One More Thought On Barack Obama and William Ayers
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on February 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM in Current Affairs
I realize I made some of you uncomfortable by using the analogy of the Nazi guard. Let me stipulate that I am not equating William Ayers’ crimes with those of Nazi death camp guards. I am simply making the point that there are certain acts which, notwithstanding the passage of time, are not easily forgiven. And William Ayers’ prior conduct is a cause for concern.
I would not have a problem with William Ayers if he called what he did the mistakes of a misguided youth. But that is not the case. He has refused to go down that road. In fact, on the day of the 9-11 attacks, as most Americans mourned the lives lost by fellow citizens, Ayers told a New York Times reporter:
I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.
Call it arrogance. Call it hubris. I call it inexcusable. American and foreign citizens had been murdered in the most awful fashion by fanatics bent on pursuing their sense of justice and this guy regrets he had not set off more bombs when he was engaged in his own fanatical pursuit.
So, why does Barack Obama continue to associate with this clown after 9-11? Why does Barack Obama continue to sit on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers? In 2002 Ayers and Obama give $35,000 to the Arab American Action Network (which was founded by Rashid Khalidi). These are not guys who saw each other across the room and never spoke. They were friends. They met together regularly and voted together to give money to other people.
I value the importance of friends. But I don’t make friends with former terrorists who are unrepentant. And I certainly won’t continue a friendship with someone who insists he should have planted more bombs in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks on the United States. Barack seems to have a different standard. I hope that is not one of the changes he wants to bring to Washington.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Mr. Jonhson, I used to respect your opinions but you are now showing your true Republican roots. You’ve gone totally overboard. Rovian is what you are doing. Get back to defending the country, get out of politics. I respect you for your service, but you are swimming against the tide, the progressives want the total opposite of the neocon agenda. I’m sorry Hillary got caught up in that tide. She would be a great President. I’m not sure about Obama. But he is what is going to be. Only because of the massive failures of Bush/Cheney. Face reality it’s going to happen.
If you want to continue serving your country, please expose the harms done by the fanatical religious right in the military and spy agencies that are out of control of any authority.
Larry has done a good job exposing alot of Harm being done..and causing alot of people to Start asking Questions ..Larry continues to Defend the Country.. He supports our troops..and would do a great Job in Getting Our Spy Agencies Organized and under Proper Control..
I don’t think many of us have any real idea what good things Larry has Really done for the United States..or the High level of respect He has from the professionals that know Him..
He Certainly has my respect..and Appreciation…and I hope He considers me a Friend.
I think I’ll Use Uppercase at Random, because It looks so Cool! Not because It has Anything to do with Use of the Language!
I’m a liberal democrat, and I completely agree with Larry about Obama.
Obama seems to have a thing for terrorists, or can’t see a problem in dealing with them.
Look at his actions, they trump any party ideology.
I gotta say, this fair weather pedestrian opinion value you have for Larry Johnson is more revealing of your intolerance for different views than his position on Obama.
You like him when he sings a tune you want to hear.
You turn on him when he sings his tune and it doesn’t fit your paradigm. What is with that?
I differ with LJ on a few positions here and there, can’t go back through the archive and pick them all out, but felt that wasn’t the way I’d approach the same subject.
I can appreciate your right to change your view on LJ or anyone else as you maintain your track. But to tell him, Go Back To Intelligence, is your intolerance. Don’t do that folks. Have a take, don’t suck, and speak your mind. But when you write these things, and others, you just look like a selfish person who wants to write LJ’s and others’ scripts. This is indicative of wanting a very narrow and comfortable reality instead of the Reality we actually live in with 6.7 Billion views.
I used to consistently not like Republicans. In time I found it important to find where we shared common ground and found that there really isn’t a Right Wing and a Left Wing in the natural citizen politic. Those Wings represented the opinionated crowds only. And the more fanatical they got, the more WingNut they got, regardless of Right or Left.
I’m not on the court of the French King in a seat opposite a group on another side, I’m a citizen who has a set of values all my own. Labelling me or others as LeftWing or RightWing, or Democrat or Republican is to ignore all the commonality we have, all the possibilities we can acheive, and ultimately keeps us mute and ignorant.
Ayers is an issue. He is not a convenient ploy in a campaign attack. He is a liability. The same is true regarding Rezko and Obama’s supporters (you know, like the ones who apparently sent death threats to Tavis Smiley for criticizing Obama for not showing up in NO for the State of the Black Union 2008).
More ranting at the messengers of this issue isn’t helping convert anyone to the side of Obama. It only shows how vulnerable Obama is overall.
