Nine out of Ten Terrorists Love Them Some Obama
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on April 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, William Ayers
If I pitched Hollywood on a movie about a Democratic Presidential candidate who received public support from people considered to be terrorists while most of the electorate is worried about the “Global War on Terror,” I would be laughed out of the studio. “Too farfetched.” “Not believable.” Leave it to Barack Obama to bring the ridiculous and absurd to life.
First we had the inimitable William Ayers. An unrepentant member of the Weather Underground who has lamented in public that he did not plant enough bombs. Wild Bill helped stake Obama in his first Illinois campaign in 1995, raised funds, and rallied supporters. Later, Billy boy worked with Obama in steering funds to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN).
Well, it looks like the investment has paid off. Barack appears to be the favorite candidate of Hamas. Hamas, a radical Sunni terrorist group, just offered the equivalent of an unofficial endorsement. While this news comes courtesy of World Net Daily’s Jerusalem bureau chief, it appears to be real. Aaron Klein reports that Ahmad Yousuf, a top level Hamas official, said:
I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he’s a friend of the Israelis…so whatever [the] Israelis didn’t like they will take from all those candidates,” he said.
Yousuf said that in Hamas’ view, Obama has “a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance.
Yousuf apparently did not get the invite to the fund raiser in San Francisco. In any event, Obama has stated on the record that:
Hamas a ‘terrorist organization’ that should remain isolated until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel,” and Obama “told reporters he opposed Carter’s meeting with Hamas,” Yousuf “chalked up Obama’s statements to political posturing.
But this will not put the issue to rest. Count on the Republican 527s to focus on Barack’s ties to William Ayers and former PLO press flack, Rashid Khalidi (the head of the Arab American Action Network) and to highlight that a terrorist organization like Hamas trusts Obama. Do you think this is the kind of message that will inspire bitter midwesterners to grab their guns and pray to God? Just asking.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
If I was a presidential candidate, I would not want to be known as the candidate that has support from the world terrorist community.
Aye… how quickly we have forgotten 9/11. How naive does this country have to be???
How can you clintonistas see the sky with all the black helicopters blocking your view?
Swish swish swish……
it’s not black helicopters, it’s the media. I don’t think Barack is funded by terrorists, if they’re funding him they’re wasting their money. Hillary has a much better chance at bringing peace to the middle east, he’ll have to watch his step to avoid encouraging something he wouldn’t want encouraged. But it’s rather funny that he isn’t called on who donates to him when he’s so sure that Hillary’s donors own-her. And he says you can’t say no to your bankers. This is want not being vetted lets candidates get away with. His words will be used against all of us if he’s our nom. If his supporters asked him to run a nicer campaign, maybe he wouldn’t face the same charges he’s made against her come November.
Delyon…..Take another hit of that US GOVT. ISSUE CRACK and relax….
Using Karl Rove and now World Net Daily to smear a Democrat?
LOL
Hey, we’re just getting him ready for the general.
Perhaps you didn’t see the Hamas Manifesto at his church’s website before they removed it. Then again….perhaps you did.
Step away from the Kool-Aid, easy now, open your eyes and SEE the terrorists Obama associates with, you can do it! It’s easy- they have been right there all along!!!!
Or maybe only us bitter gun toting bible thumping folks can see TRUTH when it is staring us right in the face!
I think you’re a Republican who really doesn’t give a damn about a Democrat winning this election.
Only a bitter gun-toting bible thumping moron Republican would claim Obama has ties to terrorists.
Barry? Is that you?
In the spirit of internet confessions…Beelzebud is really my wife Michelle…..Just wanted to clear that up……Love, Barry
They will claim he has considerable and extentive ties.
They claimed Max Cleland had ties–with nothing to even insinuate a connection closer than the sixth degree.
And Max Cleland got a first degree burns for his trouble from the sy-ops.
Pisses me off.
Obama has terrorist ties coming out the wazoo.
All those stockbrokers and secretaries murdered on 9.11 don’t matter, cause, you know, if they were really connected, they’d of been warned, and stayed away.
And the would be mediocre elites of this country, the Cheneys, the Bush’s, the Rove’s and the Obama’s, well, they’re all that matters, what’s a little corruption among friends, right, and DAMN! they do a GOOD job, losing wars, and such.
The point being why do we want to but corrupt terrorist profiting traitor Americans from any party in the White House, whether they’re Rove, or Obama, both supported by Carlyle, and the like?
None of those people have a clue.
put, not but, sorry.
Sen Obama I thought you were on the campaign trail!
Newsflash
Democrats go to Church and own guns too!
For the first time in 44 years I WILL NOT vote Democrat if Obama is on the ticket, or even considered for an executive position.
I am an American First - who has something you people seriously lack; that’s integrity, honesty, and principles.
Your ad hominem attacks do not work, because you have used them like teenagers do, and they are so overused they have ZERO impact.
If Rove and the Ghost of Atwater had the power to create a perfect strawman Democratic candidate to run against–they couldn’t have done much better than what Iowa and SC Democrats delivered to us.
