Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner?
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 April 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM in Current Affairs
If Republican 527 groups are still puzzled over what ammunition to onload on Barack Obama in the fall, they got a gift today. The prosecution’s witness, Stuart Levine, tied Barack Obama to Nadhmi Auchi and Tony Rezko way back in April of 2004. I can feel another Obama memory lapse coming on. But I can also see the Republicans loading up to “prove” that Barack was taking money from the same guy who one time allegedly did the bidding of Saddam Hussein. According to the Chicago Tribune:
Stuart Levine, the prosecution’s star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.
Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko’s bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.
The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama’s presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity.
Here’s the bottomline. Auchi, who some claim was a money man for Saddam Hussein, sent money to the Rezko family. Said funds in turn were used by Tony Rezko’s wife to help the Obama’s buy their house (she paid for a vacant lot that enabled the Obama’s to qualify for the loan they could afford at the time).
Susan UnPC put up a great story on the Auchi-Rezko-Obama ties in February. And we already know, thanks to the Times of London, that Auchi’s Panamanian company sent money into Obama’s political coffers. At a minimum, looks like Barack has got some more “splaining” to do.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
To date, both Sen. Obama and Mr. Auchi have denied having met, although Sen. Obama has said it is possible that he dropped in at the Four Seasons reception dinner hosted by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Karen,
The Four Seasons event was in June 2004 - 2 months after Obama met Auchi at Rezko’s home.
Of course according to Obama he did not remember meeting or talking with Auchi in June 2004.
Obama “just happend” to stop in and doesn’t ever remember meeting Auchi.
I think we need to be bold about saying Rezko’s purchase of a slice of the property Obama wanted to buy looks like a bribe - because it does look like a bribe and Rezko is currently on trial for bribing people. We’re all so polite about this stuff and don’t want to make accusations. Well, I’m not accusing Obama of accepting a bribe but I am willing to say that it sure as heck looks like he did because I can’t come up with an innocent explanation for this purchase otherwise.
For comparision, look back at what happened when people went after Harry Reid on his property transaction. He simply explained that he was moving prpoerty into a trust and it all made sense. There is no explanation as to how or why this would be discussed between Obama and Rezko and how Rezko, in 2005, was going to hope to profit.
Pay attention to what Obama says as opposed to what his campaign says. It seems to me there are aspects of this transaction that have only been addressed by his campaign and for which he can’t be held responsible.
There may be a problem with the http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/follow-money-who-owns-rezko-lot.html record to the lot also.
Make that deed record.
Every time that I have brought up this lot I have been shouted down on other sites. Now it appears that it was transferred in total to Obama. Why won’t the press search the deed records. The remarks on the linked site are most interesting but not sure if accurate.
Damn it Larry, got to keep the heat on Obama, watch the man crumble and prove he isn’t what he claims to be!
Kool Aide anyone??
Larry Johnson. Packing Heat.
Koz decries him “Masculine and Deadly”
Airie yawn-a(rgh!) says “seempleee scahree!
And he doesn’t come aloe. Meet …
The Bitter Gang.
(coming SOON to a Blog year you.)
————————————- Obama’s on the run ….. Annie’s got her gun…
You know what Larry? This explains Obama’s almost manic performance today. He was particularly cynical and edgy. Yes, like his adrenaline was laced with fear. We can certainly see why. He had to have known this was coming.
It also explains why he went “uncloaked.” He was missing his smooth operator filter. The effect gave me second-hand embarrassment for the man in a moment of Presidential sentimentality. Blame the chimigangas if I ever understand that one.
Even Chris “Pass Me a Bib Honey” Matthews managed to drool out a quip about Obama crossing the line during one of his wildly popular, live audio laughtrack, impromptu stand-up routine at a rally when making fun of Hillary’s beer drinking.
(Stand-Up Politics is all the rage with the Pimp-My-Vote crowd didnchakna?)