Its this resistance to hear concerns that has convinced me Obama is NOT the candidate I can support. He is a glass jaw candidate. Criticisms are called Attacks, yet he lies when he says his campaign is above that. They are engaged in smear campaign against Clinton that is no different than the one she’s been under for almost 20 years by the “Right Wing Republican Smear Machine”.
sorry but your wrong, when a presidential candidate associates with self admitted domestic terrorist and funnels money, with one of those domestic terrorist help, to the Arab American Action Network run by the Khalidi’s known PLO associates you going to tell me this doesnt matter. Then there is how he likes to win elections which started with his first election where he sued to have every other name removed from the ballot so he ran unopposed and won then he had a law firm sue to have private divorce papers of his next opponents unsealed by the courts so they all quit the race and the republicans had to run Alan Keys in what was at that time deemed a race that was a national joke. I am a democrat but this guy scares the **** out of me and alot of other people.
1 Watt:
I often differ with Larry, but he’s right about this. If Ayers isn’t willing to repudiate what he did, that’s a problem.
Are you saying that “progressives” espouse social revolution through violence? Good luck with that.
Lennon didn’t approve.
Being a child of the sixties, I have soft spot in my heart for sixties radicals. I haven’t read about Mr. Ayres in years so I do not know what my feelings are there.
but I will say this, people who are serious about running for president, need to be serious about who they associate with and what ventures they engage. There are risks that cannot be run. friends that cannot be made without giving your opponents an open door for attack. That’s one of the things that concerns about Obama. He doesn’t seem to have prepared for this run with any particular meticulousness. Clinton got through Whitewater and the Starr investigation because he had nothing like this in his past. Obama seems to have an endless stream of needless business deals and compromised associates.I don’t know how he intends to face down the GOP on all this stuff.
Meticulousness.
Rexko was “bone-headed”. Obama doesn’t want to run some bureaucracy. He’s not going to be some Chief Operating Officer, he’s going to delegate all of that responsibility. Just set the vision. His weakness: he’s not organized. He’s always losing paper.
Oy. Why this candidate at this time. God help us.
Because he doesn’t know what he’s doing, unsophisticated, politically, he’s easy to direct.
Why? Who owns him, who thinks it’s a good idea to put him in office, who is supporting him, investing in his camapign?
Perhaps they are motivated by greed, or simplistic notions of empire, ideology, or they are corrupt, and are helping themselves to the federal cookie jar, and such.
And being President is easy, it’s like American Idol, right?
But how does Obama, and his crew, say, know Russia isn’t instigating American military action in Iraq, say?
They don’t, they are not shrewd or informed, they are unfit for command. You run a country like a business, and it’s good enough, and anyone can do it, right? Corruption rules, a little corruption is OK, like a little terrorism is OK.
No.
Obama is not qualified to do the job.
Who wants this, again?
ew… what the fuck? why would russia want to get involved in Iraq? Thats just stupid. Putin (a plutocrat none the less), isn’t retarded. OMG!
Well said — the last paragraph.
Just a word about romanticizing the 60s-70s radicals. The media / films have done that, but it wasn’t really that romantic. A lot of it was very ugly and divisive politics. Controlling. Constrictive in that one had to pander to whatever was the hot political philosophy of the moment … it went from MLK-like non-violence clear over to the hard-line adoption of Stalnist and Maoist tactics and beliefs.
There were a lot of vicious thugs, especially in the underground groups.
My best experience was working for a television station in the 1970s — it was full of liberals opposed to the war. But they did so intelligently and without hatred of the U.S. I remember one time when a co-worker’s relative ran off to Canada to escape the military, and a couple of the executives counseled the relative to return to the U.S. and deal with it legally. They had mature thinking on these matters, and it helped me grow up from the college influences — professors just LIKE William Ayers — who filled kids’ minds with a lot of violent crap.
Did you know that in the New York Times on Sept.11 2001 Bill Ayers was quoted as saying he was not sorry for what they did and he didnt think they went far enough. The killed several people and blew up parts of building and bragged about disrupting the air war in nam and so much more. He wrote a book to profit off his disgusting immature behavior its called fugative days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgE04JqyV2Y
Are you saying that “progressives” espouse social revolution through violence? Good luck with that.
Where did that come from? I don’t even see that anywhere on the left. don’t put words in my mouth, I believe Ayers is a respected educator. Life was much different 25 years ago, and there was a reason for rebellion then, there’s reason for it now. Back then repression was the norm, if the neocons gain control even us white guys could be under the same oppression arbitrarily, Don’t trust anyone, if you’re as old as me you’ll remember the excesses of the FBI & CIA in the ’70’s. We didn’t trust the government back then & we damned sure shouldn’t trust it under the Cheney Admin.
and don’t discount the violence thingie. You are creating a whole lot of descent in the current ranks too.
With all due respect, this is a load of shit, you’re attempting to whitewash murder, and, no.
Ayers murdered innocent Americans, just as the 9.11 crew murdered innocent Americans.
But one act of terrorist civilian murder is whitewashed, and the other, well, the other we go to war over?
Don’t think so, especially as Obama, and Ayers , seem to have too many questionable relationships that have yet to be resolved, regarding CURRENT Arab terrorist groups, and money.
Terrorists are kooks.
