Will Rezko Blow Up Obama?
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 28, 2008 at 7:53 PM in Current Affairs
Today’s arrest of slumlord Tony Rezko could be very bad news for Barack Obama’s presidential ambitions. Rezko was arrested because he lied to the Feds–he claimed in November 2006 he had no assets and was virtually broke, but in April 2007 he received $3.5 million from a company owned by an Iraqi billionaire who also happens to be a convicted felon . The man’s name? Nadhmi Auchi.
So what does this have to do with Obama? Well, buried in a footnote in the motion for an arrest warrant, we learn that Auchi was denied a visa to the United States because of his conviction in France on fraud charges. Auchi’s buddy, Rezko sent a request to the U.S. Department of State in November 2005 for a visa waiver. And Rezko asked unidentified “Illinois government officials” to ask for clearance as well. How much you want to bet one of those officials was Barack Hussein Obama?
So here’s the test. Was Obama smart enough, hell, let’s say brilliant, to just say no?
We may not find out until Rezko’s trial starts on 25 February. Imagine this nightmare scenario. Obama nails down the Democratic nomination for President on Super Tuesday. But then comes the Rezko trial and we learn Obama was doing favors to get an Iraqi felon a visa to the United States. You know, he is just helping out one of his major fund raisers. Will his story line about a new day in Washington still sound plausible? Will folks still believe he’s serious about not being beholden to “special interests?”
I don’t begrudge Obama trying to help out a buddy. I just wish he’d cut the holier than thou act. He’s playing the Washington game like many others. In this case, however, he may get dirtied up. And in that case he could take the Democrats with him.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
$3.5 million is a lot of change…
Well said Larry and you’re right, MM.
Check out this link from the Chicago BBB on a Rezmar subsidiary - no complaints on file but it states mail sent to the address has been returned as undeliverable by the USPS. Beyond that - there’s some tips on heating contractors. I believe that’s a coincidence but it is interesting.
http://chicago.bbb.org/WWWRoot/Report.aspx?site=46&bbb=0654&firm=12008878
Iraqi felon and former best friend forever of Saddam Hussein.
more fodder: google alsammarae rezko
http://capitalfax.blogspot.com/2006/12/rezko-alsammarae-and-fleecing-our.html
Told a friend I wouldn’t put it past him to try recess appointments on his way to and from the speech tonight…
Do I understand this to say he will go to war with Iran, if he so chooses and Congress will get the Cheney Bird finger in there constitutional eye?
(Sorry, I have not read the relevant sections yet.)
Looks/sounds that way to me…
“Obama nails down the Democratic nomination for President on Super Tuesday.”
Don’t bet the grocery money. Obama is favored to get Illinois and Georgia but is on the short side of 2&3:1 odds everywhere else. And this before he becomes roadkill in the Florida primary and deflates the South Carolina win and the Kennedy endorsement. People are so fickle.
Yer man Nadhmi Auchi has an interesting resume. He served as quartermaster for Saddam’s flying column when the lads shot up General Qasim’s car.
Could someone give me another take on the Teddy Kennedy endorsement?
My take on Kennedy endorsement is the power struggle for control of the Party. Kennedy became a
mentor these past two years and Obama admits he’s asked Kennedy’s advice votes, certain bills, etc,
so it’s apparent they formed a bond.
Don’t forget that Kennedy knows all about knuckle politics as he talks “inspiration”. And I clearly remember the power plays and hardball Bobby played in Chicago prior to the convention, and at the convention Bobby was without a doubt, Jack’s enforcer.
Kennedy wants to bring the center of power to himself and has probably spoken with Edwards and others about cabinet posts and assignments, etc. Also, the black caucus in the House has been growing
in clout and extremely important to a democratic president. And extremely important as to how votes can be successfully achieved with them on your side.
Also, Teddy hates Clintons, yet Bobby’s family care for the Clintons. Ted Kennedy is now in his element, and considering how he snookered us with MedicareRxPlanD, he needs as much credibility
as he can get. Obama is his vessel.
I have no idea about Caroline except that she could dislike Hillary [and Bill] for any number of reasons. She is a smart woman so I assume[?] that she knows of his past Rezko dealings in Chicago, as well as his 2005 investing that took the same path as his donors. Whatever, she wants to see him president.
Far more damaging than Martha Stewart, but Obama so far has gotten away with this… New York Times 3/07 printed the whole story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?pagewanted=1
Obama’s financial profile and stock buys are detailed along with the same buys of his donors and other details. Not terrific.