He the perfect Democrat for them to beat in many ways.
I Hope Obama’s as good as Obama thinks he is.
No one is that good!
Yes they are.
Queen Brazile in emails to TM posters has referenced that Republican men were much more helpful to her in the past few years than any Democrat…
things that make you go hmmmnnn….
We tell the truth. Fools like you only think it is smearing.
Just another example of OBAMcCARTHYISM…..Facts become smears unless they are aimed at the Pink Lady…..Then they are facts.
The thing of it is, Mr Johnson is pointing out FACTS, which are what is “smearing” Obama.
I never met Auchi.
I don’t know Rezko.
I did not know about the people in my district freezing with no running water.
I was “clumsy” when saying rural “typical white people” are bitter, and fearful, including my grandmother. When challenged on what I said I included urban folks so every can be called a bigot, BUT ME.
I never was at those sermons, although I admit to stealing his words for my book.
Kalidi and Ayers didn’t hold fundraisers for me.
I would get all bothered by some Rebpub Rep calling me boy, instead of taking about my failure in a National Security drill.
I can’t bowl but don’t those shoes look cool.
I think endorsements like the
I never held a gun that would shoot straight.(Note to self; not too much aim is required with a shotgun.)
Hamas is a terrorist orginization, but I don’t mind if they raise funds for me.
I “am of two minds” on Tibet /China..until Hillary is for it.
I have a minder at Rezko’s trial ’cause I can’t think of anything else for him to do. And I love it when I pay people to sit on their ass.
Obama, get your popcorn ready ’cause rethugs won’t have to bring their own. And Mr. Johnson already has his.
No one is smearing Barack. His own words are just coming back to haunt him. A smear would be spouting untruths. Factually, Rove has not smeared Barack Obama. He has spoken about what Barack Obama has actually done in this campaign, and as a Democrat, I didn’t hear any smears. Shooting the messenger because you despise him doesn’t make his words any less true. In actuality, you are smearing Rove because you offer no factual rebuttals, just a negative dig at who the messenger is.
durn, you sure didn’t give a rip when hillary was torn apart. next!
Part of getting ripped apart is coping with getting ripped apart.
I think it’s funny, someone mentioned mind control, and MKULTRA, and not really, nothing that fancy, no tricks needed, just a constant pattern of harassment, and triggers, and some one’s psyche can be shot to shi*. Any given trigger can evoke 200 different occasions of pain over a lifetime, and all converge on that one moment, in the wink of an eye. Watch Barry reach for that cigarette, again, the fissure a little deeper.
And it’s not a long shot to say this isn’t used by others, including our enemies, to game our Presidents, our politicians, and other leaders, this understanding of the subconscious.
Disputing lies is mandatory, Obama lies like a rug, and is tripped up constantly. Healthy democracies feed on truth.
Clinton has stood up to this barrage, that is some iron in the mind.
This is why, in part, we want to elect the best candidates we can find.
Part of getting ripped apart is coping with getting ripped apart.
A great t shirt logo. Kinda’a like Forest and the
This is so not a good week to be Barrack Obama.
Oh, not to worry. Our MSM will NEVER report on this story.
What kind of barbituates will be available for all the Kool-Aid drinkers in detox??
The kind Rush loves.
The Republican 527’s must be salivating at this point. They don’t even have to make any shit up. The facts on Obama speak for themselves. I could never vote for him… to many questions about his associations, his religion, holes in his biography. I wonder how his candidacy will be viewed a few years from now… a bad joke maybe?
Right, I forgot. Hillary is an angel. Nope, no dirt there for them to dig up. She’s been vetted. VETTED!
Don’t worry folks, whoever the nominee is, there will be plenty of republican 527s to go around. Apparently there’s plenty of Kool-Aid as well. Drink up!
Clinton has been around long enough to piss off half the people.
At one level I resent the fact that she ran this year.I’d have prefered seeing Edwards, Richardson and Obama duke it out. A slightly newer batch of faces without the enormous baggage of a two term president to contend with. She commands a mix of residual loyalty and hatred that has become a toxic brew.
Salo… are you a…,..a.., a misogonist????
heh. Yes. more of a Roue though. On the weekend i’m a Cad.
And that would be funny to who other than your best bud ‘bama?
are you okay?
take that hatred and eat it!
Wow. You would think that everyone but Barry has some responsibility here … I am sure you’ve heard it before, but it appears to need repeating … don’t confuse the messenger with the message …. he’s just bringin’ it for someone else.
Do we now see a little more nervousness in the pro-Obama posters? What happened to all their confidence in Barack’s coronation?
Salaam Gaza!
Well Barack has them fooled as well don’t you know.
here’s what he said to AIPAC
Those “Palestinians” cling to their semtex, Allah and their settler hatred.
Here’s what he said to ANSWER
Those Isrealis cling to their Merkavas, Jahweh and their aparthied.
See, all things to all people. No contradiction there.
He is Arab…..not black. Smoke and mirrors.
That’s the strange thing that no one seems to mention. Obama is, by blood, mostly white (50%), then the other half is arab and african, but mostly arab. I read this somewhere that was not a consiracy or hate site, it was someone who had done the geneaology of his family.