‘kay, like, I’m from like, Caleefornya, like? ‘Kay?And, like? Dude? we like, can’t afford like anything else but beer? ‘Kay? Like are you making fun of like us beer bellied chicks?
I bet he drinks Pink Zinfandel. (snort:::,,,hic)
The FBI should do an expanded background investigation on BO. Some type of background check is done on anyone applying for a government position that entails working with sensitive material. Why not for a presidential candidate who has an unusual history that has not been fully explained by the candidate or vetted by his political party?
Background checks are also done on family members — if the clearance needed is super highly classified.
It is AMAZING to me that Obama’s life and people in his life have not undergone a high level background check. However, we can be sure that the GOP has done the detective work. So if the slimy bastard is the Dem nominee, I’ll bet the GOP will have field day with all the garbage they’ve come up with.
Seems like a President of the US would need the highest security check possible. Obama seems to have been so completely unVETTED — and there are so many holes in his story that we really have no idea about what sort of security risk he might pose.
Also, there is the little detail that Obama is a LIAR — so everything he says must be verified.
Sally,
Does that background check apply to people elected to Congress? And can you cite Federal Hiring guideline Rules to check for hiring Congressional Staffers?
Obama is a sitting US senator and is on the Foreign Services committe…Yeah they Background checked him, but he is duly elected so what can they do? Let me think….Hmmmm! The repubs were in charge when Obama win his 2004 senate seat….let me think….Hmmmm!
If BO is the democratic nominee, GWB will get his 3rd term.
So are the Democrats going to sit on this until the fall when it is too late to rid themselves of this creep?
Thank you for bringing this up again. It’s beyond shameful that themedia is sitting on this, no doubt salivating over the GE election cycle where they do not have to rehash Clinton scandals to a fatigued public.
Auchi’s wife also has ties in this:
UPDATE 2:
http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-saddam-connection.html
According to The Times:
The Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to Mr Obama’s fundraiser in May 2005.
Fintrade’s directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi’s wife. Mr Auchi’s spokespeople declined to respond to a question about whether he was linked to this business.
But according to this Middle Eastern business site
http://www.zawya.com/cm/profile.cfm/cid1001554
that had profiled Auchi’s General Mediterranean Holding Company, Nadhmi Auchi himself is directly associated with Fintrade Services of Panama! That means that there’s a direct money trail between Barack Obama and Nadhmi Auchi!
This is huge!
Look, it’s hard to believe that Obama is tainted with Auchi’s money; how would he even consider running for the presidency while knowing that something like this lurks in the closet? But this doesn’t look good at all…
Why?
Governments of the world are tainted with Auchi’s money, just ask the English.
And Sarkozy.
And the Germans.
Auchi just doesn’t seem to pick the bright ones, though, all this money for sub par political merchandise…
He lives in London, Saddam’s ex bagman man, and it’s always been my impression he wants so badly to be English, to be accepted, and admired by the titled British.
Never gonna happen, but his money?
That, they will take.
Not to worry, if Florida and Michigan are not counted, Barack Obama leads by several hundred thousand votes, two thirds of which come from Cook County, IL.
Maybe Michelle’s father the Daley apparatachik has helped make her proud of America for the first time in her life. She loathed the Chicago machine her dad was part of, until it boosted hubby’s election “mandate” he claims?
That’s if you don’t count two other states.
We’re playing chess here, not checkers. We have Obama’s king in a corner, moving in for checkmate
with the bittergate stuff. Beware moving a pawn
and wasting a move! You don’t know what the defense attorney is getting at. Remember Rezko is a friend of Obama’s. You really think he’s going to let his attorney do something to hurt Obama? And besides this defense lawyer has already been laying into this witness to discredit him. Come on, don’t fall for something here. This doesn’t smell right.