As i pointed out yesterday i have yet to read of any case where Ayers or members of the Weather Underground (before they disbanded) were responsible for murder.
Whatever you think of Ayers, the WU and their ideology this is a false claim and unless you can point me to proof i’m wrong it does the debate a disservice to continue.
d.
they cant and they wont. this isn’t a fact based community you are dealing with,this is the center right republicans.
Douglasbot -
For starters, they killed three people when they stupidly blew up a N.Y. townhouse. The people killed were allegedly members of their own group, including Ayers then girlfriend.
“Eeeert. Guess again Hans. Wanna go for double jeapordy where the scores can really change?”
They blew themselves up in an accident while stupidly putting a bomb together that short circuited.
Killing yourself without intent to kill your self is an accident. Killing yourself with intent to do so is suicide.
Neither is murder.
Douglasbot -
People died in the commission of a crime. It’s called felony murder. I don’t know if the feds would have handled it instead, but had one of the terrorists survived the explosion, he or she could have been charged with the deaths of the other two.
At least now you’re finally being honest. It’s not murder…it’s felony murder.
Two people actually did survive. Kathy Boudin and Cathlyn Wilkerson. When the authorities caught up with them however neither were charged with felony murder.
My original point was specifically in regards Bill Ayers. Regardless of his knowledge of what they were doing at the apartment, Bill Ayers was not at Greenwich Village when this incident took place.
Therefore still not a murderer. Felony or otherwise.
It’s not been proven that Ayres actually bombed anything personally. Also, none of the explosions that the Weathermen took credit for killed ANYBODY. The only people who were killed were from THEIR organization when they blew up a brownstone trying to make a bomb.
Don’t think he can be equated to a terrorist.
Have you read his book? It is clear from his writings that the half hearted comments that leave it open as to weather or not he actually set any of the bombs is irrelevant. THEY BUILT BOMBS TO EXPLODE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. Do you get that at all? Do you understand by their own words they sought to incite civil war aka a revolution? Do you know that one of their best friends whos son they adopted is in prison for murdering an armored car person, this is a person they were with and lived underground with this person just stayed underground when they didnt. Do you get that BUILDING BOMBS and being responsible for atleast 3 DEATHS and seeking to INCITE CIVIL WAR is not like writing your name on a building IT IS DOMESTIC TERRORISM and UNACCEPTABLE.
That’s bull. Just because some academic institutions protect these thugs is no reason to excuse his unrepentant thinking.
I suspect you don’t know whereof you speak.
John Yu - Berkley….
——-
Senator Obama graduates from Harvard:
Out of college, money spent
See no future, pay no rent
All the money’s gone, nowhere to go
Any jobber got the sack
Monday morning, turning back
Yellow lorry slow, nowhere to go
But oh, that magic feeling, nowhere to go
Oh, that magic feeling
Nowhere to go
Barak Obama?
yes?
My Name is Tony Rezko …
I find that poem lazy. After all you did rhyme “nowhere to go” with itself 3 times… Try harder….
yes, he was guilty of the inverse of what the soviets called “capitalist bombing.” (the neutron bomb). He merely bombed empty buildings, not people. Shame on him!
Maybe I’m being dense about your post, but that’s a Beatle song off of Let It Be (?) you’re objecting to.
Nahhh… ok, John Witherspoon, what part of “You Never Give Me Your Money” or the 60’s did ya miss?
Sorry, I thought an album like Abbey Road did not require attribution. My BAD.
Anyway, I was responding to SusansUnpc’s comment “some academic institutions protect these thugs”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Never_Give_Me_Your_Money
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Beatles-The/You-Never-Give-Me-Your-Money.html
Thank you, SusanUnPC for your comments in this thread. The 1960’s were not glamorous. Ayers did a lot of harm to this country. He regrets nothing.
“I believe Ayers is a respected educator.”
(From Ben Smith’s article in Politico:
Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.
“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him. )
Respected and yet shunned….in 2006.
1Watt, you don’t care for Larry Johnson’s criticism of Obama. If Obama becomes the candidate you can be sure the neo-Swift-Boaters-for-Lies will go after him with everything they have. Rezko, Ayers, Michelle Obama’s dumb comments, Obama’s drug use…. Should I continue?
What is it with all you Obamazoids that in your minds Obama is of such god-like stature and so untouchable that nobody can say one word of criticism against him?
Give ‘em hell, Larry.
Does Obama display Bush’s propensity for being loyal to all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons?
no, thats hillary.
Does Obama display Bush’s propensity for being loyal to all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons?
not that I’ve seen, there’s not a list of his cabinet or administrators as far as I know.
These tactics will continue to backfire.
February 23, 2008
Hillary’s History of Extolling Stalinist-loving Radicals
By Mona
.
In 2003, on his rancid Fox show Bill O’Reilly waved around HRC’s 1969 Wellesley senior thesis addressing the merits of the American radical Saul D. Alinsky. Therein, Clinton apparently describes Alinsky as “charming” and gushingly likens him to Thomas Paine. And, as MSNBC has documented, the Clintons have taken some pains over the years to keep her paper from the public.