Has nothing to do with claims that he is muslim, because anyone can be any religion with any heritage. And I never thought for a moment he was muslim (and frankly I could care less if he was)
OT: sorry but I just had to share this…to me it’s more than just indicative of the kool-aid syndrome. It’s just downright scary.
http://dykestowatchoutfor.com/dtwof-episode-526
Larry,
How are you going to reconcile all your rhetoric and anti-Barrack posturing when (as seems inevitable) Obama becomes the candidate of your adopted party?
Just wondering.
The only inevitable thing about Barack is that he and Lady Obama will probably be living somewhere in England this time next year. He’ll either be a visiting lecturer some where or writing a book. Michelle will be trying to figure out how to cut her losses with him because Michelle is not for losers. The girls will be doing better but still suffering from post Jerry Wright TSD and America will have its first woman president.
That’s easy. He’s not. He’s a Republican.
Is there some kind of cult-like reason that so many of you Obama people on the net enjoy using screen names such as 666 and a bastardized version of Beelzebub or his mephistopheles variations, while others of you so often enjoy calling yourselves some variation of Hussein? I was just wondering if you all think it endears you–or is it supposed to invoke fear in some kind of silly way?
Just curious.
The devil is very 60’s, isn’t it?
I keep getting a visual of a bunch of old guys in viet nam, with the helicopters closing in…
LOL!
dont forget the N.I.K.E. tag names too
very cliquish of them, dare i say elitist snark
Mephistopheles could cover it all in one name….
To everyone who accuses Larry and Susan of being Republican operatives, please keep this in mind. A good GOP operative would be (and is) sitting on this stuff and more. They DO NOT want to suffer from Premature Obama Ejection. He’s the guy they want to see come the GE.
Sure, they’re ready to dish out 20 years of Hillary hate… but that’s all just warmed up leftovers that the majority of Americans have heard before and rejected as boring. The main dish, the red meat, that’s some fresh Obama.
He’s the Daily Red-State Special.
“POE” that’s awsome
Give the man some Viagra..
PMS, thanks for the HO-HO.
POE…..Hmmmmm….Could this account for the ever present snarl on Michelle’s face…LOL
I’ve actually mapped out the calendar menu for the Bistro Obama.
It’s quite simple Spring Salads:
float the stories at least once in the Washington Times, New York Post and the rest of he Murdoch owned press. The Sun, The Times (London), WSJ, The Australian. Rope in a few Italian and French right wing papers. These sources are more or less credible mainline News outlets.
Summer Menu-soups
Then, as the Democratic convention approaches,
reinforce the stories that polled well increase the temperature. Chop some veggies and bring to boil.
Fall Menu–Steak Kebabs
Between the conventions hammer the steak, not just pound it. cut it up slice it put it on a spit in layers, let the fat sizzle, shave off the edges mix with roasted veggies. Oenly call Obama a traitorous foreigner and enjoy the smell of roast meat.
Winter–Pudding
taste those sweet corporate hand outs either way. A nice sweet cinnamony rice pud. Obama’s either defeated or he’s so petrified of the press and their overlords he does what ever the fuck he’s told.
“They DO NOT want to suffer from Premature Obama Ejection.”
Does this mean he’s the GOP’s virtual Viagra?
I wonder if Barack Hamas Obama sent Goolsbee to have a nice little chat with Yousuf.
SHHHHHHHHHH! This was SUPPOSE to remain under wraps until AFTER Mr. Hope got the nomination! Now you’ve really gone and done it, Larry. You’ve made the MSM’s job so much more difficult. Just one more story they have to not report on. Dammit.
Larry, you forgot Rezko and the ties there with Alsammae and Auchi, the Baathe party members and Obama’s own cousin in Kenya who had no problem torching all those people in the church for power!
So all you small towners, best get your rifles out and hang on tight, cuz Obama is a cummin and he is going to win no matter what, he’s a man on a mission and since no one believes his changing rhetoric, next step is eliminate all opposition!
Resevoirs are being pumped as we speak with kool aide, so beware, the day Obama has a commercial out to conserve water and not drink for a day, you know it is coming!
Will someone please explain to Larry King what Obama kool aide is please!
And lest we forget Dick Morris heading down to Kenya to help Obama’s cousin (Odinga) with that ill fated election strategy that resulted in all those deaths.
Why to hear the MSM tell the story, Dick happened to meet Odinga a party through a “mutual friend” and liked him so much he volunteered to travel to Kenya and work for free for a month or so (on a tourist visa, no less!)
Gosh.. I really really sure that Dick Morris would travel to Kenya and get involved in their politics just for a fun working vacation, and that Obama’s campaign didn’t pay him a cent (of the money that people donated for Obama) to make that happen. Yeah, right.
Oh.. where are the real journalists? You know.. the ones that used to work to uncover this stuff?
Oh Yeah, Odinga. Boy is HE a sore loser or what???????
sadly, i think they’re all dead. and i don’t see a move toward new ones coming up.
