or business associates, BUT were so sloppy in their accounting as to miss some $ 19,500 from his wife alone. THAT is the story: that their accounting, the actions taken and their claims made regarding it are so incredibly sloppy as to suggest, on its face, that the campaign intentionally underestimated the level of contributions.

Seriously: how do you miss the contributions of his WIFE in your very serious effort to limit the damage? Intentionally misleading, or simply sloppy? Does it really matter? Frankly, one is almost as bad as the other.