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 February 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM in Current Affairs
An important op-ed in the Baltimore Sun today from Joe Wilson. Joe provides the most incisive and compelling explanation why Obama is not ready for prime time and Hillary is. Read for yourself.
By Joseph C. Wilson IV
February 12, 2008
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign - and perhaps a nastier one - than Democrats anticipated.
Sen. Barack Obama’s promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.
Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers to have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife - outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson - and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. Mrs. Clinton knew from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.”
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence that Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan - perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him “a stooge” and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America’s adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?
Contrary to the myth of the Obama campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury - or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.
Theodore Roosevelt once said, “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again … who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.”
If he were around today, Roosevelt might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today’s Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican - not even John McCain.
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain’s arrival. We’ve seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.
Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was in the Foreign Service for 23 years, and served in Iraq in the years leading up to the Persian Gulf war. He is the author of “The Politics of Truth.” His e-mail is jcwivwdc@yahoo.com.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Coherent, informed, factual,and right on target. It’s obvious why Valerie Plame married him. You gotta’ love an intelligent man. They must have great conversations after the twins are in bed. I copied the first article I ever read by him in the NYT-”What I didn’t find. . . .” E-mailed it to everyone I knew. A great political analyst, and he’s on Hillary’s side, thank god.
Oh Mr. Wilson! Let’s cut through the B.S. with some questions:
So has the cook in the White House. Exactly what arena has Mrs. Clinton been in where she was out in front? Was it her one year doing pro bono? Or was it her 1+ terms as Senator? Because in between that she was a private attorney and the wife of an elected official doing what all other first ladies do.
Exactly when was that? If you are referring to her waltz into office in New York then you mis-categorize how she came to office and the complete lack of competition she has faced - till now.
She has been a Senator for a little more than one term. How does that qualify her to be any more knowledgable than Obama or, frankly, the rest of us?
Name one major piece of legislation that this Senator has authored during her tenure. She has been doing nothing other than running for President since the first day she entered office and has left all the heavy lifting to Chuck Schumer.
Really? So why was bin Laden still alive when Bush entered office?
Then how would you explain all these crying episodes she has had?
Regardless how intelligent they are, both Democrats are two of the most inexperienced candidates we have ever seen from either Party and neither will stand a chance against McCain for different reasons.
Is this what is referred to as the “Republican attack machine”? If so, the “attacks” are not at all convincing, but rather as vague as those of Obama. Mean, but insubstantial.
This Clinton supporter makes assertions that are unsupported by facts. They are relevant questions because they cannot be answered.
If she is the nominee these questions will be the least of her problems.
Marjorie -
I agree with you. Pretty weak effort, but then again S.Markom is clearly in need of meds.
Meds? Hey genius anyone who buys into this woman’s BS needs to seriously examine their own sanity.
This woman has been at the center of every major Clinton Administration scandal except one.
This woman got into the Senate with no contest - not even for the nomination.
This woman has produced zero major legislation in her little time in the Senate.
This woman has never run a government or a corporation or a military battalion.
This woman is crashing in a contest with a virtual lightweight in Obama.
In a contest with a veteran like McCain and the GOP 527 groups she will completely collapse.
Reread your first sentence, and ask yourself if you’re projecting, speaking of yourself, and Obama, or Bush, say.
I do believe you are.
And I will proceed on that premise.
Great response!
So why was bin Laden still alive when Bush entered office?
The real question is why is he not dead when Bush left.
all these crying episodes she has had?
What, has our ‘Lieb Anfurer’ GW not shed a tear?
Oh yea I forgot one thing. Your heart is supply side twisted. You know the last thing to trickle down in the supply side model? The tears of poverty on the face of a parent with no food on the table for their kids or medical care.
Get real.
No. The real question is about her not flinching. Well, we already have a track record.
I heard they pay you 10 cents a post.
And it shows, geez.
With all that money, you think they could hire smarter trolls, who do more than fight themselves, without understanding how, or why.
God, they are stupid.
Most of it one can ignore.
It is not normally productive to to engage with the retorical fallacy of pinheads and individuals who thrive on emotional chaos.
Not this time.
Obamas has a lot of BULLSHIT SPEECH. HEY Mr republican!; and seems to attract a certian genus of abusive 10 cent troll.