Catriley,
Take a look at the “Memorandum of Understanding” Odinga had with the Muslim Powers in Kenya - written as a legal document in American English!
Wonder where Odinga got a document like that in a country whose language is Swahili or Arabic?
Another “Italian Letter”?
It is still on some laptop somewhere.
Is a visit by Morris to Kenya tasked by Obama or Auchi or Rev’s house o’ holy?
Where is Frank when ya need him?
Imagine Obama as an intelligence asset…Pakistan, Jakarta, Kenya, Hawaii,
So.Cal, New York, Boston, Chicago. To bad he does not have balls.
What did I miss?, oh yeah his money trail extends into the middle east, via the court room doors of the Rezko court room
http://www.kippreport.com/article.php?articleid=1056&day=7
Siebel?
OT: Cause and effect;
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/
Great finds Teak!
Gotta get over to Eezko Watch more often.
Thanks for pointing these out.
Larry King is losing his grey matter. I saw him with Colbert the other night and it was pathetic.
It was pretty funny when he didn’t know what a bong was.
Such scary stuff, scary because it is SO REAL! Yet whenever this is mentioned, Obama supporters will dismiss this as right-wing talking points, and you as as wing-nut!
The other day there was a diary up at MyDD that was removed or purged after pressure because it talked about Carter’s meeting with Hamas.
I learned two very important lessons. Never, ever, criticize or question the Carter/Obama wing of the Democratic Party based upon what appears to be their coddling of terrorists over their concern for the security of Israel, and never, ever, even SUGGEST that one might be opposed to this naive position while being a genuine liberal/progressive in all other respects, because that is just not possible.
I’d swear some of his early supporters at Dkos were Republicans who knew about all this stuff and handed out TRs to keep it out of view and out of mind.
The Clinton people on the site thought she was going to win and didn’t take Obama seriously enough, and thr Edwards people were slowly dismantled by what nw seems like a professionally coordinated cull.
“TR’s?” Tiny Reds? I will lay my ignorance out here for all to see …
i think Troll Rated:TR
What is strange about Dkos’s early Obama supporters is that they are heavily associated with TRing pro Palestinian posters who were or verged on antisemetic commentary.
Phillygal, Geekesque are two that immediately spring to mind…anyone who showed up defending Ahmadinejad or Hamas etc was run out on a rail by what became the core nicknames associated with the Obama campaign.
There’s a poster at MyDD called Shergeld who idolizes Carter’s propalestinian sentiment, the palestinians and was one of Geekesque’s most bitter opponents. Shergeld is an Obama fanatic…so is Geek.
Looking at the patterns there that, the core IP freaks switched from supressing antisemetic commentary to calling all opponents of Obama racists. None of the core Obama patrol/former IP trollraters have commented on much of anything about Isreal since the primary started. They know a big segment of Obama’s supporters are likely to have a reflexive instinct to support Palestine–and are keeping mum about their own pro Israeli posting habits.
It’s always struck me as a very deceptive core group of commentators.
The more things change the more they stay the same I suppose.
btw I’d favour Israel in a war with the Arabs. The are a bit like the UK in WW2 facing the Germans. Although I also resent the wider geopolitical fall out that the west is forced to deal with by propping up the Israeli.
a further note.
On the net, most of the early support for the war was from posters who invoked the spectre of antisemetism among war opponents.
If I recall correctly you were objectively anti semetic if you opposed the war. It was(n’t) surprising to see so many of the nicknames that supported Obama turn out to be posters wh had previously made a career out of TRing anyone who supported the Palestinians or Iran.
it wa a fairly common tactic used to beat down opposition to invading Iraq….and it’s wormed its way into the Primary battle between Clinton and Obama.
Salo, have you read this month’s Atlantic on Israel?
I found it very interesting.
Israel is already in a war, a war without guns firing.
And it appears without change, they’re losing, just like the Cheney republican US.
Just game them asymmetrically to their death, and they destruct internally, just like their US component: corruption, violence, xenophobia, FEAR. Someone like Kristol speaks of using the politics of fear against the American people? How have they been used against the stupid republican neocons?
Shithead.
OTOH, the Atlantic article highlighted what I would refer to as more enlightened Israeli thinkers, those who understand answering violence with violence is internecine.
That is a very good sign.
personally i want more talk and less bluster. dialogue is a good thing, but i can’t see barry carrying it off very well.
The rational of being concerned about Israel and embracing those who embrace those who vow to wipe Jews off the face of the earth escapes me. Sorry …
…it’s a very odd combination of supporters. At some point someone will notice the contradictory nature of that core group a frankenstienian mishmash of proIsraeli and proPalestinian commentators. Or maybe each side won’t notice until October–thinking Obama is actually on their own side.
I agree with you 110%. That’s why we got to cook that baby and stick a fork in him good. Keep airing the shit out, Larry. Barack Obama has too many toxins to be our nominee.
