What Would Simon Wiensenthal Say?
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 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Terrorism, William Ayers
Reed Hundt, a major fund raiser for Barack Obama and frequent defender of same, offered this defense of THE ONE on Thursday over at TPM Cafe:
It ought to be beneath senator McCain to have his side label Obama as a terrible person because he has failed to shun a fellow who did wrong 40 years or is not a patriot because he neglected to wear a flag on lapel, or declined to disavow a Korean War vet and pastor because he spoke too harshly one Sunday.
Reed Hundt is not just some observer who happens to like Barack. He has a close relationship with Barack’s campaign and ensures the Obama talking points find their way to Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall’s blog. So this begs the question, does Senator Obama endorse Reed Hundt’s position? Or, more accurately, is Reed Hundt providing us the position of the Obama campaign? Or, is Barack Obama repentant for having a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?
Do you follow the logic? A guy, in this case Bill Ayers, participated in a campaign of domestic terrorism. He used bombs to communicate his rage. But he did it over 40 years ago so who cares?I am sure glad folks like Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel did not take that view of the Nazis. They believed that the actions of people 65 years ago matter even today. Wiesenthal is dead, but Elie Wiesel is a living witness to remind us, Never Forget.
I am not saying that Bill Ayers is a monster on the scale of Klaus Barbie or Dr. Mengele. But he did monstrous things and participated in an organization guilty of murder. Of course, I think Ayers would deserve leniency if he simply admitted the error of his way. But that’s not the case. Check out the following:
And this is the audio-only version:
This is the problem. Ayers does not feel one shred of remorse. As he stated in a different interview, he regrets he did not do more. So when it comes to Barack Obama, we’re not questioning his judgment of having a close relationship with Bill Ayers because of what Ayers did forty years ago. What will bother most Americans is that Bill Ayers continues to espouse the views and attitudes that guided his actions forty years ago. That dog won’t hunt. Most Americans will not support a candidate for President does not understand that past actions by a terrorist matter today?
Some of us will not forget. It is a matter of justice.
::::::
Thanks to V4Hill for the video and audio.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
http://www.hillaryis44.org/
JOIN
AND HAVE FUN BLOGGING
I guess No Quarter is a little too tame for Sonia.
Good post Larry….Threre is no exscuse for racial suprematism or marxism.
The thing that comes to mind about Ayers, and Obama’s association with him, is that for every once crime or plot we know about with Ayers and the Underground, there are probably 5 more that we don’t.
You just don’t associate with bad people if you’re not a bad person yourself. Unrepenting radicals are hardly indicative of unity, hope, or change.
Brand Obama is a creation. And if they succeed in shoving him down our throats, and he somehow manages to beat McCain (never going to happen) then we’ll be watching a film in the future called “Obama’s Brain”, about David Axelrod. the King Maker. Just blows me away that people are suspending all rational thinking so that they cannot even acknowledge that the “inspiration” they’re feeling has been written by a middle-aged white guy that specializes in messages for AA candidates. And.. that much of what Obama preaches is rehashed from other candidates or clients of Axelrods.
Actions speak louder than words… and you ARE judged by the company you keep. How hard is that to grasp?
Larry and Susan,
Ayers was a Grad Student getting his second masters as well as Doctrate in Eduaction at Columbia, the same time Obama tranferred in. It is almost certain that Obama had him as a “teacher” - known in academia lingo as a Graduate Assistant - for one or more of his undergrad classes.
Hopefully by Sunday, I can connect enough dots to show that Bernadine Dohrn, whom Mel tells us got Obama his internship at Sidly et al law firm, also knew Obama in New York - though she is smarter than Ayers and leaves fewer “footprints”.
So it’s not that Obama and Ayers just “sat on the same board” -as you suspected the relationship is much deeper than that.
These SOB’s truly are trying to “Re-Create ‘68″ in more ways than one.
Look who owned the apartment building that Obama lived in while in New York…
The landlord in the early 1980s was Jay Weiss, a real estate mogul who was then the husband of the actress Kathleen Turner.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/where-obama-lived-in-1980s-new-york/
Nellie, Interesting info connecting Ayers and Obama at Columbia. I really want to see a piece that fills in the real history of their relationship. Lots of stuff has been posted here. I hope someone is working on putting it all together. And soon.
The man who was Obam’s mentor in Hawaii and good friends with Ayers Sr.
must have been telling BO to look Ayers son up.
I believe Nellie is correct that the reason the his Columbia U days are dodgy is because he was hanging out on a regular basis with these terrorists while in NY.
The landlord in the early 1980s was Jay Weiss, a real estate mogul who was then the husband of the actress Kathleen Turner.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/where-obama-lived-in-1980s-new-york/
“You just don’t associate with bad people if you’re not a bad person yourself.”
That’s a nice shortcut around thinking.
Ayers is undoubtedly a jackass, but serving on the same board as a jackass does not a jackass make. Try again. folks.
Obama will survive this, just like he survives every nonissue you people try to throw at him. Christ.
Write about health care.
Write about Iraq.
Write about social security.
Write about home foreclosures.
Write about safeguarding women’s rights.
Write about stopping our government’s use of torture.
Write about the ongoing degradation of our environment.
Write about gay rights.
Write about global warming.
Write about the erosion of the separation between church and state.
Write about the persistent outsourcing of American jobs.
For God’s sake, write about anything that’s really going to matter to anyone. Ranting about William Ayers isn’t going to get anybody their job back. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Ahh, but when you ask a JackAss to help organize and fund your political campaign, you are getting in bed with a JackAss.
When you join forces with a JackAss to send money to an anti-Israeli group one could reasonably conclude that you are in fact also a jack ass.