I guess it is the result of the fear card that clones this line.
Good one!
Is SChip major enough for you?
SChip was during her husband’s administration. Her time in the Senate she has had no major legislation. As I said, Schumer is doing her work.
Oh, is that like Cheney and Addington doing all the work for that OTHER Rovian fanman, Bush?
Ok, you’re wrong actually, about SChip, imagine that.
Again, tutti.
S.Markom -
Do you really think Joe Wilson cares about your silly shit? On your planet is he reading along with you?
Hillary Rodham Clinton would kick your whiney butt all over the place. And come back for McCain’s feeble ass. I’ve made people cry and Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t a crier.
Go talk to your T.V. while you watch Fox Fuckers and MSNBC’s He Man Women Haters Club. I’m sure they’re your good friends and send secret messages to you …
That is the most inane comment I have ever read. Congrats.
Now we know the education level of HRC supporters!
And no she would not - particularly on an intellectual level.
About Fox, as a student of HRC you should already know that she is damning MSNBC and praising Fox.
S.Markom -
Stop your crying you big baby! Your friends at Fox and MSNBC can’t get their secret messages to you!
Now we know the education level of HRC supporters!
And no she would not - particularly on an intellectual level.
What? and your a mental giant? Excuse me! for wondering what mail order university your degrees are printed from! you presumtive pinhead. Come on now, don’t shit where you sleep,there are people that post here that graduated from the school of hard knocks that have more “intellect” and heart than you S Markom …Here Kitty Kitty.
Get busy living or get busy dying S. Markom but christ sake just get.
Well, he’s speaking of himself.
So, he’s sensitive, insecure, self conscious about his intellect, is that why someone like Bill Clinton, or Hillary, intimidates him?
We already know he can’t analyze or comprehend his enemy, so how do we further capitalize on what the Rove troll, Obama troll, is telling us about himself?
See, without understanding the TRUTH, even the truth about himself, and his own actions, motivations, he simply cannot win, as he can never SEE the genesis of the real problem.
And denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Excuse me! I have a PhD! and your educational level is?
I don’t have a PhD, and I’m still quite intelligent and well read. Yes, without peer review it isn’t the same as someone who has been scrutinized, but then again, I know some dumbass PhDs…Nellie, not included in that mix.
This appeal to intelligence and all is just more bullshit classism. I know some stupid people who are much better suited for their lives and get along much better than my most educated friends and acquaintences.
No, I personally respect him, value his written input, it’s a desert out here,, in the land of the moronic neocon, we smart people take rain where we can get it in regard to informed, intelligent opinion on Iraq, and such.
Sorry, you don’t get that.
And you know, his wife, a COVERT NCO, was outed by a fat guy, and sniveling little sidecar, Rico.
So, it helps us all to remember, when we see Joe’s name, that Valerie has yet to see justice.
So, Fired up! Ready to go!
Yo, Butterball!
Clinton put to gether a proposal for UHC, no small undertaking. It was excoriated, but it was a major policy initiative, perhaps equivalent to the New Deal, something FEW have done, even Ted Kennedy.
In addition, she was instrumental in reforming the AK educational system, again, no small undertaking, given Obama can’t even find the switch to provide heat for his tenants without directions and a 10, 000 bribe.
And Bush doesnt even what a light switch is for…
This is off the top of my head, let me research and get back to you, since you appear uninformed.
Or perhaps you have a poor memory, such bitterness, my my…
Yale legal education, policy work mentioned above, instrumental in approving legislation to reform the student loan industry while a Senator, and again experience in preparing a UHC initiative, as First Lady.
Does Obama even wipe his own ass?
College loan reform, which has a direct effect on many middle class lives, a direct effect on the future financial security of our children, and a direct effect on America’s future abilty to compete.
If a college kid is in debt, a debt he cannot escape due to usary interest rates, he will have no incentive to work, or get ahead.
He will be working for Citibank until the day he dies. How do you think this affects the economy, do you know?
I’ll break it down for you, just ask, if you cant figure it out.
Long term implication doesnt appear to be your strong suite, reasoning is inhibited.
Or simply not in your skill set.
You really dont understand the long term consequences of being led by your balls.
God knows you dont lead with your brains.
Look at the stupidity that has landed us in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
What are the implications, will they just go away?
