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 16, 2008 at 6:51 PM in Current Affairs
Obama’s mantra, “Yes, We Can” is inspiring and heartwarming, but in the end is an empty phrase that will founder once the Republican political attack machine spins up. I realize that most Obamatons are so wedded to his vision of hope that any effort to point out the cracks in the foundation of the new Democratic Savior are met with fury and disdain.
If you think for a minute that the Republican party–who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud–will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.
But, unlike the attacks on Dukakis, Cleland, and Kerry, the ammunition that Obama has provided to his political foes is significant and deadly. But try telling that to Obama disciples. You get name calling and character assassination (just read the reaction to this piece). At the same time, Obama is treated with a reverence and fawning that I have never seen in my life for a political figure. What in the world was Chris Matthew’s talking about with his tingling leg adulation heaped on Obama:
During MSNBC’s live coverage of Tuesday’s primary elections, after the speech of Barack Obama aired, Chris Matthews breathlessly expressed his admiration…and extreme excitement for Barack Obama by saying “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”
So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama. (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)
Obama’s untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men–Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama’s Presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.
The Tony Rezko Problem:
There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko’s bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting 25 February 3 March, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.
But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the Judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.
When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won’t care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.
The William Ayers Problem:
William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.
No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack’s first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.
What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.
Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama’s ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama’s Willie Horton.
The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:
So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:
Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school’s Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah’s recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday’s Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. “He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians,” Khalidi told the paper.
Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, “He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians — though I don’t recall him ever saying anything publicly.”
Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran’s Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. New York Times had his reaction to the event:
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, “The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.
“The president of the university had every right to state his differences,” he said. “That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner.”
Now, which Presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama’s friendship with Khalidi.
I don’t know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama’s friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.
And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I’ll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:
I think many of my friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win. Therefore, the thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.
Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israel rhetoric. Oh, YES THEY WILL! YES, THEY WILL.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
You Shall Know The Truth…and The Truth shall Set You Free…
Give me some “HOPE”..Larry..Give me some “Hope..”
I believe you are entirely correct on what is to come should Obama become the nominee.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12366
The populace may be anti-this-specific-war, but the money is not.
This article doesn’t seem to have all the facts. It quotes Obama saying… the Republicans can’t say that I changed my mind on issues….on the war.
YET…he made one anti war speech in 2002 at an anti-war rally. Not so daring. Then in 2004, he said…If I had been in the senate with all of the informaiton in front of me, I don’t know how I would have voted. Right now, I share George Bush’s position on the war.
As it is often said, a vote for funding the war is a vote for the war. Obama said in speeches…I will not cast a vote for war funding in the Senate. Once he arrived in the Senate, he voted to fund the war.
When it counted to show opposition to the Irag war…he could have chosen to stand with Russ Fiengold to end the war and he didn’t
Since he has been in the senate… do you hear him making speeches…leading the way for others and take a strong stance to tend the war? No he didn’t.
Regarding the Iran resolution…at least Hillary voted….and Obama didn’t. Much to his character, he doesn’t show up for the tuff votes.
His record is opposite his rhetoric everytime.
I think you might have missed the point of Raimondo’s article which deals not with what a wonderful candidate Obama is but the kinds of hits and where those hits will come from should Obama appear to be winning the nomination.
Raimondo is not in favour of the war, and of the three remaining probable presidential contenders, Obama appears to be the least wedded to the war and the war party.
With “Hero” John Keating 5 McCain the most probable opponent, it is inevitable that once again the election for president will return to a refight of the previous losing war. As a 14 year old when the war officially ended, Obama does not have a military record in Vietnam to attack; so the next best thing is to try to stick old stateside radicals onto Obama.
I did a bit of research today on Bill Ayers. It appears that he turned himself in to the government in 1981, all charges against him were dismissed. Damn that Reagan.
CK,
Actally Obama is not the most anti-war, but I’ll stick on topic.
Here is just the BEGINNING of what is going to happen. The comments in this article are particulary indicative of what the START will be.
http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html
And here is a list of Obama’s bundlers in Illinois - notice all the Arabic names:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/25/fact-check-obama-his-contributor-rezko-the-slum-landlord-business/ (Go about a third of the way down the page until you see reference to the Sun-Times listing of Rezko Bundlers Network.)
Most chilling was the Moderate Juan Williams of NPR Radio saying and I am paraphrasing here “His family is Muslim and that’s a problem. We are at war against Radical Muslims”
Keep in mind his Cousin Odinga wants to revive Sharia Law for Kenya.
While trashing Islam in some form or fashion, you can bet solid money that the vitriol on Kos and a couple of other blogs from Obama supporters, will also be made known.
In effect, not only will they be going after Obama, and Destroying Kos in particular, but also the credibility of Progressive Blogs in general, which hurts all of us.
And the fainting of a woman at each Obama event, leads directly to the “cult” charges which are becoming more frequent. You do not need much of an IQ to figure out how Rove will tie that back to Democrats are cultists.
Then there is Obama’s campaign financing and his illgal use of his HopeFund PAC money, as well as his spending almost a Million Dollars to buy Super Delagates (Rmember it’s not illegal if Republicans do this - only when Democrats do)
Obama identifies himself as African American Here are 3 links to what they are saying:
https://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16416
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=1
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=502&Itemid=1
So not only has there been open hosility by Obama supporters for MONTHS against the rest of us, there is the appearance of cult-like adoration, there will come the destruction of the only real form of Media Dems have, the Democratic party itself will be seriously wounded, if not rendered irrelevent.
All of this WILL happen and that is why the rest of us are getting so angry with you guys. This could have all been avoided, if you had bothered vetting the candidates in depth at the beginning. But oh no, you had to fall for soaring yet empty rhetoric, and then all the kool kids were signing on - and the juvenile need to be accepted by “THE” group superceded any adult reasoning.
I think Larry is right — I also happen to think some of his other political bumblings on Iran and Pakistan will be used against him. Bush already said: “Obama wants to hug Ahmadinejad and bomb Pakistan.” (I saw it on CNN)
I don’t get his whole anti-war, pro-war, flopping around, Why if you are the anti-war candidate, make neocon-like statements advocating unilateral preemptive strikes by the US on Pakistan? (Obama did this more than once between 2004 and 2007) . These statements (see my sources below) were received badly in the middle east and worldwide. They lacked both diplomatic and strategic military savvy. In 2007 Pakistani radicals rioted and burnt US flags in the streets partially because of Obama’s comments. Bush, of all people, had to reaffirm to Pakistan that the United States respects Pakistan as a sovereign nation. This came when Pakistan officially complained about Obama’s stance. The USA is wildly unpopular in Pakistani even with moderates. It is clear that Obama did not help this situation with his diplomatic gaffes. The GOP/Rove machine will swift boat him to kingdom come.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/ obama-an-opportunistic-h_b_59645.html - 60k -
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html - 88k
http://www.reuters.com/article/ domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801 - 84k
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_520565.html - 30k -
muslimsfornadercamejo.blogspot.com/ 2004/10/barack-obama-update-hawk-from-illinois.html
hotair.com/archives/2007/ 08/01/messiah-hey-lets-invade-pakistan/ - 45k -
relentlessliberal.blogspot.com/ 2007/08/obama-hawk-and-dove.html - 63k -
Nellie
I said that to Raimondo, and many others, Obama APPEARS to be the “the least wedded to the war of the three candidates remaining.”
Semitic names are an issue to be faced.
His racial background is also.
His family background mom white dad not … coming awful close to the Mandingo moment so let’s make Obama into an islamofascist for the rubes.
And let’s get a Juan to do it as a liberal voice.
The internet has given a Kos and the internet will take it away and replace it with something else.
Do you think maybe if you succeed in demonizing Obama enough, that the rethugs won’t turn that success right back onto the pwogs. Look what the pwogs did to a black man.