So Kennedy thinks that any of this can’t be overcome in the groundswell, as well as in the general. Obama will be propelled to President no matter what, as his supporters are so enthused and manic they’ll say it’s all racism.
I see a power grab pure and simple based on the opportunity Bush has presented the weak and fractured Democratic party this opportunity.
Despite the Democrats spinelessness and division, along with fear of Bill in the White House, has helped propel Obama’s path with the blessing of party elders to make a president. If it’s Kennedy’s guy he’ll finally have the power that eluded him regarding his own past behavior. And continue the Kennedy dynasty.
When somebody who was trained in politics by Joe Kennedy and knows how to work and move the system
with ferocity at all costs, I must confess that his talk about hope,change, and vision leaves me lost. JFK was a compelling figure, but he made some big mistakes.
Vietnam,Bay of Pigs,Marilyn, and lots more.
This now has become a political circus and it’s a fluid process that can move anywhere.
I forgot that in the Chicago equation we have the “Daly machine special” in Rhamm Emmanuel. Powerful in the House. Was on Clinton team in White House,but this is a bareknuckled Chicago pol who wants as much power as he can get.
The trouble with all of us is that we still have some illusions.
Thank you! Very informative!
Rahm Emanuel’s nickname in Congress is “The Killer”. It’s what his fellow Democrats call him. And it’s not meant as a term of endearment.
Couple of things. First off, what’s coming from the Oborg. First: Obama wouldn’t do that. Then: If Obama did it, there’s nothing wrong with it. Finally: You’re racist for mentioning it.
Kennedy has a big machine that’s been with him a long time and he’d like to staff a new administration with them. That won’t happen with Clinton because they’ve got their own people. So Obama is the one.
Good points, RalphB, but I’m still finding it hard to believe Senators Kennedy and Kerry are so desperate for more power–even second hand power–that they’d endorse someone as dirty and as much of a liability to the party as Obama seems to be turning out to be.
Caroline I can understand–she’s simply naive, and according to Olbermann (or maybe it was Craig Crawford) it’s her own kids’ enthusiasm for Obama that led her to endorse him.
But pols like Teddy, Patrick and Kerry should damn well know better. Bobby’s kids certainly seem to.
You’d think that established pols like that would be more hardnosed. But I don’t think you can ever go wrong in thinking that a politician wants power of whatever kind they can get. If you take a close look at Ted Kennedy’s career, it’s hardly putting the party first. His track record, back to ‘72, is at best questionable. There’s no doubt he helped elect Reagan in ‘80, by running a divisive primary fight against Carter. In ‘88 I believe the possibility of Ted entering the race held off some good people and we got stuck with Dukakis. The list goes on and on.
Yes, exactly. I meant to mention his run against a sitting Democratic president in 1980.
And as for John Kerry–well, I watched that SOB kick Wes Clark to the curb in March of 2006, and why? Because Wes had committed the unpardonable sin of uniting the Dems on Iraq, a unity which Kerry destroyed in a matter of hours.
I actually wondered briefly if there might not be something to all the Skull & Bones conspiracy theories, since Dubya and Kerry pretty much doubleteamed Wes over that.
But still–it is possible he and Teddy don’t know about Obama’s Rezko/Wise Guy eruptions? I don’t care how power hungry they are, how can they be so effing stupid??
Thanks for mentioning. Kennedy lacks the guts to make a serious run for the White House, but is always ready to act as a spoiler for any other Democrat who fails to earn his own, personal, “Approved by Ted Kennedy,” button.
After his pissing on Jimmy Carter in 1980 (giving us The Addled Puppet Reagan), you’d have to dearch far and wide among Limbaugh-listeners to find someone who despises Ted Kennedy more than I do.
His endorsement may be more like a Kiss of Death than a blessing outside Massachusetts and parts of NYC.
Too bad Ted couldn’t run himself. All he’d need is the endorsement of Joe and Gwen Kopechne…
LandOLincoln,
You are completely correct. This is a scuzzy Kennedy power grab. The set up is Kennedy will get to be the most powerful senator [even leader] and hold that old Kennedy sway in the tough politics
Teddy saw all his life. His dad Joe was one of the most ruthless politicians ever.
Imagine all that power! It’s now up for grabs and I can keep the black caucus in check and control & move votes my way, and finally as I could never before…..become important. Maybe like my brothers? Obama is a gift that keeps giving.
Hope, Change,Unity,Civility,Honesty,Clarification, and finally…..VISION! And can he give a speech!