Agreed, but it is daxn depressing how in the bag some are, George Snuggleupagus was on Dark Side -Hannity radio today saying HRC would need to win by 65% of the vote in PA to make a dent, how’s that for moving the goalposts?! He also said if Obama is ahead in dels that NO MATTER WHAT the Dem leadership and SDs will GIVE him the nomination, period.
So i guess we can all go home and stop playing now.
Oh yeah, AINT GONNA HAPPEN
IM WITH HILL TIL THE CONVENTION AND BEYOND
I think he is correct and that the dem leadership is intent on giving Obama the nomination even if he were behind in pledged delegates going into the convention. They are working like hell to keep it from getting that far though. I think they know damned well that Obama is going to lose in November but they are even more scared that if Hillary were the nominee she might just win. They’ve probably got a hell of a lot of reasons why the status quo should be maintained and Hillary is the one person who absolutely represents change. That woman wants universal health care and won’t rest until she gets it. Unlike the other bastards in the race she actually means what she says.
These nitwits aren’t the least bit interested in eliminating poverty, increasing median income, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, insuring that all Americans have access to decent jobs and housing, universal health care, and the list goes on. The epiphany I had this election cycle is that the Dems are even more cynical and disgusting than the GOP bastards. At least with the GOP they actually intend to enact their ideas with the exception of their tried and true cash cow that is pro-life.
Larry, I’m curious what the Serious people think of Obama and his ties to these radicals. Do you have a sense of what former State/CIA/military folks make of this guy? They must be paying attention.
If the general election winds up as McCain vs. Obama, what will you do?
cast a vote in Arizona that wouldn’t make any difference.
Write in Hillary
I’m writing in Hillary’s name. I’ve never voted Republican and don’t plan to start now, but I refuse to have Mr. Hope shoved down my throat by the DC elites. I’m sick of settling for the next best thing. I swallowed Kerry in ‘04 and I’m not doing it again.
I am so over the Democratic Party. They have opened my eyes. I’m finished with them if Hillary isn’t the nominee. You don’t disenfranchise millions of voters in 2 States and then claim victory when your opponent would have won with the votes of those disenfranchised voters. That’s just not how it works-sorry.
i’m voting mccain. i realize that may not be a popular view, but i think it’s the only way to ensure that obama doesn’t get elected. and the thought of obama getting elected sends shivers up my spine (and i don’t mean the kind chris matthews gets).
btw, i’ve voted dem since 72, usually straight ticket. voting repub is something i’ve never done before and is not something i will do easily. however, not voting or writing in hillary or whatever makes a statement but doesn’t do enough to ensure no obama in the white house. also, it will send a strong message to the dnc that they can’t pull this crap on us again. we can deal with four years of mccain then get a good dem in 2012.
jmho.
Vote downticket with good democrats, and do everything to cripple a McCain presidency.
But much will depend on how he presents himself.
If he’s just another mediocre corporate candidate, well, no thanks.
Wall Street, the mediocre middle aged corrupt men, are already fucked.
I agree with this to an extent but I am really, really fed up with the democratic party at this juncture. The dems having an overwhelming majority in congress just isn’t what it used to be. They don’t believe in their ideology anymore and they don’t have any fucking spine either. I am seriously considering voting a straight republican ticket.
I live in Texas and the republicans have done alright in my area. I prefer liberals but liberals are such pansies they have cowered away from the liberal moniker and now use the term “progressive” which essentially tells everybody that they are ashamed of or don’t believe in their ideas.
Write in Hillary or vote McCain. I would do whichever is a sure way to hurt Barack Obama.
I live in a Red State that is heavily Hispanic. I’ll write in Hillary.
If it was a purple state, I’d vote for McCain. First Republican vote EVER (except for one local judge… a friend) in 37 years of active voting.
Under no circumstance that I can imagine would I vote for Obama. My Country before my Party. But then, I’m one of those “clingy” types.
Obama can join Jimmy Carter now. They can celebrate their histrionics with Hamas together. Sickening.
Yeah, right–if they don’t get beheaded or blown-up first.
Their so naive it makes me want to vomit. Remember Carter’s presidency and what a failure he was? He’s disgusting.
I honestly think Carter is minus some of his grey matter now.
He never had any matter, just peanuts for brains!
Too much time in the sun working for Habitat.
Jimmy Carter is clearly SENILE….No longer credible and not worth pondering…
Anyone noticed the stream of bullshit coming out of Obama today.
Once again “how can I be and elitist my single mother had to use food stamps”
“how can I be and elitist, I played basketball as a kid”
How about this, You are rich NOW and you act like you have a broom up your ass!
Sen. Clinton got another key endorsement today from Congresswoman Jackie Speier
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7112
I guess he was trying to be funny. Again.
Scott he is almost flailing.
Anyone done a check to see if she was on food stamps ? Fed. Govt records can live forever…..
Elitist just means socially superior, and we all know Obama thinks he is superior. He told us so and keeps on telling us so, and telling us so, and telling us so……..
I see in that interesting paper that was discovered and written by Obama’s father, who clearly appeared to be a Marxist– that Barack’s father spelled his name Barak. I was wondering what Barak Junior changed it to Barack?
I missed this paper? Where can I get it Uppity?