It is a trivial thing right now, but it combined with everything else affecting Obama right now, it just compounds, doesn’t derail things, Rezko’s lawyer is the one asking the question, not the Government, and there is a lot more ties that it will simply bring it to the media’s attention, for Obama to answer to also, and done 2 days before the Pennsylvania debates is going to have questions asked of it, after the question of Obama as to if he needs anything and is comfortable enough is taken care of, plus it won’t be Tim Russert asking the questions this time of his favorite candidate!
Hell hath no fury like a bagman scorned.
good one Simon!
Hey Mel, I hope you’re right! I’m worried for a few reasons. Remember when Wright was in the limelight– Obama used that opportunity to dump
his taxes, the fact that he mis-reported contributions from Rezko, and it seems one or two other items. I don’t want to let the scumbag put up a smokescreen here, if that’s what’s going on. It worries me that it is Rezko’s defense attorney asking the questions about Obama’s presence at the private function.
I would be much more comfortable if it were the prosecutor asking the questions. It is not in Rezko’s interest to help the downfall of Obama.
He needs Obama to have as much power as possible–so Obama can get his creepy ass out of the vise it’s in. Rezko’s lawyer must know this–his job is to promote Rezko’s best interests. Already
the defense attorney has been pounding Levine’s credibility. Why are of the sudden ask if Obama was at some function? How does that benefit his client, Rezko. It doesn’t make sense to me. My cynical way of seeing it– Obama makes a call to Rezko to help him get out of the Bittergate crap,
“Tony give me a smokescreen here…” Tony tells his lawyer to bring out the stuff on Obama. What if this is the one bit of information they have that will destroy Levine’s credibility altogether. What if Obama and the sweet-natured
Michelle have a perfect alibi for that time period… See what happens? Obama is vindicated as having told the truth in not being at said private party; bittergate gets buried in the excitement over Rezko; witness Levine is undermined completely.
That’s what has me worried…
I also see it playing out the way you mentioned..
drip by drip of corruption and lies hitting Obama’s campaign. Just the mention of Rezko and corruption turning voters off. But I don’t know.
I keep wondering, why would Rezko’s own attorney
get Obama involved in this way? I was really enjoying the fallout from bittergate. I would hate to see it overshadowed by something that might fizzle. Like I say though, I hope you are right.
That is assuming Obama will even acknowledge him.
The illusion and the truth are two different things, you’d think, but it’s surprising how much denial certain people are in. I guess it’s a coping mechanism, how else do you get through the day?
If Rezko feels scorned, or replaced by Axelrod, say, if it’s apparent all Obama has now is smoke and mirrors, and K**, and if Fitzgerald goes after the whole IL-Arab crew, Rezko may rat out Obama to save his own skin. Jealousy does strange things, these men are subject to pettiness, everyone from Auchi, to Rezko. And they don’t seem to be able to project ahead, for all the projecting they do, they’re very much in one moment.
But you know, it’s not like Fitzgerald doesnt already know the depth of Obama’s involvement.
We act as if none of the feds know how dirty this crew is, and that’s simply not true.
So it’s simply a matter of how the information is handled, when it’s released.
I’ve got to think that Rezko will hold out until he realizes that Obama has no realistic shot at winning the general. As long as Obama has a shot then he thinks he is going to get a pardon even though Obama, if elected, surely wouldn’t pardon Rezko because he’d lose all credibility. Rezko will flip when the timing is right and he gets his head out of his ass. He surely won’t be the only person to take the fall when they were all playing together.
Do you think Rezko, being the ball of snot that he is, wouldn’t throw Obama under the bus if it meant he would not spend too many years as a cell mate to Bubba?
Even if the defense are fishing to see if Fitzgerald will bite,considering there is not much downside in dragging Obama’s ill repute into the daylight, Fitzgerald MO is to squeeze the lower rung.
Obama…Obama…yells a lone press person…Why are you lieing about meeting Rezko and now Auchi?
Well.. I guess this explains why Obama’s campaign has a resident sitter in the court every day. And no wonder Obama cannot provide his papers and records from his time in Illinois Senate.