.
In the same MSNBC article Alinksy — whose claims to have never joined the Communist Party have been regarded with some skepticism — is quoted thus:
Looking back at the 1930s, he said, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.”
Of course, members of the Communist Party USA in the 1930s were, by definition, hard-core Stalinists willing to sacrifice civil liberty in the USSR or the U.S. to bring about their revolution. So…senior Hillary swooned over a fellow who thought working with Stalinists was no big deal because they “stood for all the right things.” Not much of a leap to “Hillary Hearts Stalin,” is it?
Oh, but you say, this is nonsense, and whatever 21-year-old Clinton wrote decades ago is irrelevant, and bringing up this thesis to depict her as a Marxist radical is slimy and unfair? Well I agree — as I do with Brad at Sadly, No! (in his addendum to a post by Cliff) that what she is doing to promote the Obama-loves-Weathermen-bombers smear is disgusting. And if the GOP deploys her ancient thesis (which the Clintons have tried to suppress) to demonize her, she now deserves it.
http://highclearing.com/
What tactic, this is truth, and prison.
Get it?
no. I don’t get it.
There you go again - Cee, are you NOW incapable of keeping to a discussion? The minute any one is discussing what OBAMA has done, you come along with mud to sling at Hillary and/or Bill, who at this given moment are NOT the topic of discussion.
Grow up! Your responsies are like that of a high school kid saying - “See everyone does it”. Well in some countries they behead people - How are you going to justify your Perennial “Everyone does it” in those cases.
Further is speaks extremely poorly of your own lack of responsibility level and judgement. If you get caught robbing a bank, how far do you think it will fly in a court room when you constantly bring up previous bank robbers, as opposed to looking at and discussing your own criminal actions.
The above is meant as an analogy - no I am NOT calling YOU personally a criminal.
As a professional, with a radio program, what level of character, and right and wrong are you projecting onto young people in society? Don’t you feel any responsibility to speak to a good or better standard of behavior?
A little more intellectual honesty. Am i the only one on top of this here? Ayers didn’t make that quote ON 9/11. The New York times article was PUBLISHED on 9/11. More a tragic coincidence than an unrepentant monster asked to comment.
To say -
“In fact, on the day of the 9-11 attacks, as most Americans mourned the lives lost by fellow citizens, Ayers told a New York Times reporter:
“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
and -
“I certainly won’t continue a friendship with someone who insists he should have planted more bombs in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks on the United States.”
…implies it was a statement made in the immediate aftermath. As if a wily reporter had jumped on the phone to Ayers and asked his opinion on the WTC bombings within hours of the event.
Whatever your opinion of Ayers, whatever you think of his statement it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest they were statements made in reaction to, or post 9/11 when clearly they were not.
In fact on his blog, Sept 12 2006, the 5 year anniversary of 9/11 Bill Ayers states “…the fifth
anniversary of the spectacular hijacking of the monstrous crimes of…September 11…out in plain sight by a different band of right-wing zealots just as determined to impose their arid ideology on America and the world as the thugs of 9-11.”
“The attacks of September 11 were— no doubt about it— pure terrorism, indiscriminate slaughter, crimes against humanity carried out by reactionary fanatics with fundamentalist fantasies dancing wildly in their heads. And in the immediate aftermath Americans experienced, of course, grief, confusion, compassion, solidarity, as well as something else: uncharacteristic soul-searching, questioning, and political openness, but not for long.”
A mention of Nazis and a little fudging of language to paint a complete picture of a monster? And we’re all up in arms today about Rovian tactics. Does this count?
…We can do better than this Larry, surely.
d.
You’ve edited this quote.
Would it be possible to post it, within context?
Sure, here is the complete blog post from 12/09/2006
” 911—-Plus Five
I’m writing these words on September 12, 2006— the fifth
anniversary of the spectacular hijacking of the monstrous crimes of
September 11. That’s right, the hijacking of the hijackings, carried
out in plain sight by a different band of right-wing zealots just as
determined to impose their arid ideology on America and the world as
the thugs of 9-11. It’s a hijacking still underway, a work-in-progress
whose disastrous consequences are only partly apparent. But let’s
start at the beginning, and remember how we got into this fine mess.
The attacks of September 11 were— no doubt about it— pure
terrorism, indiscriminate slaughter, crimes against humanity carried
out by reactionary fanatics with fundamentalist fantasies dancing
wildly in their heads. And in the immediate aftermath Americans
experienced, of course, grief, confusion, compassion, solidarity, as
well as something else: uncharacteristic soul-searching, questioning,
and political openness, but not for long.