I think it was at Politico, Hope.
Thanks Uppity!
Why does Barry’s father remind me of Malcolm X in his pic?
“I was wondering what Barak Junior changed it to Barack?”
The “c” gives him extra superpowers.
Oh yes, of course. Sorry. LOL.
Do you think he’s got blue spandex under that pretty suit with a BIG O on the chest?
Oprah Man!
I was thinking the “c” makes his name sound like that of a parrot’s screech: ba RACK!!! ba RACK!!!
Baracka is Arabic for blessed
Oh Look, Barry had an audience plant speak very eloquently and say somebody has to stop these RACIST attacks clinton is making upon him. That this “elitist” stuff is racist.
Here he goes again, trying with the race card, using a surrogate.
Apparently “elitist” has now become another “racist” word that can’t be used. Ludicrous. Dobbs is cracking up here.
Well …. He was obviously watching Bush … wonder when they will start checking bumper stickers before they decide who gets into his events and who doesnt?
I’m just glad to see that Larry hasn’t adopted the GOP tactic of conflating Democrats with terrorists.
Just tell Barry to stop hanging out with them.
LOL@CNN. “Obama’s remarks have not hurt him”.
Ok all you small town folks. Get amnesia now.
These people are a scream.
They have Clinton at 37% in indiana and Obama at 51%
The only poll showing for this week so far on realclearpolitics is:
Survey USA Clinton 55 Obama 39
That’s the only one out for this week so far on realclearpolitics.
I’m sure there will be more out tomorrow.
Big difference huh?
The Palestinian Candidate
Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
That’s about it Smilin Jim.
I believe there is a precedent for both democratic candidates running in the GE. It is allowed under present DNC/electoral college rules. If both ran, it would assure a democratic win in the electoral college. The deciding factor of which dem. would be president, I think, falls to House dems or similar method. Details are fuzzy-could someone look this up?
The way I remember the electoral college from Polyscience way back when is that originally the president won the most electoral college votes while the runner up became vice-president. However, this was changed so that the pres and v-pres came from the same party and ran on the same ticket. I think if both Hillary and Obama ran in the general then McCain would win in a landslide because both would siphon off votes from each other. It would be difficult for a dem to even win one state. However, in this scenario we would really find out that Hillary was a better candidate than Obama as she would crush him.
[...] Larry Johnson at No Quarter writes about the “unofficial endorsement” of Barack Obama by the terrorist organization Hamas: Yousuf said that in Hamas’ view, Obama has “a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance… [...]
Presumably in November we could expect to receive the endorsement of Osama bin Laden if Obama is the nominee.
I will never be held responsible for allowing this incompetent, clueless and seriously flawed man to be put in the White House. Stay at home or write in Hillary will help him to achieve this. The only sure way to stop this madness and send a message to Howard Dean, the Democratic elites and the DNC is to vote for John McCain.I know what McCain stands for and while I won’t be happy,I can live with him. I am terrified of Obama and fear what he may do. I will hold my nose and vote Republican for the first time ever if it comes down to that. I will not give the DNC and the Obamabots the smug satisfaction of an illegally won victory of casting aside two state’s right to be counted. This primary season has opened my eyes to the real agenda of my once beloved Democratic party.They are worse than the right wing zealots that have run this country the past seven years. I have no remorse or guilt in changing my party affiliation to Independent and I have absolutely no loyalty to them any more.
No quarter = right wing clones
Osama/Obama
lol, thank you for my laff today.
What are you, a Neo-Con? Because there’s not much difference between the Far-Left that supports OBABA, and the Far-Left that supports George Bush.
Laugh all the way to the funny farm, idiot.
[...] on April 16, 2008 by dianej While reading an interesting blog by texasdarlin I learned that Larry Johnson ’s April 15th entry on No Quarter indicates that the terror group Hammas supports Obama. This is no [...]
INCOMING>>>>>
Which side of this “issue” are the Clintonistas on?
consortiumnews.com
Would Obama Hold Bush Accountable?
By Robert Parry
April 16, 2008
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shied away from the issue of holding George W. Bush and his top aides accountable for war crimes, torture and other offenses – apparently out of fear of alienating potential Republican crossover votes.
But – under questioning on April 14 – Obama agreed that, if elected, he would have his Attorney General initiate an investigation into whether Bush and other senior officials violated criminal statutes and thus deserved to face prosecution.
“What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued,” Obama told journalist Will Bunch. [Philly.com, April 14, 2008]
“I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now,” Obama continued. “I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated.”
However, the Illinois senator left himself an out, suggesting he would weigh evidence of Bush’s guilt against the potential political fallout from prosecuting a former President.
“I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve,” Obama said. “So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment – I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General – having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now – are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies.”
Nevertheless, Obama said he would be inclined to take action “if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody is above the law – and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.”
It’s less clear how Hillary Clinton would handle evidence that Bush and his top aides violated criminal statutes in the “war on terror” and the Iraq War. But Bill Clinton has said his wife wants to collaborate with Bush’s father, suggesting that she would not pursue accountability for the son.