I cry no tears if obama doesn’t win the nom, nor if Kos returns to the aether from whence it sprang, I will and you will also cry bitter tears if in the process of demonizing another dem you help elect a warmongering mentally deficient idiot like McCain and cut the coattails off the process of electing more and better dems.
You are old enough to remember that Americans always invest politicians with virtues and vices far beyond those of mortal man. So big deal that there is excitement for Obama. If it gets dems and others to vote for dems It’s a good thing.
Get a grip folks, the enemy is McCain and the Rethugs first.
He also gave John Kerry his rear end when Kerry needed help with a resolution to bring the war to an end. (Yet the doofus Kerry supports him … go figure.)
HOPE you’re all listening to C-Span. Lt. Gov. of Minnesota is REALLY socking it to Obama! I love it!
Very informative. Thank you.
For the most part, you’ve taken these words out of my mouth, Larry. The biggest fallacy Obama supporters seem to make is this one - that somehow Obama will be less divisive than Hillary Clinton. That’s utter nonsense. Bill and Hillary Clinton are middle-of-the-road politicians. They are thoroughly supported by and friendly with big business, including some that I quite frankly wish they weren’t friendly with. You’d think that would be enough to make them uncontroversial, at least for anyone who doesn’t belong to “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”.
Yet, they aren’t. Why? What have they done that’s in any way worse than anything Barack Obama, or most professional politicians for that matter, have done? Not a thing. Even his enemies concede that Bill in particular is the sort of person who can charm just about anyone, and make it seem that he understands your point of view. Those skills should make them less divisive, it seems to me, and not moreso.
Other than that there has been a well-funded effort to make the Clintons look bad, for reasons I can only guess at, I can’t think of a single reason why anyone would think those two are “divisive”.
I’m not a fan of the Clintons, but their enemies seem determined to change that.
BTW, another name that’s going to come up in GOP oppo ads on Sen. Obama is likely to be Yesse B. Yehudah (scroll down a bit). I still get an occasional visit by people looking up that name.
Great Links. Thank you.
Chucky (and Harpie): measured by sheer unrelenting quantity, your output is truly impressive. What you are overlooking is the fact that even smear jobs require a minimum amount of ideological and semantic camouflage to be effective. As in: the Evil O is either a terror sympathizer way to the left of McGovern (gasp! the Weather Underground!), OR a trigger-happy Reagan lover “just like GWB”, but not both. Trust me: less can be much much more. At the same time: please don’t stop. I LOVE cheap slasher movies… they are my guilty pleasure.
Guthman Bey -
Urkel Hussein Obama really isn’t that exciting. He’s just a major player in the corrupt Daley machine.
However, his incompetency is a thing to be feared.
“Ooops!I pressed the wrong button Urkel” is very scary!
Smears don’t have to make sense. If they did, then McGovern would have been President. All they have to do is appeal to peoples’ prejudices. All the things LJ mentioned will.
I voted for Hillary in Massachusetts. (Gore didn’t run; Edwards dropped out.) I appreciate much of what you have to say. But you do yourself a disservice with phrases like “recovering latent homosexual” and “affirmative action pandering.”
Just as I remind my friends who worship at the shrine of Obama and dis Hillary that she still may be the nominee, I urge Clinton supporters to realize that he may be the nominee. I’m all for substantive critiques. I’ve no problem with Krugman’s columns. But really, Obama and Clinton are much more alike than either of them is like McCain.
HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN THIS OR HEARD ABOUT THIS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
MAN ACCUSES OBAMA OF DRUG USE AND GAY SEX WHILE A STATE SENATOR.
I don’t find that video very credible.
How about “Obama’s Ties to Terrrorists” as a headline over a write-up about a 200 dollar donation from a University of Illinois professor who was in the 1960’s Weather Underground, and apparently such a criminal that he later became a tenured professor at a mainstream mid-Western public university?
Larry, respectfully, you might be encouraging the sort of tabloid horse puckey that you (thankfully) just pointed out that you don’t support.
Not sure, but I suspect Larry meant that headline to be an example of the kind of thing we can expect from the MSM if Obama gets the nomination.
How does becoming a tenured professor negate being a criminal terrorist?
That isn’t logical.
What are the specifics?
ah, yes, a criminal terrorist!!!!
he’s a tenured professor.
one is left with the impression that if obama farts in an elevator, Larry and Susan are going to announce that he has secretly always been a Colombian drug lord selling nuclear weapons to Syrian terrorists and engaging in man-on-horse sex with small children watching.
i mean, i don’t want to be unfriendly like that, but this site’s attacks on obama have just gotten SO over-the-top! reading this site sometimes is like watching Saturday Night Live lampoon desperate political hatchet men or something.
Obama can be easily criticized by anyone with an ounce of moral integrity and a mind and an attention span and a memory. However, I think the trouble with that is that his REAL failures are just SO CLOSE to the same REAL failures of Hillary that bringing up his real failures exposes a really vacuous choice we have this year, but doesn’t reinforce Hillary’s bid at all.
This is a really sad election. And I really am grossed out by just how much both sides have degenerated into dumb, angry mobs, so quickly.
Banquo why do you torture yourself so?
You are missing the point. These are attacks which the REPUBLICANS will make against Obama. It makes no difference whether they are fair or not. (Just look what they did to the Clintons, Gore and Kerry.)
I urge everyone to read David Ignatius’ column in today’s Wash Post. After writing positive things about Obama he decides NOW is the time to look more closely at Obama in order to avoid buyer’s remorse! Millions have already voted, even those who live in his region. Apparently Igntius does not care if they have buyer’s remorse. This is the kind of build-them-up just to tear-them-down game that journalists like to play, particularly with Democrats.
Please go to the site and leave a comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502962.html
I also wrote to the Post’s ombudman to complain. They need to hear from all of us that this is the kind of journalism that makes a mockery of our democracy. The ombudsman’s email address is:
ombudsman@washpost.com
Banquo,
Some clowns or cowards who ran from Kos to NQ believe that Obama is hiring people to faint.
Want to be an Obama Fainter? Sign up here! w/poll
by Kevvboy
Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:08:27 PM PST
Item currently running on Drudge Report:
FIRED UP AND FALLING DOWN: String of Crowd Fainting Incidents Hits Obama Rallies…
Just back from tonight’s Obama rally in Gobstop, Wisconsin, where 500,000 of the faithful gathered to chant “Yes We Can” in an extremely non-cultish manner.
I fainted three times, and was paid $125 for each faint. The third faint will earn a $50 bonus because I was close enough to the stage that Barack stopped his speech and narrated my faint until the EMTs got me to “wake up” again.
Would you like to be an Obama fainter? Young women are preferred because it increases the “Beatlemania” feeling in the hall and allows the candidate to show maximum caringness and hopeitude during the Revival Period. But there is room for all in the Fainting Tent: young men like myself are just as welcome! Who says Obama is sexist?
Sexy, sure. Sexist? Never. Even though, periodically, he gets to feeling a little up, and thinks some fainting adds to his appeal.
To join the Obama Fainting Club, send a contribution to the campaign and specify SNARK in the tagline.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/16/22147/0346/326/458343
Sounds like “Tent Revival Syndrome”.
Hallelujah! Amen!!
If his words are fake, why not the fainting spells? It the whole movement he is trying to sell and fainting women are a mighty fine prop. He always has the same reply for people who happen, just happen, to call out “I love you”. He always loves “you back”. Don’t know if these little things will be alll that charming after 9 months of them.
He (Ayers) blew things up, domestically, in the 1960’s?
Youthful discretion?
If you excuse those actions, it explains a lot about you.
Denial is a wonderful way to live life, isnt’ it?
You miss the point. Ayers is a terrorist who has not practiced for some years but has not apologized or repudiated his conduct. That relationship is inappropriate for someone who wants to be President.