The DNC refuses to face the facts about Obama’s unsavory connections, and people like Brazille get pissed at us for bringing it up. As if our ignoring it will make the General Election Faierie sprinkle magic dust on these things so they are invisible to Republicans.
I have no doubt that the GOP has stuff on OBama that they’re holding close right now — that makes our blog posts look like small potatoes.
Perhaps because are complicit in the “unsavoriness”?
As are their republican counterparts.
Ah rezko…how I have waited for you
This Rezko trial just gets more interesting by the day. I wonder how long it will be before the team of WORMs come out to explain what Obama was doing at this party? Any bets?
That is easy to answer, Obama was there to explain how Iraqi’s are holding onto guns and religion and anti-immigrant feelings because they are bitter over the treatment that Saddam was never listening too!
I don’t even think that the GE Faerie has enough magick dust to cover all of BOs lies, misdealings, and memory loss!
The trolls will be here soon — right now they’re busy on the Obama is unelectable thread.
Obama was just a poor kid raised by a single mom — the trolls will bring up this dis-information again.
Change the subject — oh add in “Well Hillary blah blah blah did that TOOOOOOO.
Yes, Rain, you’re right, but it’s such a beautiful day today, I thought I’d bake chunky cheddar potatoes, with onion and bacon, for the meat eaters in my family.
Maybe add some sour cream, served with roast beef, and biscuits.
If I could just get rid of this burning ulcer pain.
Too much diet coke, I guess.
Are you high? or just scared that the republicans are losing?
The republicans have already lost three wars, which loss are you referring to, now?
We’ve got to get this to Fox News - it’s sad, but they are the only one’s who will report anything about Obama these days. I bet you if this gets out, CNN and MSNBC will go out of their way talking about all the “good Saddam did.” They’ve totally become a joke.
Email this stuff to Fox:
hannity@foxnews.com
oreilly@foxnews.com
-Greta Van Sustern
-Their morning show
OK, so now Obama was in cahoots with Saddam? What next, he had a homosexual affair with bin Laden?!
Actually, I just came by to tell you that I have arrived safely in Damascus where I am ensconced in a small but comfortable apartment across the hall from my hosts, a young journalist who drives a taxi when he is not writing for such publications as Newsweek Arabic edition, and his wife, who is a freelance writer for TV, and just signed a contract for a TV serial - aka soap opera, of which the Syrian are the best.
But the really pertinent part is this: My host in Beirut, who is politically very experienced and astute, is convinced that if Obama is nominated McCain will be president, and for that reason favours Clinton. My host here in Damascus, however, is an Obama fan. Time will tell.
Be well Shirin,
I read today that Syria has put more tank armor on the border with Lebanon and Israel.
Stay safe.
Okay, it’s official - between this story and your obsession w/ the “Annie Oakley” comment - it’s clear that you’ve lost all objectivity (if you ever had it) and are clearly into the “crazy” territory you used to deride the GOP for Larry.
Wow… pretty sad.
PS - before you start throwing around nonsense like this - perhaps you should pause and remember just who some of the business partners, direct and removed, the Clintons continue to be associated with sport.
What have the Clintons got to do with Rezko. Kevin, how old are you?
Hillary did it. Hillary did it.
Answer the question then…
Or what Kevin,the bright lights come out? and things get rough?
It is not ONE comment Kevin, it is a a WHOLE bunch of em’. More than Annie O would care to shoot at.
Um, Kevin, Larry is quoting the Chicago Tribune. He’s not making this up. This is news from the Tony Rezko trial which is going on right now. You might try googling it yourself. Rezko was a pay for play politician who is on trail for bribery and fraud. Many of the most important political figures in the state, including the governor are implicated. He gave money and supported Obama for 20 years, including helping him buy his house (his wife bought the adjoining land and sold part of it back to Obama, who could not have done this deal any other way). Obama acknowledges this and says it was “stupid” of him to do that. It was stupid, especially since Rezko was already being investigated for fraud at the time of the deal. There are lots of other sordid details, including Rezko’s association with this guy Auchi. Please do some research. Or maybe it isn’t necessary. Just close your ears and eyes and let Obama get the nomination and you’ll hear all about it from the Republicans before November.