Enjoy the moment, dude…
Disingenous piece of shit question, come back when show you can understand a problem.
I’m not aware of any crying episodes, but perhaps she was forced to look at Karl Rove’s ugly pigface while reading your sad old attempt of a poorly reasoned PR smear, showing us you arent even capable of RECOGNIZING the problem, much less evaluating and solving it.
It often brings me to tears, also.
Ya know, they just dont make them like they used to…
Dull boi, use your imagination, my goodness, no wonder this country can’t win a war.
Clinton has experience, and youth, compared to McCain.
Obama is just all stuffed with fluff, a circular moron.
Is this stuff really necessary?
Don’t ask me, ask the Rovian old guy troll.
Given your question WAS serious, yes, it is.
Do you really want another Bush, or even an Obama, too weak and fearful to fight?
My, my.
Recognize and evaluate the problem.
GH, that “stuff” came from a guy who insists that Obama was influenced to oppose invading Iraq because Nadhmi Auchi, supposedly Saddam’s “right hand man” (except that even some very well-connected former Ba’thists go “huh?! Who?!” when you mention his name) influenced him. Who knows, maybe Obama was also flying periodically to Baghdad in Auchi’s private jet in order to discuss all this directly with Saddam!
So, that’s the very least of the “stuff”.
Gee, it just occurred to me - was EVERYONE who opposed invading Iraq in bed with Nadhmi Auchi, or just Obama?
Just Obama. This is Rovian slime. Subliminally connecting him to terrorism through his Muslim heritage. Talking Points Memo has a piece this morning on what is going on.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178330.php
Expected from Rove and the NY Sun, and not a surprise really from Clinton. But here?
Damn fine response!
Which?
Only Eleanor Roosevelt was as engaginbg a First Lady. Nice to compare her to the White House cook. Wimmin’s place in the kitchens, and all that. Granted, that position is in and of itself(WH cook0 one not to embarassed of for those who hold it and take pride in their craft. Slimin Hillary of course means sliming anyoine around her who works hard, so it’s par of the course on the back nine of hate.
As opposed to having the party apparatachiks resign ahead of Obama, and running against Alan Keyes?
Her husband’s twelve years as Governor and her own work there trying to raise standards for teachers, coupled with additional school funding.
Like Obama signing a bill into being for redeployment then adding an escape clause to it to satisfy the GOP?
Ask the Wag the Dog crowd. Gingrich blocked the effort to go after bin laden. It’s a matter of Congressional record.
…hyperbole and media spin.
Keating McCain? The man who let shrubya slime him in SC? The man who self professedly “doesn’t know much about the economy” and wants to “fight a hundred year’s war” in Iraq?
He’ll not come close to office, he was a kiss-up to Ashcroft in his own state, and the only way he gets anywhere near is another Diebold putsch. His supposed landmark was a way to codify corporate donations to candidates and put it on par with individual donations, only attaching first amendment rights to private money in the process. His co-writer for his most recent book was an Arthur Anderson holdover, an Enron accomplice.
John McCain, put a price on free speech, and claims it as his greatest accomplishment.
I was with you until this:
“Then how would you explain all these crying episodes she has had?”
All WHAT “crying episodes”? I only know of one, and she wasn’t crying. So she showed a little emotion? Big deal! If there are other “crying episodes”, then name them. And was she actually crying, or is thst just a convenient way to portray her as weak.
Oh - and by the way, crying (or just showing a bit of emotion) and being intimidated are two completely different things. Crying is NOT a sign of intimidation.
I don’t want Hillary as President, nor do I want Obama, but for heaven’s sake, isn’t there enough real stuff to point out about both of them? Why do both sides feel the have to resort to imaginary nonsense?
I am waiting for someone to show the pictures of all the manly men crying at the Sainted Ronny’s sanctification spectacle. If no one wishes to show me those pics, then can we have a replay of Bush senior purging into the laps of his hosts.
Although when republicans cry I do believe it is because they have been intimidated by their diminishing bank accounts.
Now to be semi-serious for a moment.
The dems resort to imaginary nonsense because if they used reality they would offend one or another of their current or hoped for future constituent groups.
The republicans use imaginary nonsense because their fearful imaginations make up the bulk of america’s entertainment and morality. Republican office holders do believe that most americans would become moslems at the drop of a quarter.