More importantly is how this info will be used in the campaign. What’s Obama going to do? Argue that is was years ago and doesn’t matter? That won’t float.
LJ
Ayres was arrested after he turned himself in.
Charged.
Wasn’t convicted.
Charges were dropped by the Reagan administration.
His wife Bernardine Dohrn was also arrested.
She did less than a year for refusing to testify against a friend. She is now a professor of Law at Northwestern.
Sainted Ronnie and his AG dropped the charges.
Might not be the best of all possible worlds, but Ayers walked because of another republican screwup. Take it up with them.
Remember when the Bush lovers said he couldn’t have done anything wrong with Harken stock manipulation because the Justice Department investigated, and didn’t file charges?
They neglected to mention that the official doing the investigating was appointed by Bush pere.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
And that Bush was never cleared of the charges. They were just not acted on.
Nobody is going to bring it up in the general if Obama is the nominee. If Obama is the nominee, McCain’s surrogates will play the race card at the grassroots level furiously, trying to scare the hell out of white voters. McCain will attack Obama on the “experience” and “war hero” front. He will accuse Obama (falsely) of being a “liberal”. It will be the same Republican campaign as we always see. He will also try to play up his “straight talk express” credentials, as we have already seen with the public fundraising issue. But he is not going to pull a No Quarter and announce “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. That’s weaker than Rezko and you can see how much the Rezko issue (God, Hillary, next time pick a bad connection there are no photos of you shaking hands with, too) hurt him.
Have seen that, it’s probably a false flag. Something to cover the real scandals. The MN prosecutor there, if I’m not mistaken, was a major Bush enabler who helped Coleman cement his seat for a brief time by politicizing the prosecutor’s office.
I can’t say the same for Axelrod however. The name alone is enough to remind one of right wing uberchickenhawk ‘Hindrocket’ and Power Line/’Powerloins’ both were given some kind of elevated press credibility back into the Jeff Gannon née James Guckert days.
Hope you’re all reading the looseprophead post at FireDogLake that Larry linked to. Holy cow — I hadn’t seen it. It is the best summary of Rezko I’ve seen. And from a long-time attorney who knows his/her stuff.
LINK:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/
If you read the comments to that article, you will see that someone from Daily Kos took issue with LPH’s idea that the law firm was dirty. Being that this was a central premise of the article, it leaves one thinking about the article as a whole.
Her stuff. IIRC, she used to work in the US Attorney’s office in NY City.
Mentioning the Ayers Fund, don’t many charitable organizations function as a front to launder money?
Thank you Larry, for posting on this. It’s breath of fresh air, really. I’ve lost track of how many places I no longer visit because this kind of stuff is not even allowed to be discussed.
I just spent the last seven years disagreeing with this administration’s version of reality only to suddenly find myself disagreeing with many Dem’s version.
I expect people to disagree on politics,on issues,on opinions. I am totally not prepared when we start disagreeing on reality. Reality is non-negotiable! Or so I thought. My mistake.
So yes, absolutely Obama will be attacked. Unfortunately he’s got a lot of baggage and we don’t necessarily know what all is in it. But just the parts that we do know can already be spun into some pretty ugly stuff, once the hounds are unleased.
It seems like people are allowing themselves to be led like lambs to the slaughter. “Yes we can” doesn’t win elections any better then “hope is on the way.”
What happens when Hillary is no longer around to blame everything on? She’s like a buffer for Obama and I think it’s gone to Obama’s head. Lord knows it’s gone to some of his supporter’s heads. I just read somewhere how he’s already faced the worst attacks possible from the “Clinton machine”, so he’s weathered the storm. Ahh gee people, open a window or something, I don’t think you’re getting enough oxygen.
kitty, I think a lot of us lefties/liberals/progressives are in shock to find that a good share of the rhetoric coming from Obama surrogates and supporters towards Hillary Clinton is just as dishonest, just as vitriolic and just as repulsive as what we have heard from the Right.
While spewing their Hillary-Hate they also cover their ears with both hands at the thought, the very thought that their “chosen one” might have a few flaws and/or problems.
I fear once reality sets in, as it will, what will hit the fan won’t be pretty, won’t smell good, and will cover their candidate with something that won’t wear well with the general public. It doesn’t even need to be true. All it takes is enough talking heads spewing the claims and we can all try to endure at least 4 years of President McCain.
larry
you might not have found that video credible but apparently the people at free republic are taking it seriously.
for the past month there have been posts on the video. wonkette has the video on today.
heres an audio link: interview with Sinclair.
http://trp.fileburst.com/TRP_2008.02.08_Larry-Sinclair-Interview.mp3
i just learned about this today. with a little research one can see a lot of people have been talking about this for some time.
Who is sitting on this story and why?
The whole point of your last piece is that the right will say anything. Well if you read the posts on FR you will see that they are attributing to Clinton this guy’s video. They are saying Clinton put him up to it.
To not confront this story now is asking for trouble. It will surface later after the convention.
Does the gay guy from you tube have ties to terrorists, too?
We know the media hasn’t responsibly examined Obama’s credentials — thanks for giving us a look at the man.
Wow, Hillary is by far the better and more electable candidate…I’m not sure why so many democrats are confused by that. Even with Republican strategists infiltrating and trying to throw the nomination to Obama, still if Democrats just recognized that when you are a nation at war you need a Commander in Chief with armed services experience. And, when you are nation with an exploding deficit and a disintegrating middle class you need someone with experience on how to restore the economy. Hillary is the only one who can win the November election…I wish Democrats would recognize that.
Actually, what you need is someone with superior reasoning skills, someone capable of superior reasoning, exhibiting such over a lifetime, say.
And yep, you’re right, out of the whole crew, Hillary is the best…
Thank you for expressing my thoughts so eloquently. The media is really disgusting me. I used to watch a lot of political talk shows, but I am totally turned off these days. They are supposed to be professionals, not showing support to any candidates, but the professionals seem to have lost their credibility. American politics is all about spin. BO cannot cannot win, just as Howard Dean could not. People are dreaming if they think the Republicans won’t question BO’s lack of stance on voting issues. They’ll attack his religious upbringing and his ties to corruption. They’ll make sure everyone knows that Barak Hussein Obama is not fit for America. You are right, Larry. Yes, they will!!
Former Deaniac here, and this is exactly right.
When Howard Dean “screamed” it fed the meme already out there (but dismissed, ignored and ridiculed by his supporters, of which I was one) that he was a hotheaded angry man.
When all the stuff about Rezko et. al. hits the fan, it will completely undercut the meme that Obama is a different kind of politician. Um, no he isn’t. He’s exactly the same as every other politician. AND he’s tied to “terrorist sympathizers” which will scare the beejesus out of righty-leaning Independents.
Of course, this will be mocked, ignored and ridiculed by his supporters. It already is. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I really thought there would be no way the country would elect another Republican after what we just went through. The more I learn about Obama, the more I realize that it certainly can.
Yes We Can
A piece of trivia for the masses.
This slogan is copied from Sammy Davis Jr.’s autobiography Yes I Can
The Prevailing Assumption is that Baracks Chant of “YES WE CAN” is another piece of borrowed material ..It is the translation of Spanish Language Chant…”SI SE PUEDE”..first
used by the United farm Workers and at Pro Immigration Rallys ..
It was first aimed specifically by Obama at the Cilinary Workers
Union in Nevada…That Phrase in Spanish..is plastered all over the walls of the Unions Headquarters..
h
I musta screwed up.
Everybody seems to think that’s the origin. However, if I saw it on TV it must be true. That’s the fallout from Wag The Dog.
Bill Mahr carried the Obama - Sammy Davis Jr. link on his show on Friday.
Maybe the joke’s on Bill, but you tweaked my interest.
What we got here is a problem with mood.