BTW, Hillary really had nothing to do with this, although that may be impossible for you to believe.
and as I said before - though not a question, Hillary and Bill are so much deeper in similar crap.
Is it not possible that Rezko’s attorney expected the answer to his question to be, “No, Obama was not there?”
Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.
Looking at my comment above I realize I did not communicate my thinking. The thought occurred to me about Rezko’s attorney when you were discussing why Rezko’s attorney brought this up to the gov’s star witness. My thought was that maybe he asked the question because he was expecting a no obama answer and perhaps he was asking the question with that no in mind to help bury this story for Obama who probably at this moment does not particularly want anything else flying around.
As for Larry’s information to us, he has been an amazing source to bring us all kinds of news that we certainly can not get from other sources. So I say, keep on keeping on Larry. Let the chips fall.
Kevin are you getting paid the same hourly rate to troll this blog as the Obama’s are paying their Nanny.
Oh I don’t think he’s getting paid, deke. I think Kevin’s a true believer. He truly believes in the evil of Hillary Clinton. It’s not about the precious for Kevin. It’s about Hillary Clinton.
just goes to show how silly and narrow minded your are then. Please - point out any post or comment I’ve made where I “decried the evils of Hillary”
The DNC and Obama are unworthy of my vote. I will NEVER be suckered in to being made to feel that I HAVE to vote for him.
It stops now. I refuse to vote for someone that is so undeserving of my vote. And the DNC??? No money from me!
I have never been so disgusted in my life…
You are not alone. I’ve never been this disgusted with Democrats, ever. I want them to stop the disenfranchisment of Florida and Michigan and I want several prominent Dems to speak out against the media’s sexism. But I’m not holding my breath.
Wow Wow Wow
Good trial. Good prosecution. Good reporting. Good blogging. Good comments.
This is how truth in justice, and truth in politics, and truth in reporting truth, should be.
wow. This could be a election bombshell.
Wow. I used to come here a lot during the Plame affair. I used to have a lot of respect for Larry Johnson.
This “Hussein” attack is right out of the Republicans playbook. What is your goal?
I just can’t believe this place has turned into a hate Obama site. Your insane hatred of Barak Obama has unhinged the lot of you. It’s unreal.
You people need to get a grip.
Was Auchi involved in the assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister General Abdel-Karim Qassem, led by Saddam Hussein in 1959 as a young Ba’ath Party cadre? I have seen allegations of such.
This smells like blackmail..Rezco’s lawyer giving a warming to Obama camp?? Could be..Speaking about the Purple room, with all night drug parties..Special K, Crack-meph, Cocaine..Now Larry Sinclair story is beganning to make more sense. Where is the MSM??’
Larry -
Why is Obama going to any party for a convicted criminal? (Conviction in November, 2003 - party in April, 2004).
I can just see Obama raising a glass: Cheers to our visiting felon!
If Auchi made it possible for Obama and Rezko’s wife to close the deal on the property on the same day, was this in fact a return favor for Obama securing the passport for Auchi?
I mean, Auchi wants a passport, Rezko wants the money, Obama wants the house. Or is that only a part of the whole thing? All these Middle Eastern acquaintences of Obama , what else is there?
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]
SINCE OUSTING SADAAM FROM KUWAIT
Americans already showed
That they want no democracy
Over eight years and more; the road
Allows no going back, you see.
How far now toward dictatorship,
Toward despotism will they wend?
A shame the public will did slip
And brought an era to its end.
Obama yet may choose to hold
In reverence the Constitution
Although gutted by bastards bold
Before him–minds in diminution.
So it may be he buck the trend,
But “we the people” clearly have
Chosen self-balanced rule to end–
Briefly albeit one may stave.
.
[...] Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama’s Hidden Real Estate Partner? [...]