Inside the beltway dems believe that too but they use different dogwhistle terms. Before you decide to argue with me about dems, check out the list of dems ( and our fave Ct for Lieberman independent) who voted against the american people and against 200+ years of the constitution today.
“Republican office holders do believe that most americans would become moslems at the drop of a quarter.”
And that would be bad because…?
“Before you decide to argue with me about dems…”
Oh, don’t worry, I won’t!
PS You forgot about George I weeping copiously over his baby boy Jeb - wasn’t that last year?
And Mittens…he talked a lot about his tears. And let’s not forget George W. - he claims to “cry all the time.”
“And that would be bad because…? ” Neither good nor bad, merely the belief system of the republicans this year. A few years ago the republicans believed that all americans would become VietCong for a quarter. A few years before that the republicans believed that all americans would become communists for a quarter. ( When the quarter was actually made of silver not silver spattered zinc.)
The problem is the republican beliefs about americans is that we are for sale as cheaply as Lieberman and Regan were. I suppose it all goes back to America’s childhood. A bunch of nasty boys spliffed in the face of the king and walked away with a whole continent. The republican longing to be re-united with their old master is compounded by their fear that there just might be some nasty boys left who would spliff in the face of the current crop of thugs as not.
As a theory it also explains the republicans great dislike for the French and Spanish. Both those nations each for their own selfish reasons aided the nasty boys in kicking out the king and his minions. Bennie Arnold was the prototype republican.
The Death Of A Thousand Fisks.
The horror, the horror.
Oh yeah, riiiight. the voters really want four more years of McBush (one slightly more to the right of Bush). No republican will win the WH this election…period. Even if we nominated a parrot. The polls clearly show we don’t want “more wars, Iraq forever, permanent tax breaks for the wealthy, no national healthcare plan”, etc. What are you…on drugs? No republican will win the WH this election.
The charges of Obama’s interference in Kenya are extremely significant.
“How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him “a stooge” and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?”
An Obama-Kenya connection is rarely mentioned in the press. Why? Is it a no-no for Hillary to bring this up and ask Obama to clarify these charges being brought against him? Perhaps Wilson’s article will force Obama to address any involvement of his [Obama's] in the disasters of the Kenyan elections. How about in a debate with Hillary? Wouldn’t that be interesting.
Oh my yes, a 72 year old, mentally unbalanced, hair trigger tempered, failed bomberjock is a threat.
Extensive security credentials: Able to rob savings and loans with the Bushes, able to lose 6 jets and almost lose an Aircraft carrier during an otherwise unimpressive tour of duty, able to shop the rug bazaars of Baghdad with a full company of troops and several heli gunships overhead. The merchant who sold he and Graham the rugs was killed two days later. Able to take it full force to an 18 year old girl. Able to accept his supporters definition of Hillary as The Bitch. Able to use his Admiral father’s position to garner special treatment for himself while a POW. Unable to advance past captain even though he had famous admirals for two generations before him. Able to do a Gingrich on his wife when a wealthier model became available.
Able to shout FUCK yous at his fellow senators with even more speed and less guts than VP Cheney. Able to buy Allan Greenspan’s book, but unable to understand ecomonics. Unable during his whole existence to have spent one minute off the public dole.
Yes quiver in fear that this clown is what stands between the democratic party and retaking the white house. Shiver in your dark corners at the HUGE coattails he will have in the elections, look how many repuclican house and senate candidates he will carry to election.
I remember Joe Wilson wearing that hangman’s noose and actually bringing some shine to american diplomats back in 1991. How far the brave have fallen.
This is not about Obama and whether he stepped back from an unnecessary confrontation or not. Nor is it about private remarks from a senator to an ex-ambassador’s wife during a trying time.
It is about making out of John McCain some scary boogieman. McCain is the ultimate straw house pig of a candidate. Revel in his destruction, encourage him to lose his famous temper during the campaign, replay his Chelsea Joke and juxtapose it with Schuster’s brilliant verbal diarrhea, toss in some Derbyshire from 2001 for zest. Run that reacharound photo-op of he and GDub. Replace the Che flags with that photo, replace the Hill and Bill pics with that photo. There are two things that McCain is not, a hero and a maverick. It doesn’t take much work to puncture him and he folds like a recycled pinata. For reference restudy his brilliant South Carolina campaign of 2000. I think it is pretty well understood that I personally do not care for either of the dem’s candidates; but I will vote for either of them before I will give this “hero” anything. As they say, if he were on fire I would not piss on him to help put it out.