The literal translation and that used by the UFW of the phrase is “It can be done.”
The nortenos and possibly the Spanish-challenged Anglo union organizers of the 1990 LA janitors strike are possibly the people who “colloquially” translated it into “Yes we can”, although the blame could also be cast on the equally Spanish-deaf LA media. The yuppies that spun the Obama slogan wouldn’t know either unless they asked their maids. In any case the present indicative form of the verb is podemos or podamos if it is imperative mood.
RFK borrowed it from the grape pickers, Cesar Chavez.
Chavez’s slogan was “It can be done”, not “Yes we can”
The subtext to my post is why is Mahr, who came out for Obama a couple of weeks ago, fiddling with the origins of Obama’s slogan this week on HBO?
Admittedly it is a very small point.
Obama’s and “The Shawshank Redemption”
Anyone know what Media houses are being 527′ed by RNC? Remember Karl Rove left with the Roledex intact.
See Preview:Heritage Foundation - Kimberley Strassel Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member.
Here’s an Obama speech you’re surely going to love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dboIpZ8ool8
Except it seems as though someone else is giving it.
So the Prophet Obama is a plagiarizer.
Whodda thunk it?
Guess who was Deval Patrick’s campaign manager?
That would be David Axelrod, the guy pulling the strings for Obama.
BTW, I don’t keep track of Deval Patrick, but from what I can gather, it’s seems as though he’s been quite the disaster.
Patrick’s Approval Ratings Take A Nose Dive
by Jon Keller
BOSTON (WBZ) ― An exclusive WBZ Fast Track survey shows Governor Deval Patrick’s job approval rating has taken a major hit. It’s down 20 points in the past month.
http://wbztv.com/politics/Governor.Deval.Patrick.2.585711.html
Hillary Clinton should make this comment after one of Obama’s speeches: “That sure was a great speech Senator Obama just gave. He recites it so much better then Deval Patrick did! No offense Deval.”
I am outraged that just by accident I have learned not just about the video I wrote about earlier but that a lawsuit by Larry Sinclair was filed in Federal Court against Obama, Axelrod, and Dean on February 11, 2008 alleging that they conspired to violate Sinclair’s civil rights after he released his video and made his charges against Obama.
When were the voters supposed to learn about this? After the November election?
“And he [Rezko] is up against Patrick Fitzgerald.”
And one more thing…
In case Fitz happens to develop links to Obama, don’t get no silly delusions about Fitz being discredited for bias. He’s the real deal Untouchable. Elliot Ness would be jealous.
You’re right; if Fitz could have been brought brought down, the repubs surely would have kneecapped him during the Libby or Conrad Black trials. But don’t sell the Obamatons short. Although many of them were enraptured by Fitzgerald during the Libby trial, they’ll turn on him like rabid dogs if their new idol is in danger. It might be fun to watch.
Just as they have all ready turned on Wes Clark, Joe & Valerie Wilson, Bobby Kennedy Jr. and on and on… According to Obama supporters all those people, as well as any other Clinton supporters or endorsers are doing it out of sheer self-interest in order to get a place in a perceived Clinton Administration.
Whereas Obama supporters and endorsers do it simply because they are pure of heart. And people do actually believe such drivel.
My first inkling of how bad the bots are came when they savaged Paul Krugman. Up until Krugman criticized Obama’s so-called health care plan, he was the toast of Orange State (formerly known as dkos). As soon as he dissected the plan and found it wanting, Krugman became persona non grata to many of his former fans. It’s just part of a pattern of demonization applied to anyone not sufficiently worshipful of the Chosen One.
The whole cult phenomenon is really amazing to watch and quite horrifying.
I think reading this site I am convinced that Obama does not have the only cult.
I just learned today that Kos front page poster, who goes by the DHinMI, is actaully Dana Houle, FORMER Chief of Staff for Congressman, Paul Hodes of NH.
What I’d like to know, is why Dana Houle is a FORMER, after less than a year on the job?
And I am beigining to wonder if Kos is not somehow trying to be a kingmaker, and is associated somehow with Obama and his campaign?
Patrick Fitzgerald is not a weak man.
It’s so refreshing to watch a man who is not only highly intelligent, but also ethical.
Having been in this intellectual desert the past 8 years, in terms of smart men, men who work within the parameters of US law, you know, as opposed to Karl Rove’s failed juke joint, Fitzgerald, (like Joe Wilson) is rain, cultural rain.
WE all sleep a little better at night knowing there are men who obey the law AND protect the government, most ably.
A chorus of “Can we do it?’ Bob the builder says “YES We CAN”. Its been a catchcry of British Aust NZ kids for about 8 yeas.
I’m pretty sure that The Washington Times already has a banner headline ready for a cold Wednesday November morning - “No, They Can’t!”
And below it, a big map featuring a LOT of red.
Heroism
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
Biography of a “hero”
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_unfit_2.htm
Documentation of “heroism” as collaboration.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm
Then there is the little matter of the Keating 5 and McCain’s direct involvement and profiting from the Savings and Loan mess.
His shabby treatment of the relatives of POW/MIAs over the years of his senate service.
As we move toward an election where the vietnam war will be fought for one last time. It is as worthwhile to avoid the McCain kool-aid as it is to avoid the Obama koolaid and the Clinton kool-aid.
McCain’s heroism is as a media created and directed narrative. He will remain a media favorite as long as the liquor cabinet on his tour bus is well stocked, and as long as he gives his off the record chats. So it would be well to remember that while the dems hammer out who will carry the standard for the party after august. This fictional hero is the one who will carry the opposition’s standard. Time to start sticking forks into the windbag and helping it on its road to self destruction.
Most of us can remember the attacks on Bill Clinton for his Vietnam war era choices. Those attacks will come back, repackaged against his wife. If Bill is front and center in her campaign they will be used, if he is downplayed in her campaign they will be used with a twist to fit the narrative of Clinton triangulation.
It is harder to use Vietnam against Obama if only because Obama was not even born when the first Eisenhower era “advisors” went into Vietnam and Obama was 14 and too young to enlist when Vietnam finally drew to its close in 1975. So if it is not possible to directly tie obama to vietnam, the next best thing for the republicans is to find some old lefties preferably ineptly violent ones and make them into bestest friends or close advisors to Obama.
You all saw it done to Kerry, and you all have asked yourself why didn’t Kerry fight harder. I don’t have an answer for why Kerry didn’t fight, nor do I have an answer for why the democratic party didn’t do more and do it more harshsly to the swiftboaters.
Well now the repbulicans will be presenting the nation with the rethug version of Kerry.
Example: a silver star award requires two witnesses.
For McCain’s silver star award there are no witnesses. His silver star is a fantasy award.
Kerry at least had witnesses for his valour, for McCain all there are are the tapes and broadcasts he made for his captors.
Dems cannot fight McCain by talking about his military service. That’s promised to backfire. He’s setting himself up to be the tough on terror candidate, the experienced military guy. His waterboarding vote proved that. And the rules are differant for Republicans, he isn’t viewed as flip flopping or caving in, he’s viewed as correcting his position and making a hard choice to protect the country.
They won’t go after Obama because of Vietnam, they’ll go after him because of his ties to an indicted Syrian business man. A man who’s company got a contract in Iraq to build a power plant.
Obama supporters have him up on a pedestol so high it kind of boggles my brain. But what happens when they discover he’s human? I’m frightened. I think by the time the Republicans have finished defining Obama for everyone, his own supporters won’t recognize him and won’t go to the polls. The higher your expectations, the greater your disapointment. In the end, the idealistic Dems will stay home in disgust. The Republicans will come forth in droves to protect us from the guy who will have been shown to be a horrendous liberal and a terrorist sympathizer.
I’m afraid you’re right. My only question is: how does this get blamed on the Clintons? Because you know it will be.