After we get all the names of the people responsible for Visa Express and all of the people who were allowed to come to the US to engage in terrorist acts, then I’ll worry if Obama helped this Iraqi come here.
Not a day sooner.
Don’t think the GOP won’t use this, should Obama get the nod?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos&feature=related
Without question the GOP already knows about all the Rezko stuff, the “present votes”, the stock buys in 2005 exactly the same as his donors [see link above from NYTimes]..[what's a little inside trading?], and the Syrian/Iraq connection ala Rezko?
The GOP has so much real stuff they don’t even have to swiftboat.
But Obama will hide behind the race issue and his followers may perceive actual truths as being lies. This is all a matter of perception. Americans have sadly shown that calm, diligent thinking & homework does not matter in electing a President. Americans vote for icons that only exist in their imagination,
Can you imagine George Bush as a man you’d feel comfortable having a beer with? That’s one of the reasons he got elected even though he needed that push from The Supremes. But the public craves images, and Obama stirs them up bigtime.
It reminds me of the women who watch Oprah give away toaster ovens, towel sets, as they go beserk screaming and shrieking for their idol Oprah, Goddess of Merchandise and largesse.
UH-HUH!
It almost makes you think that the democrats endorsing Obama don’t want a democratic president. Maybe they need/like having someone to blame for their ineffectiveness.
Here’s some back story on Nadhmi Auchi from the CorpWatch site. Hmm. Things get hot for you in Europe, maybe it’s time to cultivate friends in the US?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11894
At minimum, he does seem to have a colorful past. We’ll see if the unnamed Illinois official turns out to be Senator Obama. But if it does, look out. Ya think that the Senator’s rather tenuous Islamic ties won’t be exploited for all they’re worth if he is the nominee? Just remember what the Dubai ports deal did for Bush’s reputation, then multiply it be a thousand times. Yow.
You doth protest Obama too much …
Are you on Hillary’s payroll?
You sure sound like it.
Radagast,
Mr. Johnson will have to answer that one for himself. As for myself, I am concerned that we might wind up with a nominee for the Democratic Party who might have feet of clay. We just can’t afford to have an electoral disaster that would result in more time in the batter’s box for a Republican president. Senator Obama must be fully vetted for not only his policy statements, but also for his political track record and his past history. I can’t say that I am too enthusiastic about HC. I will probably cast my vote for John Edwards as I prefer his more populist platform. But whoever is ultimately chosen as the nominee, they must be able to defeat the Republican candidate. If there prove to be skeletons in the closet which can be exploited to undercut the prospects of any of the potential Democratic candidates, we need to be apprised of this NOW, not after we are locked into their candidacy.
That’s very true. Makes one long for the good old days when candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms instead of in primaries by TV-led groupies.
I like Larry Johnson. He has always been (to me, at least) a great help in understanding the inner workings of the CIA. It’s just that this constant drum beat of negatives against Obama has become a bit suspect. All of the prospective Democratic nominees for President have weaknesses. However, IMHO a well working two slice toaster could beat whoever the Republicans put up in November.
I also support John Edwards but beating up on Obama in the manner in which Larry has chosen does not serve anyone’s interests except Hillary Clinton… and, of course, the two slice toaster that may be running against Obama in November if he becomes our nominee.
Larry is not beating up on Obama. Obama talks in platitudes and generality driven catch words that have no meaning unless he can articulate his positions clearly.
He must be able to let us hear his
ideas and strategic policies that allow us to really see whether he’s qualified beyond the repetitous rhetoric. Great oratorical skills are not enough. We need to know how and what he thinks about the many serious issues confronting us.
His background presents some problems, and if there is nothing wrong, it should be easy for him to reply to the many questions about his ties to Rezko, a sweetheart Rezko land deal while a senator, and stock trades made in 2005 that exactly mirror his donors trades. NYTimes carried this in 3/07. And now the Rezko Iraq questions. There’s more.
He will have to defend these totally to his GOP opponent, or it will be over for Obama.
Besides, we are asking for clarity and the longer it takes, the more the perception will exist that he’s specious and evasive. No one running for President can expect not to be vetted. Larry has been more than fair.
gotta love that old ‘projection’ don’tcha.
Just because Larry J uses his sense, logic, and reason to conclude his position, you come here to impugn his decision with ad hominem blah blah.
Have you ever considered a rhetoric coach so you can elaborate on your view instead of simply casting aspersions?
And this conversation was going soooo….well
Compared to the crap the Clintons weathered, this sounds like pretty small potatoes.