Oh yay! He said it perfectly.
How can this be distilled into bumpersticker ….
But these demagogue-diddled vision wankers are no more into practicalities than Rumsfeld and the neocons were.
“They will sing songs about us.”
I DON’T NEED HOPE. I NEED A ROPE
The merchant who sold he and Graham the rugs was killed two days later.
I did not know this. Did McCain or Grahm offer any condolenses? Pinheads. Did they take to the senate floor and say anything? Heartless.
No - Ignored it. Also several Americans were killed as well as over 20 people in the same Market IIRC - all within a day or so of McCain and Grahams little shooping trip.
Hillary or Obama, either would be light years more intelligent and mentally balanced than madMac. after all, Intelligence goes a long way in performing well in a job that NONE of the candidates has ever been in. stupid is as stupid does as we have seen for the last 8 years.. I would rather the candidate be a quick study instead of already having his mind made up BEFORE he or she has stepped one foot into the white house. To this point, John McCain PROMISED Americans more war ( on film) …IF he can win with that telling statement, then we as a country are too dumb to be able to vote .
Everyone is right, MCain IS more experienced,experienced at being wrong… he will continue the in the footsteps of the Bush foreign policy. the most scary and Bizarre thing is…. he is actually Proud of that fact.
jeepers!!!!!
Excellent point here; Battle-Tested. This is one of the biggest assets that Clinton has. Part of it is the bully-factor.
In spite of years of being bullied, and smash-mouth and legal attacks, what did Hillary do when faced with the torches and pitchforks? Answer - deal with it. I don’t know how to compare Barack in this area, because as far as I know, he’s never had the same trial by fire.
In the interest of fairness, what is Obama’s biggest asset? Though I’d prefer he Not be president at this point in time, if I’m honest, I do have to admint one thing. He does have a skill to persuade large groups. While this may appear superficial, it is a valid asset in a president; one that Clinton has less of.
Having connections is what experience is all about. Obama wouldn’t know who to call in the FBI,CIA, NSA DoD or State for inside info.
He doesn’t need to call them! He’s got his best pal (whom he may or may not have ever met) arch villain and Saddam right hand man, Nadhmi WHO?!!!!
It wouldn’t suprise me the kind of intel money theses folks wield can buy, and that people who travel at such an altitude have GPS markers on all the skeltons they have had a hand in creating.
Auchi’s wife also donated to him.
She was on board a shell company of his from Panama.
Contraquistadores!
Thank you for helping to wake Americans up from their Obama slumber. These are serious times and we need need a serious and proven leader — not the hope of one.
The Middle East quagmire might be the least of our worries as the year proceeds; every day brings news of further economic deterioration, and you wonder whether we might have a full-blown economic panic if one of our big banks goes down.
In any event, the foreign policy and economic challenges are severe, and experience is the key. While Obama might be up to the job, why take a chance when we have someone, HRC, who certainly is?
And based on their relative performances in the primary debates, who do you think is going to hand McCain his head in the Presidential debates?
if one of our big banks goes down.
Like the write off the banks took for the subprime meltdown x10?
For every financial institution there is a point beyond which they cannot substitute their capital for write downs. At that point the institution is bankrupt. The sheiks of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have bought what they can. Beyond a 9% investment, another law designed to protect american financial institutions kicks in.
Most of these institutions have had a two month grace period since the supposed imposition of the FASB rules regarding pricing of off the books derivatives investments for which the only value is what the institutions say the value is. That grace period is coming to and end but it will most likely be extended as often as necessary.
There being no savings to divert, the only way these bankrupt institutions can be salvaged is to either give them freshly printed money as a gift or find some way to stick the taxpayers with the bill. Giving them freshly printed money as a gift just increases the already noxious inflation the consumer is seeing in his or her weakly budget. That is why this is suddenly the year of the potato. You can subsitute potato for bread, and even for meat for a while. You might also ask the Irish how that works out as a long term response to government stupidity.
So either more fiat money and immediate inflation or raise the taxes on the soon to be unemployed and enjoy your tax funded mandatory health care.