A headline in the Onion got it only partly right: “Unsure What to
Do, Entire Country Stares Dumbly at Hands.” Actually Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Ashcroft, and their gang knew exactly what to do, and they did it—
they pulled out their most ambitious plans to create a new American
empire, to remake the world to their liking, to suppress dissent, to
bail out the airlines by transferring $20 billion without safeguards
or benchmarks from public to private hands in a matter of days with a
single no-vote in the Senate, to scuttle aspects of the law that
checked their power, to deliver the country, in the words of Arthur
Miller, “into the hands of the radical right, a ministry of free
floating apprehension toward anything that never happens in the middle
of Missouri.” The ideologues filled up all the available space with
their fantastic interpretation of events, and they shouted down anyone
with the temerity to disagree, donning the mantle of patriotism to
defend their every move.
The “Boondocks” and Bill Maher came under steady attack, Susan
Sontag and Edward Said were told to shut up, give up their jobs, and
by implication to retreat to their caves with their terrorist
soul-mates. When mild-mannered, slightly right wing Stanley Fish
suggested that all the mantras of the day— we have seen the face of
evil, the clash of civilizations, we’re at war with international
terrorism— are inaccurate and unhelpful, failing for a lack of any
available mechanism for settling deep-seated disputes, he was targeted
as a destructive leech on the American way of life. Asked to apologize
for his post-modern devil work of forty years, he cracked wise,
telling me he could picture the headline: “Fish ironically announces
the death of post-modernism, millions cheer.”
The president said repeatedly that America was misunderstood in the
world, and that what we have here is mainly a failure to communicate.
He sounded like the sadistic warden of the prison plantation in “Cool
Hand Luke,” whose signature phrase is the focus of ridicule and
reversal. What’s clear in both cases is that a failure to communicate
is the very least of it.
The press rolled over, gave up any pretense of skepticism, and
became the idiot-chorus for the powerful. When the president looked
soulfully out from our TVs and implored every American child to send a
dollar for Afghan kids, no one asked how much money would be required
to feed those kids, or how the food was going to get there and by-pass
their parents. Starvation ahead. The so-called war on terror was
simply accepted on all sides, no one qualifying with the necessary,
“so-called.” No one asked whether a crime didn’t require a criminal
justice response and solution—perhaps a massive response, but within
the field of criminal justice nonetheless. No one in power asked what
the field of this war would be, or how we would know if we’d won. No
one demanded evidence or proof.
And here we are: international law shredded, torture defended,
citizens rounded up and held without honoring their Constitutional
rights, nationalism promoted relentlessly, disdain for human rights on
the rise, militarism ascendant in all aspects of the culture, the mass
media flat on its back, people nodding dully as we accede to an orange
alert and march in orderly lines through security checkpoints and
random searches, organized vote suppression and rampant fraud at the
polls, mass incarceration of Black men, war without end, and on and
on.
Five years after, we might stir ourselves to impeach the criminal
heading up this cabal, we might prepare for the criminal trials these
domestic hijackers deserve, and, at the very least, we might tell the
truth in the public square and thereby contribute to building a mass
movement for peace and justice.
# posted by Bill Ayers @ 11:09 AM”
And a link to his blog i forgot to attach.
http://billayers.blogspot.com/
There is a new presidential poll out there today
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
from “Decision Analyst, Inc.” with Obama 14% ahead of Clinton in Texas and 8% ahead in Ohio….. Could it be?
Who are this polling people??? Help anyone?
I think the issue about Obama is not just the instant case of him associating with Ayers, but the pattern he has of never looking at the long-term consequences of the decisions he makes.
As only one example, he took advantage of his long-time friendship with Tony Rezko to secure the purchase of a home more befitting his new station in life, without considering whether the advice and counsel from and partnership with someone who was under federal investigation was the most ethical way to handle it. And it wasn’t just Rezko that was involved - it was Michelle Obama, using her position on the Landmark Commission to grease the deal. How convenient.
Watch how often he explains himself by emphasis on the technical legality or factual nature of the events - explanations that do not wash for most people.
The pattern is troubling - the specific cases are what will peel the Teflon off Obama in a general election contest - and it won’t be pretty.
My take on Obama and these questionable associations: Ultimately, it’s always about the green. The money means more to him than anything.
Also…Can He be “BLACKMAILED”
Good Q, Patrick.
Ooh! Please dont ban me till after next week! I can’t wait to rub it in your ugly faces!
What the Obamabots don’t get is that Obama’s association with Ayers, Rezko and others no how innocent they may have been, will be used by Rove and others to gut him like a fish.
Remember what they did to war heroes like Max Cleland and John Kerry whose pasts had none of the ugly baggage Obama does.
BTW McCain has brought Bo Harmon on board, he’s the guy vilified Max Cleland. So guess what that means for the Democratic nominee.
Right after the 2006 election, McCain hired the guy who produced the anti-Harold Ford campaign. Remember “Call me, Harold?”
He can use Obama’s crack smoking, limo blow job guy: “call me, Barry.”
Larry Sinclair, is that his name?
Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is this year, the Republicans will lie, slime, distort, Swiftboat, etc. That is what Republicans do. They are the party of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. Hillary is no more immune to their salacious poison than is Obama. I don’t have a dog in this fight …. I’d have preferred John Edwards.