On Dec. 17, 2007, Bill Clinton disclosed that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America’s damaged image.
“The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.
The remark suggested Americans should be impressed that the country’s two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.
The Bushes and the Clintons have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980.
Defending His Son
In responding to Bill Clinton’s remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son’s foreign policy. That, in turn, means that Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.
So, to get the senior Bush onboard for the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn’t investigate the younger Bush’s crimes – from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.
If Hillary Clinton does get elected, Americans should expect to hear lots of talk about “leaving that one for the historians” or “no need to get bogged down refighting old battles.” That’s exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.
Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.
The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and then ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.
Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal liability.
In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bush’s alleged role in secretly aiding Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during and after Hussein’s eight-year-long war with Iran. Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, the House Banking Committee chairman, had exposed intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush administrations employed to assist Hussein.
There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid to Iraq through third countries, including the supply of dangerous chemicals.
Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (allegations that Bush and other Republicans interfered with Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives improperly searched Clinton’s passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).
All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, painted an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule, with two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-considered national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).
Had the full stories been told, the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently.
But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.
Clinton let George H.W. Bush retreat gracefully into retirement. [For details on the scandals, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]
Joining the Cover-ups
In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he “disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didn’t.” Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.
“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”
By his choice of words, Clinton revealed how he saw information – not something that belonged to the American people and had intrinsic value to a healthy democracy – but as a potential weapon that could be put to “political advantage.” Rather than wield the Iran-Contra club, Clinton opted for a cover-up in the name of national unity.
Similarly, the Democratic congressional leadership ignored the flood of incriminating evidence pouring in to the “October Surprise” task force in December 1992.
Chief counsel Lawrence Barcella told me later that he urged task force chairman Lee Hamilton to extend the investigation several months to examine this new evidence of Republican guilt, but Hamilton ordered Barcella to wrap up the probe with a finding that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign had done nothing wrong.
Some of the new incriminating evidence – including an unprecedented report from the Russian government about its knowledge of illicit Republican contacts with Iran – was simply hidden away in boxes that I discovered two years later and dubbed “The October Surprise X-Files.”
The “Iraqgate” investigation met a similar fate under Clinton’s Justice Department, which chose to ignore or dismiss evidence of covert shipments of war materiel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.
In 1996, when former Reagan national security official Howard Teicher came forward with an affidavit describing secret U.S.-backed arms shipments to Iraq in the 1980s, Clinton’s Justice Department went on the offensive – against Teicher, trying to discredit him and bullying him into silence.
That same year, the Clinton administration did nothing when Reagan’s 1984 campaign chief Ed Rollins wrote in his 1996 memoir Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms that a top Filipino politician had admitted delivering an illegal $10 million cash payment to Reagan from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
“I was the guy who gave the ten million from Marcos to your campaign,” the Filipino told Rollins in 1991, according to the memoir. “I was the guy who made the arrangements and delivered the cash personally. …It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan.”
The stunning anecdote did attract some press coverage in 1996 but the story died because the Clinton administration made no effort to follow it up. No government investigator demanded that Rollins reveal the identities of the Filipino politician and the Republican lobbyist who handled the pay-off.
Similarly, in 1998, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz confirmed that the Reagan-Bush administration had helped cover up cocaine trafficking by the Nicaraguan contra rebels, including evidence that traced directly into the White House in the mid-1980s, the Clinton administration chose to look the other way. [For details, see Parry’s Lost History.]
Dark Secrets
In the 1990s, even as the Republican attack machine pounded the Clintons with allegations about alleged ethical lapses and marital infidelities, the Clinton administration acted like it was determined to prove it could be trusted with the nation’s dark secrets, that it could cover up wrongdoing with the best of them.
The consequences for America, however, were less pleasant. With George H.W. Bush’s sinister history hidden, the door was opened to the restoration of the Bush Dynasty. If the full truth had been known about former President Bush, it’s hard to conceive how his son, George W. Bush, ever could have become President.
If Bill Clinton now is right about Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” to do as President – recruiting George H.W. Bush for a worldwide goodwill tour – she seems heading in the same direction that her husband took, looking to the future rather than insisting on an honest accounting of the past.
Sen. Obama may offer only slightly more hope for Americans who believe that another cover-up of the Bush Family’s wrongdoing would represent another severe blow to the Republic.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have rejected grassroots demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In the April 14 interview about a possible Justice Department examination of Bush’s crimes, Obama reaffirmed his opposition to impeachment.
“I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances,” Obama said.
Though one could argue that impeachment at this late stage of the Bush presidency doesn’t make political sense, what is alarming about Obama’s answer is that he seems to be willfully ignoring evidence that Bush’s record represents something that is indeed quite “exceptional.”
Still, a new President’s promise of at least a criminal investigation into Bush’s actions is surely more promising than the idea of an arm-in-arm world tour by the new President’s husband and the old President’s dad.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
You know, you can drag anyone you want here with any lengthy disertation extolling the length and breadth of the seemliness of Yourbama. He lies. He doesn’t deliver his tax returns, his appointment books, or in fact any information about his service in Illinois, he is such a “mystery” that
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 03/26/08 01:01 PM [ET]
The president of a prominent watchdog group said Wednesday that he believes Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “intended to leave no paper trail” during his time in the Illinois Senate.