Maybe if the Clinton’s would stop with the “most polite campaign in history” stuff concerning old John Keating5 McCain it would help matters.
Maybe if Bill didn’t attempt to speak for GHWB as being willing to help a Hillary administration and having old GHWB lay the smack down on him the very next day.
Does the democratic party want to destroy a democrat or do they want to demolish the the rethug candidate and put a dem in the white house for the forseeable future?
Did you know that JMcC was the only R of the K5? And that John Glenn, whose endoresement HClinton just sought (I think she got it) was another?
I wish these things were not true, but there they are. I think this is one reason we keep hearing about “bipartisanship:” a reminder of the threat to start talking about how interests were always able to “buy” some members of both “parties,” especially in the 80s when a lot of the senior people in Congress were just hitting their stride, just in time to maximize the cynicism return.
Vietnam baggage, Hell!
With all due respect I disagree.
McCain’s military record is hollow and can be exposed and its hollowness highlighted.
His Keating 5 fiasco is all republican theft and can be used
His flip-flops on torture have to be used.
Why do you think that taking on a collaborator is bound to backfire? I do not understand the logic of that. We know how to do it. There are enough dem strategists who know how to do it. There are more than enough republican voters who despise McCain already to make it an even easier sell.
Any contracts let in Iraq are let through Republicans. So if someone received a power plant contract it was because that someone had grease with the republicans running Iraq.
According to his voting record, Obama is liberal, a bit more so than Hillary a bit less so than Kucinich. I have no idea where you get the terrorist sympathizer thing from. Obama has voted for every iraq funding proposal since he entered the senate. He and McCain were both somewhere else when the Kyl-Liberman vote occured.
McCain is a 72 year old, mentally challenged, scarecrow of an opponent. Every fake thing about him from his heroism that isn’t, to his flip flops on torture which directly put american service people in horrendous jeopardy is fair game.
McCain to the troops: “If you should find yourself a POW sometime in the future, it is perfectly ok if your captors torture you, because your country supports torture of military captives.” “Sorry bout that but I had to sell out American troops once again to get the endorsement of some terminal blowhard in the 2008 primaries.”
I agree and I have been following the blog called REZKOWATCH - Whoever does the blog has the facts on the Rezko situation and Obama’s connections.
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/
You cannot expose McCain’s military record when you’re running a guy with no military experience. In political hands this will look like “terrorist sympthizer” (based on his ties to Rezko which will be exagerated) versus “American hero”.
The reality of the situation isn’t necessarily relevant in politics. It’s all about how you spin the message.
Someone clever might be able to portray McCain as harmful to our troops.I think advocating torture is harmful to the troops. Maybe it could be done, but it’s a slippery slope. As I said the rules are differant when it comes to Republicans. The Swiftboat attacks against Kerry weren’t really tied to Republicans, although most of us knew better.
Regardless, it’s an ugly game to play. I can’t stand McCain, I sure don’t want to see him as President, and yet even I have some sympathy for the guy when I hear the attacks against him based on his time as a POW. The last thing you want to do is unintentionally inspire sympathy for the guy.
If you are really willing to grant different rules to republicans, why bother to hold an election at all? Just coronate the sucker.
McCain harmed his fellow POWs when he collaborated with the Viet Cong, he harmed them again with his shoddy treatment of the POW/MIA hearings and has harmed them again with his approval vote on torture.
That doesn’t take any cleverness. The tapes he made for the VietNamese are available still.
The sham documentation for his frutisalad is available.
Just a few wee pokes at his overinflated image and he will self destruct. He always has. He is a bully and not much else. Just a few will directed needles and he will blow up and start spewing the Fs and the CSs and the MFs that he is famous for already.
Or you could just give him a pass because he is a republican and the dems allow the republicans to play by “different rules.”
Hillary can have Wes Clark critique McCain.
Kerry tried to minimize his efforts, afraid it would make him look less a leader. He was still kerry’s most effective security surrogate.
Oh CK, I didn’t make the rules. I don’t even like the rules. I don’t want people to be given a free pass. Obviously I’m not the one running things or they wouldn’t be this messed up, LOL.
I’m just saying that given the current political climate, I don’t think that would be a good strategy. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid concern or that people don’t have a justified complaint against McCain.
Don’t you think that because so many people believe that John McCain is a hero and a maverick and a straight talker, whether or not it is true, that it attacking him on those points might backfire? Especially the hero part?
People don’t like giving up their strong beliefs and can turn on you when you try to tell them the truth.
I also think it’s a big mistake, that some on the left are making all ready to attack him on his age. I do think he’s too old, and I am an old bat myself, but if it is done in the wrong way and if older voters perceive it as another bit of age discrimination it could backfire big time.
Just something else for me to worry about I guess because I know a lot of older voters that are thoroughly turned off by the Youth Cult surrounding Obama.
ANything can backfire. Doing nothing just grants the enemy the initiative and the high ground simultaneously.
Attack the core of the false imagery. Let the brave hero collaborator defend selling out the US military to the Vietnamese. Point out his feet calves, thighs, and pelvis of clay. Nail him on his whoremongering and adultery. Burn his ass on his straight talk on torture. He was against it before he was for it.
It is not important to tell the truth to the people, it is important to create the situations where the enemy tells the truth about himself, even if inadvertantly. And Keating5 McCain has one of those bully motor mouths that can be trusted to self destruct if you set him up properly. Do it now, you get to face Huckabee in the general, do it after the republican convention you get to destroy both a fake hero and his party for many years to come.
Faint heart never won BIG REWARDS.
Us old fogies KNOW that the children are revolting. Damn cult kiddies loving them some Frank Sinatra after ww2, some Kennedy in 60, some beatles in 63, which one was yours Marge? Mine was the Stones. Mick and Keith and Bill Wyman ( evil old man he was with his thirteen year old wife back in the day) and Brian and Charlie. And we also know that Old Ronnie was Alzheimer’s ridden before he left the white house, we know what the ravages of cancer are and that old Keating5 McCain has had two bouts with it already. Another bout is not impossible to comtemplate.
The presidency is no place for a mental incompetent no matter what his age; just look at Boomer George ( George is the same age as Hill and Bill, 12 years younger than McCain ). Oh My I just love me some more pictures of Old Man McCain doing that reach around thing on young Georgie Boy.
It is always a good strategy to hit your enemies at their weak points. It is a better strategy to know that those apparanent weak points are really weak not sucker’s bait. McCain’s military and security greatness is mostly hot air pumped into an empty sack.
His great heroism was to cave in 4 days and tell his captors who his father was so that he could get special medical treatment. Some of the other officer rank POWs not born to a commanding admiral held out for years and didn’t cave. And then there were the enlisted men who had no useful military knowledge to trade you can visit their graves. You can read their names on that goddam wall. Every one of those names had parents, family, offspring, every one of them gets to see their child’s name in bronze.
And then there is Hero John Keating5 McCain. Collaborator/Adulterer/Senator he gets a pass?
You didn’t make the rules, are you willing to keep accepting them?
“When were the voters supposed to learn about this? After the November election?”
After he gets the nomination away from Hillary. Then he’ll be fair game!
The military will turn on him if he goes after McCain on Viet Nam. Did Barack serve in the military? They think because Bush got away with this tactic in 04 that they will, too. Geez guys, step away from the Kool-Aid.
Speaking of Sammy Davis, I think Sammy’s very popular song, way back when, The Candy Man describes the Obama Campaign and His supporters to a ‘T:’ SILLY CHILDREN who believe in fairy tales.
The military that has donated more money to Ron Paul than to all the other repubs combined?
The Military that has donated more money to Obama than to any other dem?
Maybe the Petraeus type perfumed princes will get their nickers in a twist knowing that Obama might not give them the time of day, the rest will be happy to come home from that stupid war and stupid war management. The State’s national guards units will be happy to get back to wives and families and the Bush depression.