Ayers is unrepentant for his “youthful” folly, as noted above. But so is Hillary, and her folly was much more recent and mature. Yet, she will not admit to making a mistake. I find that troubling. I will, though, support the Democratic nominee … Hillary or Obama. Both are better for American than the prospect of a McCain/Bush 3rd term.
My preferred choice for VP is Jim Webb. His reply to Bush’s ‘07 State Of The Union address was the best political speech I can remember in the last 30 years. His character and resume would enhance the viability of the ticket. I’m certain the thugs would be hard pressed to Swiftboat him.
Is she financing terrorists, or accepting money from them, knowingly?
So this is a sideways attack, right?
You can’t back away from a vote without having that used an example of your being inconsistent. I don’t know how this can lost on so many people? Did she make a mistake providing Hans Blix with the authorization he felt he needed to finish disarming Hussein? Was anyone predicting that Bush would force the inspectors to leave before they finished? I know of no one who did and if you do, please name a name and let’s look for a link. I’ve been online and involved in political sites since 1996. I heard no one in that time frame predict that Bush force the inspectors to leave early - that is a fact. And unless you can prove that there was some kind of genuine consensus that Bush was not going to allow the inspections to finish, I don’t know what she has to apologize for.
The vote, lest you have forgotten, came two weeks before an election where we were certain we were going to lose both houses of congress. Bush was going to have his authorization before the election with a UN mandate in place, or after the election, without it.
The only I know of for avoiding war was in enough Democrats giving Blix what he needed to finish the job. I know that’s not the PC line, but that is the truth of what transpired.
Lastly, unlike John Edwards (whom I’m a fan of), Hillary never advocated FOR war. She advocated for disarming Hussein - and those are two different things.
Now, tell me what the benefit would be of Hillary apologizing for her vote and how that would trump what the right would do with the apology in the general election.
Lorelynn -
Are you the same person I accused of ironing doiles? I sure hope not because here you go all full of facts and historical references - kicking butt and taking names.
Bitch is the new black indeed.
No, I don’t think so.
Larry, Sometimes the truth hurts and Obama supporters only want to hear how perfect he is. The swiftboaters on the right are going to lie and in some cases just tell the facts and be a lot harder on Obama so the Democrats that are throwing their support to Obama better be prepared. It’s not going to be pretty either. I actually think the media wants to have another sacraficial lamb to roast because it’s going to be more interesting. I think they know that the public would be bored with Hillary because they have already turned all the rocks over and she wouldn’t make the same mistakes as her husband.
Connie L -
That’s been my take too. Many in the media are lazy with severe drug and alcohol problems. They know they’ll have endless Rezko stories all legally O.K. because they come from the courtroom.
Barnacle Mike and others of his ilk won’t even need to make-up stories. And the commenting you can look forward to - Rove can hardly wait…
It’s reading comment chains like these that make me thank God that I’m not a baby boomer and don’t view the ’60s and early ’70s with rose-colored glasses. I guess a terrorist not a terrorist when he/she is using the Vietnam War as an excuse for bombings and other mayhem, or when prominent members of the group become college professors. Using this logic if Osama bin Laden stays alive long enough to get a sinecure at a university we’ll let bygones be bygones.
Where is the Bush Library, SMU?
If Obama is still alive, they can appoint him to a position in a think tank, maybe Hoover.
Set him up with Rumsfeld, at Stanford.
THAT would be funny.
Sad thing is, they would…
Osama, sorry, honest mistake.
DCMediaGirl,
When dozens and dozens of young soldiers are dying every week for years on end, from a war that no one can explain why we’re fighting, those radicals look different. Just remember, 57000 troops lost their lives in Vietnam - the bulk of them over the course of four or five years. The number of lives that were lost in Vietnam during Johnson’s tenure and the first part of Nixon’s term is just mindboggling.
The sixties and seventies were a time of tremendous turmoil - civil rights, feminism, the sexual revolution, environmentalism and the Vietnam war and superb art and artists every where capturing every aspect of it. It was a time of complete sensual and intellectual involvement bracketed by the fear everyone felt about not knowing where all the various revolutions in place would end. Would our nation ultimately survive the changes we were all seeing? When people talk about the magic of the time, that’s what they are referring to - the freedom and the art blossoming in the middle of all the violence and dysfuction. The war was on tv - something we’d never before. I was a school child in a farm town in southern Illinois and I knew who the music directors for the New York Philharmonic and the London Philharmonic. Our culture was interested in what Bernstein had to say. Interested in what Mailer had to say. Interested in what Betty Friedan was talking about. Everyone knew who Andy Warhol was and what he was doing - even people decades past interest in pop affairs. Fantastic visuals everywhere. And great journalism capturing all of it. Men and women’s roles changing daily. African Americans walking streets and going places they’d never been welcome before. The assassinations, for God’s sake - JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, RFK - on top of the death toll in Vietnam. Everybody, literally EVERYBODY, had to deal with the non-stop changes unfolding in front of us. And when we got through it all, we’d redefined personal freedom in a deeply positive way.