( It is exceedingly tough to garnish the wages of the unemployed, the homeless, and the institutionalized ).
You call it the subprime meltdown and it started there. Mortgages given to folks who had no way and no chance of ever paying them back, partially this was an industry response to the threats they faced over the redlining issue, partially it was a stream of profits where the institutions knew they could privatize any profits and socialize any losses. Win win, it’s all good.
Unfortunately, those subprimes were insured by the same folks who insure municipal financing and state financing. As the monoline insurers get downgraded, the issues they insured also get downgraded and the municipalities and states have to find some way to fund any new debt at much higher rates. That is the right jab, the left hook that follows is that due to the subrpime spree, some municipalities saw housing growth skyrocket, now those houses sit there not generating any tax income. Whether one walks away, is foreclosed, or otherwise dispossessed, the taxes on the property stop flowing, the school bonds become harder to pay, teachers find that raises don’t happen. The munis are about two more monoline downgrades away from bankruptcy.
Of course any bankruptcy in munis will be paid for out of the income taxes of the unemployed.
That is the right jab, the left hook that follows and the Tyson uppercut we won’t see coming.
I read a memo that k-12 in Ca is to be cut 50% in certian areas ie no summer school for getting a leg up for failing students…bare bones. Unemployed parents; uneducated kids; the economy like paying one credit card to the next. some kinda’ hope that is. Now that they are free to wiretap at will I will start saying keywords more often.
I am trying to “see” a way out. Nope.
Well stated CK, thanks for the insights.
There are some partial ways out. None of them popular.
Dump the cornahol subsidy immediately, this will lead to food price stabilization by the end of the growing season.
1) Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Savings approx 1Trillion a year.
2) Immediate withdrawal from all foreign bases.
Savings approx .2 trillion a year.
3) Raise the discount rate to at least the rate of inflation. probably about 8%
4) Raise the reserve requirements on the banks back to the historical 15% ( it has been allowed to fall to about 3% recently ).
This means that for every 100 dollars of deposits a bank has on its books it would have to have 15 actual dollars on hand to cover demand. Currently most banks are lucky to have 3.
5) Do away with all the taxes on corporations, treat the corporate profits the same way partnership and personal business profits are treated. The profits flow through to the owners and the owners pay tax on those profits at their marginal tax rate. Probable tax income increase 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars.
( this one would cause such a howl especially among senators … I mean ear splitting batsonar level howling).
6) Do away with DHS another 50 billion minimum saved. Put the coast guard back in the treasury where it belongs
7) Do away with all farm subsidies and all agricultural tariffs.
9) Dump NCLB immediately. Get the feds out of the local schools and get the teachers back to imparting knowledge instead of teaching to pass a test. Savings not so large in the short term but HUGE in the long run.
10) Send the governors of the federal reserve their pink slips and job applications to be greeters at Wal Mart. Turn off the printing presses. Forget to replace the governors of the Fed.
11) eliminate the double taxation on savings accounts. This would reduce the annual take from individual income taxes but increase the take derived from increased investment activity.
See all it takes is a few small steps … and none of them involve going to a competing currency policy although that would not be a bad thing either.
I do wonder about Joe Wilson’s solution to the Iraqi quamire.
What would he do to initiate stability in Iraq, and Afghanistan?
I saw him interviewed on CNN, he struck me as highly intelligent, highly informed.
And then I had to watch John Bolton.
Simon, it was the United States that initiated INSTABILITY in Iraq. What on EARTH makes anyone believe they can now reverse that and “initiate” stability? It’s like suggesting that the rapist should continue to rape and beat his victim in order to calm her down.
In part, the Soviet Union was financially broken through it’s war with Afghanistan.
Some think Asia is using Iraq and Afghanistan to break the US economy, in part.
So, it’s all connected, one problem will not be solved while the other is left to linger.
It’s confusing, scary, too, isn’t it?
“Asia is using Iraq and Afghanistan to break the US economy”
Asia made me do it?!
It looks to me as if the United States is doing it just fine all by itself.
China may have called in favors owed by former Ambassador to China GHWB.
Maybe Dubya did to cover up some of the Neil Bush scandals(probably on tape).
Maybe we did it to keep the CHinese funding our tax cuts for billionaires.