McCain is the empty suit in this election.
The objective mimi is to elect more and better democrats to the state legislatures, the state governor’s offices, the house of representatives, the senate; and to put a democrat ass in the oval office. The objective is not to indulge in a circular firing squad for the masturabtory pleasure of destroying a democrat. SO whichever dem it is that has the coattails is the one to head the ticket.
On a personal basis, purely personal, I am not happy with 36 years of two friendly families owning the presidency. Not when each of those families is already grooming the next generation of presidents from their families. Start with GHWB as the forced veep on Saint Ronnie. There are no other people in the whole 330,000,000 american citizens who are good enough to have the office? Not one?
So running on repub talking points vis a vis Social Secuirty will work?
Obama is going after hillary as well. That means he’s going after Health Care. There goes the Democrats for another decade thanks to him offering the top issue for his own political gain.
He did the same thing with Harvard’s school paper, split the Dems and sold out to the Repubs.
Did the same in his Congressional district.
I am not an obama fan, if hillary can destroy McCain and the repubs, bring her on. Oh wait, if you bring her on, it will be the “most polite” election ever. ( Let me translate that, dems will not destroy rethugs this year either.) Neither one of the remaining dems is awe-inspiring but they are what you have to work with.
I wish I understood this infatuation with social security, ss might be in danger 40 years from now. SS is certainly a less current issue than Iraq, Inflation, Energy shortages, job losses and the failure of the USA to create any new jobs in the last 8 years.
George has tried the SS issue for the last 8 years and failed to get any traction on it with the populace.
Two differing models of health care, good, neither model is going to be put into place anytime soon. Health care is not even close to the top issue with the voters IRAQ is. War is. Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? Are your neighbours? Is your retirement package better off now? Have you had a raise that covers the real rate of inflation? Come august the issue will be Economic depression
Hey Larry,
I enjoyed a few of your recent posts as tonic to a media gone Obama-gooey.
I have to say that as an HRC supporter, I was unimpressed by the material here against Obama.
For example, I watch Rashid when he is on Charlie Rose - he is scarcely someone to be afraid of. As for Rezko, sounds more like an innuendo looking for a fact. Until one shows up, I dont think innuendo is enough. Of course, the rightring is not known to be thruthful so your headsup here is appreciated.
I do agree he isnt the shining knight he is made out to be and I think the bubble will make a big popping sound when it bursts not too long from now. No one can live up to that kind of ridiculous hype and the media is notoriously cynical.
Hope you are right and will wait for the sweet sound of a pop.
However the media has always adored McCain and given him a break that no Democrat has ever gotten. If the election comes down to McCain vs Obama there is nothing that the right will find too loathesome to throw and Obama. And nothing the media will not parrot whether true or not.
Try doing a google search.
Other than that, you just look disingenuous, uninformed, lazy, or an incredibly specious thinker.
You’re not too familiar with Fitzgerald. That’s okay, he has a way of making folks familiar with the trials he prosecutes. Rezko’s scandal is a real item. Fitz’ s conviction rate is quite impressive. He doesn’t bring a trial unless he can get a win.
He’s got the most Al Qaeida convictions in the USA and the Western world. He’s brought down Cheney’s Chief of Staff. He’s busted a Gambino.
This multinational pwanbroker Rezko will be light work. Fitz has tracked foreign funding vs. terrorists and against mobsters. He’ll shine a bright light on every item.
Pass the popcorn.
So Larry, any way to get to the bottom of this article? The author claims that Obama is actually “Arab-American” and that his paternal ancestors were slave traders.
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html
It’s the old “one drop” rule updated to replace Black with Semitic? The east coast of Africa and its inhabitants have had trade and sexual relations with the arab peninsula and its inhabitants going back to the dawn of sailing. I’m not sure that Mr Cohen, Mr. Lamb or the Jewish Information Network ( one of Mr. Lamb’s more prominent employers) really want to be going this route.
Nor do I think that pointing out that slave traders often give motherhood to their female slaves is an indictment of anything concerning Obama. But hey if this is the way you want to take him down, it worked for George in South Carolina in 2000 against Hero McCain.
Carolyn, just keep digging and hyperventilating.
If this is the stuff you hope will sink Obama,
you’d better ask Larry to come up with some better dirt.
Like investigate if Obama was a bed wetter till he was 4, or that he is not a consciencious tooth flosser…
sajo,
What will sink Obama now is being beaten by HRC.
If he makes it to the GE - which I seriously doubt -the stuff Larry is posting will indeed sink him and McCain will win. The GOP makes things up with nothing to go on - this is stuff they can make a go on…and will.
Anybody watch nature shows? Obama supporters are starting to remind me of the wildebeests. Every year they cross the river. The crocodiles are smart, they let a few pass by unharmed, untouched. The wildebeests think it’s safe to follow. Once the entire herd is in the water, the crocodiles strike.
That’s what these primaries are like. It’s a set up. The media is not being kind to Obama because he’s made of teflon, they’re waiting for the time to be right so they can seize their moment.
I hope Hillary wins the nomination. We need someone who can fight, someone who has been tested. But regardless, please let’s not be like the wildebeests. The attacks will come even if we pretend otherwise.
kitty -
Yes, I watch nature shows and yes, perfect analogy.
Well, if you want the same-old, same-old, secretive, triangulating, manipulating set up, then Hillary is your girl. So Bill can go influence peddling, like he has been doing lately, and raking in 20 millions a shot, introducing rogue billionaires to rogue nations to do business together.
But here is Maureen Dowd:
“Hillary could be ready on Day 1 — to make up her Enemies List and banish Overkill Bill to a cubbyhole in the Old Executive Office Building. But it’s Day 2 that I’m really worried about. “
Maureen Dowd…mmmm On the Seven day she rested?
I will make ya virtual pinky bet; that Obama has no tools or skills to even expose the people / swamp that is in drivers seat and in control of maintaining the facade of what you refer to as:
“the same-old, same-old, secretive, triangulating, manipulating set up”.
Sajo -
Maureen Dowd is just jealous. She can’t stand a strong woman who keeps her hair out of her eyes and actually looks you in the eye when she speaks to you. Like dowdy Maureen has a clue what the Clintons will do. The Dionne Warwick Maureen Dowd network!
Burt Bacharach and Dionne Warwick were a genius pairing.
Dionne Warwcik and the propelling bass line under the Bacharach melody, master, just master.
The answer to everything Obama is not “but hillary…”
See, that’s the whole problem. If obama wins the nomination, what are people going to do when Hillary is no longer around to provide a buffer for him? Do you think an effective defense against McCain will be, “So what? Hillary’s more triangulating then me?”
From Larry..
“If you think for a minute that the Republican party–who used Willie Horton on Michael Dukakis to devastating effect, who portrayed triple amputee and veteran Max Cleland as a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden, and convinced many voters that decorated combat veteran John Kerry was a fraud–will give Obama a pass come the fall then you are in serious denial.”
Lets try to clarify something here.
I whole hearted agree with Larry’s statement. Absolutely the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Repug slime machine does not give ANYONE a pass.
I for one have never said or never will say that Hillary, or Obama deserve a pass.
It would seem however,that the issue here is, to many of you Hillary supporters, that the rest of us are blinded by Obama and are oblivious to his baggage.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What we object to is the daily trashing of Obama and when we try to point out that Hillary is not a saint, either we are accused of “drinking the Obama Koolaid” or “under his spell”.
All we would like is to at least have some time discussing the issues of this campaign not just who has the most baggage or who is getting a free ride by the media. I think Karl Rove and his band of merry men are thrilled to death that all this infighting is going on, as it will make there job easier.
is there anyway we can tone down some of the rhetoric here? If we are attracting ppl from KOS and other places lets try to show them that we are still a blog that encourages open and healthy dissent, and not a “cult” for either Hillary or Obama.