Cultures go through these dramatic birth pangs and then retrench for a few decades as we have done. But here we are forty years later with the first viable African American candidate and the first first viable female candidate. It is no coincidence that Hillary addresses far more often than Obama - she’s seen the entire journey transpire in her life. Obama takes the progress for granted. His wife apparently is flat out contemptuous of the challenges that got our nation to the point where she - a female and an African American - was admitted to an Ivy League college. I can guarantee you her parents have been proud of this nation many times in their life before now.
Anyway, you cannot judge sixties radicals outside the context of the sixties. And if you cannot understand the volatile, volcanic changes, then it will never make sense to you.
>>> “…view the ’60s and early ’70s with rose-colored glasses…”
Except for the 2.2-2.4 million who were getting shot at so that neither LBJ nor Tricky Dick would be, “The first US President to lose a war.”
Or the 12 million waiting to hear from Selective Service and learn when it would be THEIR turn to start down the road to Peace With Honor.
Or who came to a sudden realizationm about 1975, that The Game Is Rigged, and that the whole concept of, “Work Hard in School, Join a Good Company and Your Future Will Be Secure,” was a metric load of smelly, unpleasant shit perpetrated upon us by those whose Agendas are advanced by our remaining Poor, Stupid, In Debt and Addicted to Shiny Things.
Had we not had Apollo 11, the Super Bowl, cheap dope, the Pill and free TV to serve as the Opiates of the Masses in lieu of religion, it might have gotten real, real ugly.
Uglier than we thought it was at the time, which, in my jaded view, was pretty f*****g ugly from 1968-1975.
Perhaps one had to be there, eh?
Obama is right. Clinton can’t prick and chose.
For anyone who missed this news
Officials Criticize Clinton’s Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: January 22, 2001
An unusual combination of New York political and law enforcement leaders have condemned former President Bill Clinton’s pardon of Susan L. Rosenberg, a one-time member of the Weather Underground terrorist group who was charged in the notorious 1981 Brink’s robbery in Rockland County that left a guard and two police officers dead.
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, and United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, were among those who criticized the pardon, as did Bernard B. Kerik, New York City’s police commissioner, and David Trois, a Rockland County police union official.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06EED7133CF931A15752C0A9679C8B63
You are either deliberately disingenuous, or in willful denial.
Neither is helpful to you, or anyone else, in the end.
Look at your thought process here, if all the Obamatons think like this, how the hell will they make a decision regarding Putin’s ulterior motives, say?
Too scary, mind can’t cope with, or discern the truth? Spin the facts until they’re no longer scary, too you, until you can cope, psychologically.
“Oh, Putin is a good guy, he means well, and my oil friends wouldnt’ mislead me, they’re not REALLY dealing with Putin on the side.”
As the middle east oil is further consolidated under Russia’s mantle, a disaster for the American economy.
You actually believe the shit you post? Better yet, should someone reinforce the shit you post, manipulate you, so you DO start to believe the shit you post?
Create a reality for you?
You think this is a GAME, the presidency?
I hate stupid people.
Last week there was outrage on the part of Obama supporters claiming that Clinton campaign was going to try to “steal delegates” from Obama. Yesterday, apparently Obama supporters caused chaos at the county convention in Nevada demanding that Hillary delegates changes their votes. In fact so many non-delegates crowded their way into the hall that true delegates were shut out.
No outrage over this behavior at KOS, in fact it is cheered. They are demanding a new caucus because the Obama supporters were able to wreak havoc on what should have been a very civil county convention. All you do is vote for the person your pricinct selected you to support. We had our county conventions in Colorado yesterday. No one was allowed to vote unless they were official delegates. No delegaes were shut out.
As far as I know we did not behave like a bunch of renegades. It appears that the Obama campaign has been actively recruiting folks to disrupt the Nevada county conventions in an effort to get a second caucus. Shame on him.
You never really know, do you?
People like Kos, say, encourage an attack, not understanding how they’re being trolled, focused only on the momentary havoc they breed, completely clueless as to their status as pawns.
So simplistic, so given to cheating, you can make them do anything.
A Bushman in every way, shape and form.
And then, they’re unable to see the bigger picture, totally fooled.
The way the Nevada caucus chaos is being celebrated on some so called progressive sites just makes me ill. This is democracy? People believe this is a good thing? Mob politics?
During my local caucus, I knew we’d lost our minds because we had elderly people on walkers being shouted down. We have women being intimidated. It’s ugly and I am dreading going to my own county convention. This is not how people should behave.
They really are acting a lot like Young Republicans, aren’t they?
Anybody getting pictures at these events?
rjj; Why do I have the video of the “Vote count” in Broward Florida when Young Republicans stormed the counting room?
Wierd. yttik bring a video camera.