The Clintons weathered it all to a pretty good outcome, since there was no there. We’ll see about Obama. It’s not that he won’t do the same but we should know before he gets killed with it in a general election.
Larry,
Maybe you should cease and desist with these sort of hit pieces while you still have some professional integrity intact. You’re obviously a bright man and have an impressive resume, and you have every right to be critical of a candidate like Obama. But it’s a shame how much you’ve jumped the shark and made mountains out of molehills, and if you never get another interview again, you’ll have only yourself to blame.
Please pay attention. Larry is mostly quoting the Chicago papers, which are all over the story.
Maybe instead of giving Larry grief, you should ask youself why it’s Obama’s hometown papers and only the hometown papers digging into this story? and why, despite their revelations, the notoriously rightwing Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama–and John McCain?
Sweetheart land deals are a payoff. and unless Obama can do better than say it was a “mistake”, his plea of ignorance of slums in his own district going to pot by Rezko have to be looked at. We are talking thousands of apartments that were subsidized by government,state,city, funds and given to Rezko….thousands of apartments. Rezko did no repairs, was cited for not supplying heat for weeks, and instead of rehabbing which is what he got paid for…he stopped paying the mortgages, and put them into foreclosure. Many of his buildings became crack houses at taxpayers expense.
Obama’s boss Allison Davis was involved in financial preparation for these subsidized loans,and later joined Rezko in business. Rezko was under investigation for corruption, kickbacks, and fraud by Patrick Fitzgerald [Libby's prosecutor]‘ and Feds were all over him. Obama knew this..all the papers had the story, but Obama continued to get involved with a real estate favor of material significance inspite of Federal investigations. Greedy.
Rezko was indicted for fraud,corruption,kickbacks, etc this past year,and he was to come to trial in Feb.2008/ But he was arrested today because of monies back and forth that involve lies about his finances as well as ties to Iraq/Syria. This is a Muslim connection, and the trial will reveal details.
Antonin Rezko was Obama’s original donor when he ran for state senate, and for 17 years one of his biggest patrons, including donations made for his run as US Senator. Obama worked for Davis, Miner,Barnhill&Galland law firm who handled financing and all matters pertaining to Rezko’s real estate rehab deals. Davis ultimately became
Rezko’s firm Rezmar as partner.
This is a mountain out of a molehill? Yes, if Obama can start explaining the questions. He has consistently mis-stated, and avoided Chicago SunTimes, Herald Tribune, questions that he will be compelled to answer to GOP or forget it. The longer he avoids this the more legs it will have.
>>> Sweetheart land deals are a payoff…
Remember how the moonbats tried to make hay out of a Harry Reid sale in Las Vegas a couple of years ago?
What will the flying monkeys do with Obama’s little arabaesque on this lot deal?
gotta love the condescention, “you’re obviously a bright man”….
Counter his points, counter his info. Its a shame to see such laziness in writers. The rest are doing so well even when they disagree.
Obama’s getting the light treatment over this, what the hell would you call what the Republicans will have in store come July and August?
I’m tired of people begging to play softball on their candidate. He’s getting more than a fair hearing.
This Rezko stuff has been in Chicago papers for two years. In March 2007, Tim Novak and investigative reporters at Sun Times had pages on Obama’s ties to Rezko. The sweetheart real estate deal was not the only issue regarding Rezko. Rezko was friend and main patron for 17 years.
he New York Times in March 2007 articled the story of Obama’s stock trades in 2005 after becoming a senator. The article, “In ‘05 Investing, Obama Took Same Path as Donors”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07obama.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.suntimes.com see Obama archives
Obama has avoided answering some simple enough questions posed by the Sun Times, and if there are no ethical problems he should not have difficulty
doing so. Also, Chicago Tribune carried stories of some of Obama’s Rezko connections.
Obama knew at the time of his sweetheart deal that Tony Rezko was under investigation by Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald [of Libby trial]. Every newspaper knew about the investigation and Rezko was subsequently indicted for fraud,corruption, and kickbacks. His trial is set for Feb.25th, and he was arrested several days ago for lying about his income, and has been held without bail.
This is not a hit job on Obama. But he is not above being asked to respond to questions that have kept surfacing. Larry has not been the first person to ask questions. This is not a new story but keeps arising as it has never been dealt with by Obama.
Keep it up, Larry. There is some very bad stuff there that has yet to come to light, so my Chicago friends tell me.
Looks like the Chicago papers are all over the story. As for the rest of the MSM, they don’t want to find the fire–yet.
The media has opted to give him a pass. They did the same thing with Bush.