Here is a quote from upthread..
Comment by Banquo’s Ghost | 2008-02-17 10:46:21
“I think reading this site I am convinced that Obama does not have the only cult”
Banquo’s Ghost, if you are new to NQ, welcome.
For you Hillary supporters and Obama supporters look at what she/he said.
Thats what I am talking about. The last thing we should be is a haven for cult followings of either Hillary or Obama.
Should we and do we have strong support for and lots of discussion about both Hillary and Obama?
YES!!!!
Should we let these differences degenerate into cult koolaid drinking day after day with increasingly caustic comments and exchanges?
NO!!!
Susan you once told me to chill out, please try to apply this to yourself as well (no meaness intended)
Lastly thank God for Larry (or should I say “hats off to Larry” the old Del Shannon song but of course we know Larry is a gentleman who wouldnt break any hearts rights LOL) who still believes in the right of free speech and dissent and practices it on this blog.
You know, Bill, people here recognize the Obama slime as the Rove slime.
So sometimes, the attempts to tell people to cool it falls on deaf ears, simply because the reasoning the Obamabots exhibit is as poor as the Rove set, simply, their arguments are inferior, their PR templates even less intelligent, they can’t recognize their enemies, or how their enemies might be manipulating them, they come in with the same old sorry stuff, in the same old sorry way, unwilling to admit there might be a problem for them, time after time, after time.
This is a godsend, an inferior enemy in denial, you know?
And if you can’t see it, I’m sorry, but others can.
Some people are simply smarter than Karl Rove, or Kos.
And the usual attempts to discredit, or ignore, don’t cut it, because no one respects Rove, or his acolytes, so BFD. What’s the greater strategy, how IS Rove being gamed?
For all the threat he’s supposed to represent, Bush, and the republicans, keep losing, the American EMPIRE keeps losing, whereas the American REPUBLIC seems to be gaining.
Why?
Rove can’t figure it out, not too smart, now , is he, he sure hasn’t updated, that does tend to happen. Perhaps it’s his own private reality.
Bill, I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I’ve heard way too many Obama supporters repeating things that are not true and rejecting things that are, and all because they’ve put Obama up on a pedestal. It is very much like a fundamentalist’s or cultist’s blind faith and refusal to see ANY fault with their candidate (until the honeymoon is over and it’s too late, of course).
One example, they claimed that Clinton had corporate special interest supporters. When I asked about the pharmaceutical companies who donated to Obama, they brought up the Hedge Fund Managers who donated to Edwards (and Romney, BTW).
Now, which of our current and former candidates have made it abundantly clear that they intend to raise taxes? Edwards, of course. So why would a bunch of people who are enjoying the biggest tax loop hole (perhaps in US history) donate to Edwards? What “special interest” can there be there? In my view, they themselves believe they make too much money (those who didn’t think so voted Romney). Is that a ’special interest’? What special interest could it be? There is no one market segment or industry that hedge funds cover (in fact, they can be anything; they are private funds).
But these Obama supporters were sure that Edwards was dirty because he got money from these private individuals, and that made the drug company tributes to Obama OK.
Next, the Tony Rezko thing. Similarly, it was dismissed out of hand. This two days after the bastard was arrested.
This is not logical nor rational. This is worship. To criticize that seems to me to be not only legitimate, but perhaps even the responsible thing to do.
Doesn’t mean Hil is an angel. Just means Barack is not the second coming.
I read all about Ayers and his darling wife also that they have two children named Zayd and Malik.(wikipedia)
Interesting. What could be going on at the Woods Fund that they would hire this complete nutjob Ayers? This is really some smelly fish here. What an eye-opener.
One has to wonder whether Ayers sentiments might not be attuned to Islamic Jihad. After all it’s the only revolutionary movement that has actually damaged the United States. Something he has been advocating for his whole life.
How could Obama be in the same room with this dirtbag?
How could Obama be in the same room with this dirtbag?
Opportunity is the American Experess gold card of American Politics and power. For those that seek it and those that have it.
Who is deluded here?
I mention that Bill Clinton’s influence peddling netting him tens of millions is going to be examined
(not to mention Hillary’s benefectors) and all you could say is a snide remark about Maureen Dowd.
I let you stew and regurgitate your own venomous juices for a while…So long
It was just a pinky bet! So I have stewed long enough? Sorry if I offended you. I think Ms Dowd is a bit twisted thats all. I have no beef with ya.
Bill Clinton has talked about a micro company that sold used glass in Kenya(?) That many people were able to read but could not due to a lack of a simple aid such as reading glasses is a rogue deal?
I will readily concede to you that Hillary has her benefectors as do many including Barak. It’s just when Barak gets up and says we don’t take special interest money it is a flat out lie.
“introducing rogue billionaires to rogue nations”
Claification please?
Clarification:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=all
CK; I get the “networking” status quo thing but
Kazakhstan = rogue nation?
Canadian financier = rogue billionaire?
(It asked me to log in to the NYT; I rather not)
TWK
It’s a long article. If I summarize it I will inevitably either spin it or omit something worthwhile. Give NYT a fake id or a hotmail email. In a way, it is very similar to the NRG energy deal. Big dollars into clinton’s charity, a good deal that requires more than accounting facts to convince a dicatator, Uranium. And a bit of contradicting the US State department stance on various eurasian situations by Bill. Followed up by further meetings and denials of same.
Thanks…I will check it was an alias..
Is this a Hillary site? I only see her banner for donations and not also Obamas. Just curious.
Not a Hillary site per se, but our hosts have strong opinions.
Thanks for the affirmation.
Theyll use 527s to run commercials about Rezko, Obamas “separatist” church, etc… just like the Swiftboaters. The McCain campaign is already thinking about that. Thats what McKinonns remark was about. He’s setting it up for when these ads are run against Obama they can say “Look we said back in February that we werent going to go negative, and we havent.” Of course, it wont be them it’ll be 527s working on their behalf.
He missed more than half the VA Committee meetings for the 109th Congress. Don’t think that will pass, it
s already coming up on some of the right leaning media servers that get these stories started online.
On the dreaded Ayers-Obama connection:
If a 200.00 donation to the Obama campaign in 2001 from a professor in Illinois, who served with him on an anti poverty group,and who was a member of a radical group BEFORE OBAMA WAS BORN, is going to cause Obama’s downfall, then Larry and friends should start worrying about Hillary Clinton, who is married to the guy who actually granted clemency to two 60’s radicals, who had been convicted of federal crimes.(See Susan Rosemberg, Weather Underground, convicted of explosives charges, Brinks truck robbery, and Linda Evans, serving 40 years )
I can’t believe Larry Johnson is involved in this Obama-mongering
Hillary is unelectable, and she is a moderate Republican masquerading as a Democrat.
If Obama also turns out to be unelectable, then we are doomed.
Not that they count the votes anyway, I just hoped that the overwhelming majority that would vote for Obama would prevent them from defrauding this election like the last two.
It was Al Gore who first brought up Willie Horton when he ran against Dukakis for the nomination because voters should know if a candidate thinks murderers should leave prison on weekends. How was this a GOP smear? If Obama is buddies with a guy who bombed Federal buildings, then Hillary is a fool for not getting the word out!
Wait till we find out all the other info that comes out from people who used to party with Obama, and so on. Who knows what secrets will come out? It may not dissuade his supporters from their worship of him, but I bet the Independents will be inclined to abandon him in droves, and so will the women.
Hillary is so much more prepared to be president. I hope to God she gets this nomination or else the Democrats will have, once again, shot themselves in the foot—and their goes our hope for real , good, change.
Is the current withholding of White House and Tax records part of Hillary’s “preparedness”? Hillary and Bills “parties” (and McCain’s for that matter) will put Obama’s to shame.
Dead On
I have been commenting on this dynamic since Chris Matthews raised the question can Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton. He then started his own campaign to make sure Obama did just that.