I’ve thought that all along. Republicans have always voted in open Dem primaries.
One of the women i was talking to this morning about Obama is an Edwards supporter - she doesn’t like Clinton at all. But she’s furious with Obama because her elderly mother in a caucus state came home from the caucus scared that she was going to be harassed by Obama supporters at home. Actually, scared of them. This is a woman in her eighties who has been politically active for decades. It’s just crazy what’s going on.
Hi Mr. Johnson,
workerbee from TPM cafe here. I miss you and the lively conversations your practical posts used to engender, although I wasn’t much of a commentator.
I noticed that since mid-February, traffic is way down at TPM and DKos, as in nosedive, according to Alexa. Since the change, in software has been buggy at TPM, I suppose that’s part of it, but I kind of think the hostile take over by the Obama campaign might have a bit more to to with it.
I’ll be lurking here more, as Josh has his own problems, and the quality of the commentary isn’t what it used to be. I’m sure he’ll work them out given the time, but at this point, I’ve found it near impossible to have anything approaching a balanced conversation there. I’m glad to see no such problems here.
Please do keep on looking into the Obama hysteria. I feel like the country is being railroaded and manipulated once again, and am so glad you’re on the job.
Susan unPC rocks, too.
>>> …Josh has his own problems, and the quality of the commentary isn’t what it used to be.
Oh, Honey; do you THINK so?
I’m from Colorado, so no one was allowed to caucus unless they were a registered Democat and had registered 60 days prior to the caucus. I wonder how many of the “Democats” in Nevada who are trying to derail the Democratic Praty process registered as Democrats only for the primary. I do remember Obama running ads and telling crowds they could register as a Democrats just to vote in the caucus. One-day democrats do not care about the Democratic Party or the ideals it stands for.
It seems ilke they are causing this mess for no other reason than to tear apart this party. Nevada demanded an early caucus date. Moving this caucus caused a lot of problems in the party including the disenfrachisement of Florida and Michigan.
They had their caucus vote and then need to just knock off the idiocy. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing from Obamabots? “Will of the voters”? Unless you don’t like that particular vote.
What a pile of feces. Obama has sat on the Woods fund board for years. Ayers is on it, too (along with 7 others), that’s who gave the money to Rashid Khalidi’s AAAN organization. If you read this post, you’d think they got together and wrote a huge check. Never mind that Rashid Khalidi is a professor at Columbia, not some Hamas member.
Larry Johnson, do you have some real specifics you’d care to share, or are you counting on your readers to be ignorant bigots who assume that an organization called the Arab American Action Network founded by a man with an arab name is a terrorist organization. The AAAN money was for “a two-year grant for a neighborhood-based community organizing
project on Chicago’s southwest side targeted at developing the leadership capacity
of Arab youth and women”. Not exactly Hamas, is it?
If your reader actually follow your own link to the Woods fund, they’ll see they also gave money to the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, the Interfaith Leadership Project of Cicero, Berwyn and Stickney, and Protestants for the Common Good (along with ~100 other charities and community organizations).
Utilizing guilt by association to attack someone for serving on the board of a charity is beneath contempt. To quote Hillary, “Shame on you!”
WU folk are just not at the top of my list of serious terrorists. They’re idiots. Always were, still are.
Simile? Like Ralph Nader, but even more egotistical.
(Is that even possible?)
Or — on the same psychological level of threat as George Bush — but without the actual Presidency that allows them to live out their personal psychopathology in the 3-dimensional universe.
Well, at least not on such a grand scale . . . .
Larry: I am thoroughly enjoying your blog and just started reading through tip from http://vimandvinegar.blogspot.com/ - who has just posted on the Siegelman case in Alabama. What are your thoughts on this…. or have you already stated them in a previous post?
[...] Larry Johnson’s stories here and here on the relationship with [...]
It’s more than a bit worrisome when you have the SAME name as a terrorist, and then people start looking at YOU the same way that they would look at the terrorist himself.
But, myself being that of a filmmaker/actor, which I am filming the opening to a pilot for television, I am hoping the confusion doesn’t settle in with the two of us, as we ARE two completely different people altogether.
But, mainly looking back at 9/11; how does one sit back and see those same images from such a horrific point in time, and say to themselves; there weren’t enough bombs planted/made/detonated?
However you want to express the feeling, it all boils down to the same situation; terrorism.
Maybe, sometime in the future, and quite honestly it would be that of an interesting interview to be able to down, one on one; William Ayers meets William Ayers, and maybe obtain some of those answers to the questions that still have yet to be answered regarding 9/11.
And, yes I would want to meet Mr. Ayers himself and devour him with questions regarding 9/11 and see how much truth can come out of him instead of what we heard from the government.
“Why does Barack Obama continue to sit on the board of the Woods Fund with William Ayers?”
Obama has not been a member of that board since 2002.
[...] Johnson, One More Thought On Barack Obama and William Ayers, NoQuarterUSA, February 23, [...]