I nearly threw up when Keith Olbermann who I have respected, tossed off any negative story about Obama as insignificant. He’s avoided dealing with it. He’s been critical of Hillary, but hands off on Obama.
They may be afraid of backlash and be called racists.
They gave Bush a pass for years into our national horror.
At some point this will be addressed as it must. NYTimes re: stock buys, and Sun Times [liberal paper].will certainly hone in on Rezko trial.
Larry must really be shaking in his boots after that order to cease and desist from Chris.
Keep digging, Larry!
Obama nails down the Democratic nomination for President on Super Tuesday. But then comes the Rezko trial and we learn Obama was doing favors to get an Iraqi felon a visa to the United States.
Obama was almost certainly approached by the family of Ayham Alsammare before Alsammare was busted out of jail with the alleged help of Blackwater per PM Maliki http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/19838.html
Blackwater now with a campus in northern Illinois.
Obama should explain if Alsammarae’s family approached him for help and what if anything he did in response.
Larry Johnson, you are correct sir!
.
I have been speaking and writing about this ad nauseam. The MSM and of course the repubs want Obama as the democratic nominee. Hillary’s dirty laundry has be on the clothesline for years. Seen that, done that. The repubs have screwed our country up–both foreign and domestically. Even repubs are unhappy with where the country is headed. The only way the repubs can win is for the democrats to present a weak nominee,ie. OBAMA.
Another thing,
You don’t think the repubs with their wiretapping do not have concrete evidence of this, if true? UH-HuH.
Plain and simple - If Obama is our nominee, a repub will be in the White House.
“I don’t begrudge Obama trying to help out a buddy. I just wish he’d cut the holier than thou act.”
You know that you have a lame candidate when your argument is, “I already know that my candidate is corrupt as fuck, but your guy has some dirt on him too!” How pathetic, from a guy who looks like he uses a bowl to cut his hair no less.
Not Fair!
Larry inherited his barber from Pete Rose…
Jay: What part of Obama’s Holy Roller motif is genuine?
Hannah Arendt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt
Why are you so angry Jay?
Mitt has made billions, was everyone of those dollars squeeeeeeeky clean? McCain has been in politics for decades, is all of it kosher? Rudy? No dirt there, right? Everybody on the other side is going to be super pristine, right? We are a nation of saintly canidates, aren’t we? I have to assume all of the Billaryites here are only “vetting” Obama for the good of the Dem Party, right? To protect the Party nominee from Carl Rove…??? Thanks for the laughs. This is gettin’ so down n dirty Carl Rove is probably lurkin’ just to pick up pointers. May I suggest all of you people who live in Mayberry confess & be saved.
Anyday now I expect to find a 20% discount coupon for a cruise on that beautiful oceanliner Swiftboat. 4 mo’ yrs of shuffleboard & assigned seating.
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/obama012808.htm
Thanks Larry, Excellent blog,
RG the POTUS (50% may be, if Bernie Karik happend only after NOV 08.
Hello, what is happening in this primary is quite frightening! Obama may very well win the Primary’s and has not been vetted. It quite simply is Rezko and the Republican spin machine when they start playing football with Obama in the fall, Obama will be the football. Need I say more! McCain takes the game oops the election as Honest Abe!!
[...] you’ll recall, Larry Johnson wrote an article — “Will Rezko Blow Up Obama?” — about another item in today’s Times: “According to prosecution documents [...]
[...] it is Larry Johnson who has done much of the reporting and analyzing on this, including “Will Rezko Blow Up Obama?” (more Auchi-related NoQuarter stories are here): Where does Nadhmi Auchi fit [...]
[...] venture involved convicted Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi. See Larry Johnson’s story, “Will Rezko Blow Up Obama?. Rezko In Debt $50 Million; How Did He Afford Obama Lot? Court Transcript Says Rezko Depends on [...]
[...] is also the possibility that Obama may have asked the State Department to get an Iraqi felon a visa to the US at [...]
[...] Will Rezko Blow Up Obama? [...]
[...] Will Rezko Blow Up Obama? [...]
[...] We warned readers of No Quarter of the problems convicted slumlord and political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko would create for Obama during the final stretch of the Presidential campaign, and now we have confirmation. I quote the Associated Press: CHICAGO (AP) — Federal prosecutors have asked to delay the sentencing of convicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko indefinitely. [...]
[...] Will Rezko Blow Up Obama? [...]
[...] Will Rezko Blow Up Obama? [...]
[...] Will Rezko Blow Up Obama? [...]