I am pretty upset that Hillary did not show up to vote on the FISA bill today. One of the most important failures of this Senate has been their total capitulation to the White House on the FISA debate. Dumping the Fourth Amendment is heinous and Clinton needed to show up a let us know what side of the defense of the Constitution she is on. By the way, I voted for CLinton in my caucus, because I thought she was telling the truth when she said her connections to telecom lobbyists would not prevent her from standing up for Americans. Was I wrong? What does she have to do that is more important than saving the Constitution?
“What does she have to do that is more important than saving the Constitution?”
Campaign for President, obviously. :o}
Harry Reid made it impossible to defeat this bill. All the senators knew it. He set it up that way from the beginning. All the moaning was fruitless when Dodd received no support and was forced to actually filibuster till they found a way around him. Didn’t matter if H and O voted or not. Republicans voted 49 - 0; dems 36-18 will the usual amount voting with the repukes to ensure Bush’s demands. they couldn’t do it with a republican controlled senate…it took Harry Reid and the chairmanship of their bought and paid for Jay Rockefeller and of course the Feinstein support. This was known from the beginning. Only the House can stop it now…but the Blue dog democrats will make sure that doesn’t happen. They support Bush/Cheney on everything. It’s “the money party”.
Graham did not show either.
18 senators with a D after their names voted for retroactive legalization of criminal behaviour.
More Better Democrats necessary.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
update III especially.
SIGH
Let us give a shout out to the following States, whose senators voted for the constitution, for the citizens, and for freedom:
Washington (11)
Vermont (3)
Rhode Island (4)
New Jersey (15)
Montana (3)
Massachusetts (12)
Illinois ( 21)
69 electoral votes for the constitution.
Are you talking about that piece of paper stuck to Bush’s heel…I thought that was toilet tissue…perhaps it is..now.
As John Kass in the Chicago Tribune wrote 2.1.08:
“Just consider those enemy tribes—the Clintonistas and the Limbaughtonians—sullen peasants on a muddy roadside, waiting for the wheels of Obama’s glittering coach to spatter their homespun garments.
The media so loves Obama that he’s transcending again, this time from a politician into a religion.”
….
“Either way, there are a few who don’t consider Obama to be inevitable. They’ll be paying close attention to the upcoming federal political corruption trial in Chicago of Obama’s personal real estate fairy, indicted political fixer Tony Rezko.”
….
Rezko is a pal of the Democratic Gov. Rod “The Unreformer” Blagojevich. Rezko became involved in the questionable purchase of Obama’s home, while under federal investigation. Every politician in Illinois—except for Obama—figured Rezko to be leprous with federal subpoenas. By dancing with Rezko, Obama impeaches his own judgment, and raises questions as to whether he has the presidential stuff.
Rezko stands accused of using his Illinois political connections to extort kickbacks and political money from investment firms seeking billions of dollars worth of state business in the investing of state pension funds.
But Republicans eager to use the trial to unearth problems about Obama should understand that if they dig deeper in the Rezko case, they will find evidence of the disaster facing them now.
…
They formed an unofficial partnership I call the bi-partisan Illinois Combine.
One of the Combine bosses implicated, but not charged, in “Operation Board Games” is Springfield’s “Big” Bob Kjellander, a self-professed pal of former White House political guru Karl Rove.
Kjellander was the treasurer for the Republican National Committee until he was identified as “Individual K” in the federal indictments. He made $4.5 million in finder’s fees on state pension fund deals through the Blagojevich administration—then was made national GOP treasurer. That nifty move, pocketing Democratic money while mouthing Rove’s talking points, makes him a candidate for Illinois Combine poster boy.
But the real poster boy is Republican boss William “The Pope” Cellini—who started out in patronage, and has since made a fortune in state gaming, development and asphalt empires. Cellini and Kjellander backed Mitt Romney in Illinois, the same Romney who all but called for the ouster of the federal prosecutor investigating them.
But that’s probably just a coincidence.
The other day, federal prosecutors heated Cellini up again, in Rezko court documents. The Tribune published a fascinating and detailed account of this on Friday.
Though Cellini has not been charged, prosecutors insisted that he was a significant player in the case involved in extortion and kickbacks. They identified him in court documents as “Co-Schemer A” (that’s A as in Alpha) and they knocked down the contention by Rezko’s attorneys that since Cellini was not interviewed by investigators or charged, Cellini must be innocent of any crimes.