Recently, the media is making the point Obama has more money then Hillary Clinton. You would to if the media was taking your tap. Right now, if you put a price tag on how much the right-wing media is spending, on Obama’s behave, to see Clinton defeated, you would have enough to run two presidential campaigns. Obama does not have to spend a dime. The media has his back. My hats off to Larry for this article. The Obama hopefuls are like fascist leaders who want to kill any opposition. You better not say anything bad about Obama.
Joseph
Interesting. Longstanding Obama supporter and close personal friend (helped the Obamas get their new home) Tony Rezko goes on trial for bribery and corruption in Chicago on MARCH 3. His association with Barack Obama has been downplayed by the MSM in what appears to be effective self-censure.
The Texas Primary is MARCH 4. MARCH 4, and I wonder how many Texas voters know about Obama’s deep, personal ties to a crook like Tony Rezko. I’d say, not enough. So this needs to be aired above all in TEXAS. Needs to be shouted from the rooftops, how the original trial date–FEB. 25, which would have allowed full publicity of Rezko’s close association with Obama in plenty of time for Texas primary voters to understand its implications and eliminate Obama from serious consideration by Texas voters–has been instead moved up to THE DAY BEFORE THOSE PRIMARIES, and I bet won’t get any publicity (in Texas, anyway) even before the March 4 TX primary.
Seems like “Yes We Can” is to be the new mantra of corruption in the Democratic Party–and, should the superdelegates be so foolish as to pick Obama as their candidate rather than Hillary, will signal the true death knell for the Democratic Party. The publicity about Rezko, etc. will then come out–when it’s too late to take back the candidacy mantle from Obama–and McCain, now a pathetic lame-duck Republican candidate almost on a par with Huckabee–will win in a landslide.
And the Republican Party, now on life-support, will get a new lease on life that, right now, it only dares to hope that it will. Nice going, Karl…looks like you win again.
Val -
I wouldn’t be on this website, but for wondering who Barack Hussein Obama was and having to do research to learn anything about the enigma.
Just the fact that he wrote two crappy get rich quick books trying to cash-in on his speech giving powers shows how he’s all about the money yet even these contrived books contain enough reasons to not vote for him.
Add Barack Hussein Obama’s asking Antonin Rezko for a mansion and he’s just a vote for puttng the corrupt Daley machine in the White House.
At least the Bushies pretend to care, but not these flat out crooks from Illinois. It’s all one big pay to play for them. They make Arizona look lame.
The Charlatan from Chicago is an opportunist and the lambs are being drawn to the altar only to be slaughtered by Rove & Co in the fall.
Texas gave us the burning Bush, but I’ll love them if they save us from Obama!
[...] that the right is going to take a supposed Rashid Khalidi-Barack Obama connection and run with it. Of course there is no real Obama-Khalidi connection, as the Edward Said professor of Arab studies [...]
If Obama beat the Clinton machine, he will win the general election, period.
Not so with Clinton.
Also, McCain has changed course so many times his “straight talk express” has run off the road and is running through a corn field destroying a crop of voters.
I also think either Obama or Clinton will be preferred and I think the media helped to set them up as the two frontrunners…. all but ignoring Kucinich and sidelining Edwards toward the end.
The owners of the media know that they can find lots of ways to sabotage both a woman whose husband was president and who is behaving rather obnoxiously lately… or a black man.
Demonization will be done….
Kucinich was the preferred candidate but he couldn’t even get into the debates which he deserved to do.
Edwards is a strong white man who threatened to stand up against the corporations.
Sadly the message in the above article is one which cannot be ignored… Obama and his people had better do something to overcome these things…the Republicans don’t play fair…never knew how..never will!
we do need hope and the hope is somehow the public will somehow respond to a democratic candidate and not buy into the republican dirt
Right-Wing Media Takes Barack Obama’s Tab
The plan is to out spend Hillary Clinton. Force her to compete with Barack Obama’s endless campaign dollars. Myth number two: Barack Obama is good at raising money.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is not out raising Clinton; he has not had to spend any money in the same way Clinton has because the media is spending millions on anti-Clinton ads and propaganda. Clinton can’t say she as a cold without it showing up in the media, in big bold letters, “Hillary spreads more then her message.” Don’t think I am exaggerating. The other day, in her attempt to honor the words of her fallen heroes, the headlines noted “Hillary Hears Voices.” If she can fight through this endless one sided right-wing rooted attacks, she would have proved she has the “metal” to be president and will get my undivided support.
Barack Obama lost my support when he refused to acknowledge Clinton was being attacked by the MSM. Instead, he tallied up all the negative work and propaganda the right-wing attack dogs put out on Clinton has if he was beating her by himself. If he would of clarified “who” was attacking Clinton 24/7, I would remained an excited Obama supporter. Added to that is his constant reference to Republican politicians and Republican ideologies. Barack supporters act like no one has tried to unite in this way before. He is not a first; many have tried and many have failed.
Obama has to give the Republicans something for their handy work. Don’t forget, the one consistent thing Republicans are good for is greed. They are not helping Obama because he is Black. They don’t do the help the Black guy thing unless it has a return. Does the president of the United States sound like a nice return? I would think so.
Joseph
About Ayers, what is the evidence that he threw bombs?
About Khalidi, Obama has already said he will meet with Iranian leaders, and Cubans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Syrians and others during his first year in office, so what’s the big deal about Khalidi? Obama’s best defense against these kinds of innuendos is to be open about his position. If Rezko is convicted, is there proof that Obama took money he, Obama, knew to be dirty? Or is this just the same kind of dishonest manipulative attempts at character assassination that Lee Atwater apologized for when terminally ill? Obama is NO Michael Dukakis. Dukakis had no charisma, no real idealism or qualitative difference from the old guard politicians. Yes, Obama is going to get hammered if he is nominated. Certainly we all know HIllary will be hammered, and we have already seen how lamely she has dealt with some of it over the years. We don’t know how well Obama can work with it, it partly depends on whether the media is biased in his favor or not. But we’ve had a taste of how Obama handles mudslinging from the Clinton campaign. He disposed of the cocaine use drama with honest open comments that defused the media energy behind the story. I am staying tuned to see how he deals with what is still to come from Hillary.
In your blog, you didn’t present anything that Obama hasn’t been open about, as far as his political positions. An anonymous source said that Obama has expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians, in an excerpt you quote. and sympathy for the Palestinians is a bad thing because…..?
I hope the people who want to give a try to this rather different kind of candidate will outnumber those who don’t. I think he has a better chance against McCain because of his style and personal skills and qualities. I’ve never thought Hillary could beat a Republican because of her many vulnerabilities and the not so cool way she’s handled attacks in the past. So my hopes are on Obama, and not naive about the attacks that are being planned and timed as skillfully as possible. Sometimes things work out in surprising ways that nobody predicted. We’ll see.
Wow, what a bunch of right-wing fear mongering pussies on this blog. You people are as advertised- a bunch of paranoid, racist, little scary girls. Obama will bury McCain’s old ass in the general election. I guess you fools will be once again reduced to listening to other right-wing sissy boys/girls on a.m. radio. What out of touch losers you all are. Get a fucking life and join the 21st century you paranoid bastards…
“little scary girl”
“sissy boys/girls”
Whatever happened to those halcyon bygone days of girly men? Or are “sissy boys/girls” some sort of equivalent transgender concoction?
Ah you kids and your sex changes!
Memo to Fish & Game: Inquire about this season’s fuckwit tags.
I had not heard of your site before, but someone pointed me to it. I’m so glad they did, I have not had such a good laugh in a long time.
Thanks again, and keep up the hilarious articles!
f8e8d298b0d3
f8e8d298b0d3cb69f7d0
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]
[...] No He Can’t Because Yes They Will [...]