Judicial Watch, which has been seeking access to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) records from her time in the White House, argued Wednesday that the Illinois senator, who has criticized the former first lady for a lack of openness, has his own “records problem.”
“The more we learn about the Illinois Senator, the more obvious it becomes that he is anything but the ethically upright outsider he purports to be,” said Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch.
The group rose to prominence when it repeatedly took on former President Bill Clinton during his time in office. It also sought records from the Bush administration regarding Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force.
In a statement, Fitton noted that his group has sought access to Obama’s records as a state senator and questioned whether the presidential candidate has been forthcoming with regard to what happened to those documents.
He said that “nobody knows where they are, if they exist at all” and claimed that “Obama’s story keeps changing.”
However, the Obama campaign said the senator’s records are available.
“All of Sen. Obama’s correspondence with state agencies and records of requests Obama made to them on behalf of his constituents are available to the public and have been accessed by our opponents and members of the news media,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt. “Illinois State senators have limited staff – Obama did not have a scheduler – and so no detailed record exists of all of his daily activities in Springfield.”
Fitton argues that Obama’s public accounts of what happened to his records do not mesh with information from the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State. He added that the Judicial Watch investigation “suggests” that the senator could have had his records archived in a way that would grant the public access to them.
“It appears that Obama never kept records of his time in the Illinois state legislature, or he discarded them,” Fitton stated. “Either way, he clearly intended to leave no paper trail.”
You and your uber liberal, out of touch and so far out of the mainstream Democrats can perform whatever tortured and eccentric analysis of Bill and Hillary Clinton you like. Their records for their constituents speak for themselves — much as leaving tenants without heat in Chicago.
Its a hard rain a-gonna fall. And the arm chair liberals who have never dirtied their soft white hands are going to miss the people who carry the freight come November when the “incoming” is incoming from the REAL Karl Rove.
Try to add something to the dialogue that is orginal thought to you …. oh, right. I forget. You’re a freaking troll. Not the puppet master.
No, over 90% of the country that’s tired of the gridlock that this will sure to bring — let alone a backlash from hell.
Folks can criticize Ford for pardoning Nixon, but it saved the country from another division — there was enough from the 60s, sure didn’t need another in the 70s.
That Far-Left junk is exactly what this country doesn’t need. It needs to heal, and get back to being *A* country again.
Now, I understand the reluctance of Obama to debate Hillary. All his controversial association with some groups and person always surface in every debate. After Wright and Farrakhan, now we learn his friendship with Ayers, Khalid, and even Hamas. Some of my friends from another state felt duped by this man whom they vote in the primary. So, to all young man and woman, please don’t waste your vote. If your only reason of voting this man is because he’s “cute”, better stay home. We are looking for a candidate to run our government and not an extremist whose aim is to overthrow our government.
[...] to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance. Nine out of Ten Terrorists Love Them Some Obama : NO QUARTER Research __________________ God Did For Mankind What Abraham Was Going To Do For [...]
[...] to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance. Nine out of Ten Terrorists Love Them Some Obama : NO QUARTER Research __________________ You can’t start a War without a ‘W’. "Love thy [...]
[...] Johnson, Nine Out of Ten Terrorists Looe Them Some Obama, NoQuarterUSA, April 15, [...]
We are in a world of trouble !!!!!!!!! So much for FAIR Elections!
The union supporting, Democratic Party pushing, extreme leftist Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has been caught trying to Jerry-rig voter applications in Michigan. It is looking like fraud on a massive scale in Detroit as ACORN tries to fill the Democrat voter rolls with fake Democrat voters.
ACORN is being investigated after several Municipal Clerks discovered fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications. And it isn’t just Detroit that has found fraud being perpetrated by ACORN.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is also reporting that the Obama campaign has been forced to amend a report to reflect over $800,000 of previously unreported ACORN donations to his campaign.
ACORN is at the heart of one of the most massive voter fraud campaigns in American history. ACORN is intimate with Barack Obama and is a major supporter of unions throughout the country and is doing its level best (and illegally at that) trying to assure that Obama wins this election.
This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.
The Chicago ACORN Received Grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), And $40,000 (2002) From The Woods Fund. (Donors Forum Website, ifs.donorsforum.org, Accessed 6/10/08)
Barack Obama served on the board of directors of Woods Fund of Chicago from 1993 to 2001. During that time, the tax exempt foundation made some interesting grants, including one to Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the time. Grants were also made to ACORN, a left wing voter registration group and to a partnership for constructing low income housing. The fund also used Northern Trust for financial services, which is the same company that provided Obama his 2005 mortgage.
shove your civil war re-enactment guns back in your holes and destroy all bullets replace them with paint balls dumb fucks
you bastards want to fight grow some nuts and throw punches i was not apart of your ignorance when you warred over nothing ass clowns