“As the court is aware,” wrote prosecutors, “there are many other explanations that can account for the failure to charge or interview an individual other than innocence. Rezko’s assumption to the contrary is unsupported by the evidence in the case.”
Republican Cellini’s lawyer in the case is former U.S. Atty. Dan Webb, who recently represented the now-imprisoned former Republican Gov. George Ryan.
Webb is a boss at the giant law firm Winston & Strawn. Other Winston & Strawn lawyers there are being paid millions of dollars by Blagojevich, presumably for criminal legal work related to “Operation Board Games.”
Sound confusing? Illinois politics is often quite muddy. Just don’t think what’s coming is just about the Democrats and Rezko and, by extension, Obama.
It’s about Republicans in Illinois mud too.
All of you people write to damned much.
Immagine a room, two chairs seated across the table. Obama in one transfixed by Putin’s best KGB lizzard stare.
What’s Obama going to do, vote present?
What’s Obama going to do? Not much.
Obama:Hey Putin what do you say we knock off the cold war redux crap? I told my fly boys to take out any thing within 2 miles of the Ronald Reagan next time, Kapish?
Putin: Or what? We sell more nuke technology and fuel to Iran? And by the way You are no Jack Kennedy, I have a great file on him I personally put together when I was in the KGB.
Obama: Love to see it.
Putin: You don’t read your own reports, you don’t hold hearings on the Foriegn Relations Committee or you would know I gave a copy to Auchi, even autographed it.
Obama: Who?
Putin: четверка больший предлог родительного падежа этот?
The four a greater pretext of a genitive case this? Heavy TWK, very heavy, Doestoyevskian even.
Some end to the cold war ..
Great author too.
I had planned to vote for Hillary Clinton, despite some reservations and her vote on Iraq. Today, her failure to appear in the US Senate and stand with Senators Dodd and Feingold in defense of the Constitution, has forced me to change my mind.
If we don’t have Constitutional defenders, then we have nothing … Hillary left us with nothing today. While she only had one vote, she has influence over those other senators who support her run for president. Maybe she thinks the UNITARY EXECUTIVE is a good idea. As a citizen, I don’t. Now all future presidents can ignore all the laws, issue secret signing statements, etc.
Thanks Hillary. Hope you had a good time campaigning instead of upholding your oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
barb in west yellowstone
Obama voted against cloture, he missed the actual vote against. Voted “not present” on the record.
[...] Battle-tested [...]
Superb article Ambassador Wilson.
Are ya’ll kidding!??
Who is ever experienced to be the president of the US? And besides, everyone thinks for you, polls for you, pushes their interest on you.
Perhaps a return to the Jimi Hendrix Experience?
It’s an African American, a White Woman–Lady Thatcher USA, if you please–and an ancient arthritic 71 year old soon to be minority (2050) running for an office that once mattered. Same for the others in the federal system.
As long as this country’s parties have the view thatit’s ok to sink one antoher with a recession and war for the sake of of a presidency later and vice versa, this country is a f*&^%$ one. New parties or some sort of way out of the notion that the two party system is actually competitive has to be forthcoming/developed.
I mean, it’s tragicomedy this whole commentary on who is stronger here or there. Who has been vetted here or there. It reads nation-state collapse.
No one in the know is watching the MSM. Spongebob, Simpsons, Southpark have more adroit commentary than the MSM.
The low 30’s of votes isn’t a sneeze at this time.
After an amendment went down by that much i was ready for them to call it the enabling act and be done with the show on words for votes.
Whoever the next dem president is, maybe that person could just prorogue the senate and tell the states to start over. A Unitary executive can do that.
Mr. Wilson is totally correct.
Mr. Obama has told us NOTHING as to what he as done or will do, only suppositions.
The news media has done nothing except prat Mr. Obama is “inspiring”, “exciting”. Young voters are saying, ” he is nearer our age”. We do not need another person in the White House who has not yet done anything.
WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER CHEERLEADER, THERE’S ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!
WE MUST HAVE TRIED, EXPERIENCED EXPERTISE TO GET AMERICA OUT OF THE QUAGMIRE WE ARE NOW IN.
[...] of counter-argument or proof. For counter-arguments to the irrational haters, first, there’s Joe Wilson’s question in his Baltimore Sun op-ed: How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government [...]