Oh, heavens. I assume you mean the one instance in which Obama spoke at a fundraiser for a community center in a Palestinian refugee camp. That means he’s practically a suicide bomber, I assume.
Again: this petty and foolish line of argument does nothing to help with getting someone’s job back. You’re wasting our time here. At least Paul Krugman arguably gives a shit about something other than Hillary winning; I’m not convinced you do.
LOL
good post Larry I wish you would get some of these tv stations to book you to tell of our concerns about this man whom they want to annoint president … WHO IS THIS GUY … too many questions about his past unanswered for this veteran and one who loves her country …
The only candidate I see out there is HILLARY
Typical Obama tactics you do the dirty tricks then blame other side..Glad President Clinton is finally speaking up and telling like it was in SC not this diatribe of Bullsh-t that we are hearing on MSM…What a disaster of a news media pretty poor assessment when one has to turn to FOX for the most fair coverage of the candidates even though they don’t give Hillary a break they are at least calling the nations attention that Mr. Obama has problems..
Hope to see you on every network soon Larry they, sure wanted you when it was to their advantage now you aren’t relevant to their outcome..Please try for us Larry and see if they might book you..
a concerned vet … We cannot allow this man to become our candidate as he will be ate up by the republican smear machine only this time they won’t be smears just the truth…
Keep it going Larry you and TM are some of the few hopes we can still get thru the news maze…
Write about health care.
Obama’s plan is NOT universal. Hillary’s is.
Write about Iraq.
Obama says he will get us out of Iraq, while his advisors tell people behind the scenes, “Don’t worry. He’s just saying that to get elected.”
Write about social security.
Obama has refused to say that he won’t privatize SS. In fact, he says, “everything is on the table.”
Write about home foreclosures.
Obama’s plan to help homeowners only addresses banks. Hillary’s plan will help prevent foreclosures and keep people in their homes who are currently in foreclosure.
Write about safeguarding women’s rights.
Obama doesn’t say much about women’s rights –other than that abortion ia ALWAYS morally wrong but that he “trusts women to make a prayerful decision.” This condescending, paternalistic, faith-based approach gives me no confidence that he will protect the right to choose. Not to mention that Obama’s entire campaign has been predicated on sexism against the Clinton campaign.
Write about stopping our government’s use of torture.
Not much from Obama on this. Where was the speech on the Senate floor condemning Bush? Where?
Write about the ongoing degradation of our environment.
Obama wants to be considered an environmentalist for passing a law that allowed the nuclear industry to self-regulate how much waste they put in drinking water. Sounds like Bush all over again.
Write about gay rights.
Obama has refused to meet with the editors of gay publications. Obama has several rabidly anti-gay pastors working for his campaign. Obama didn’t want to be photographed with Gavin Newsome, mayor of SF, after Newsome started performing gay marriages. Obama is no friend of the GLBT community.
Write about global warming.
You mean after Obama voted YES on Cheney’s energy bill?
Write about the erosion of the separation between church and state.
Like that faith-based reasoning of Obama’s for why he allows women to have aborions for the time being? Or all those gay-hating pastors who support him?
Write about the persistent outsourcing of American jobs.
You mean like how Obama’s economic advisor assured Canada that bama would do nothing to change NAFTA? Why should we trust him when he speaks about outsourcing?
So - perhaps Obama is pro-terrorism, but in favor of middle-of-the road Democratic policies? That’s why Bill Ayers loves him so?
In all seriousness, your arguments on these issues are at least somewhat worth having. I don’t think Obama’s got the answers on many of these questions, but I think that Hillary is an equally weak candidate on many of these issues (SEE: bankruptcy bill, AUMF, Defense of Marriage Act, conflicted NAFTA history.)
But let’s not get caught up in this gotcha bullshit. I think the manufactured Tuzla controversy is just as bad as this, by the way; no one benefits by it, and the Democratic party loses big time.
It’s about electability, and you know it. And of course, GOTCHA poltiics is the cry of the unprepared amateur who doesn’t have an answer. All Obama has been doing against Clinton is GOTCHA politics, personal attacks, outrageous charges of racism, classic sexist ploys, etc. He is running a repeat of George W. Bush’s campaign. He can’t play ugly and then try to change the rules when the ugly comes back– and this ugly is all of his own making. His whole campaign has succeeded on the fact that he has the media. It’s fascism pure and simple. He’s completely unqualified to be president.
“It’s fascism pure and simple.”
I don’t really think Obama “has” the media - as is evidenced by the ABC debate and the last 4 weeks of nonstop Wright coverage - but I think that Obama is leading in both the Democratic primary and General election polls, has a virtually insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, and he and Hillary have provoked an unprecedented surge in Democratic primary participation.
And that’s democracy, pure and simple.
Of course Obama has the media. He’s had it since Decemeber. You name one debate where one station asked Obama tough questions–questions that he really should have answers for if his campaign is worth the salt–and you people yell “FOUL!” What babies.
General election polls are meaningless right now because the General Election hasn’t started. So let’s dismiss that point entirely.
Obama’s leads were gained through the five months when he was the media sweetheart and nobody dared report on anything that might make him look less than messianic. You know this.
Yes, let the voters keep voting. And remember– neither candidate can break the barrier to nomination numbers without the superdelegates. And there is no rule that says the superdelegates have to vote with the guy who has a 100 delegate lead. Oh, and if you really believe in democracy– then the MI and FL delgations should be seated.
And don’t talk to me about punitive undemocratic DNC rules. Disenfranchising MI and FL is the death knell for the Democrats in Nov. Only a fascist like Obam would agre to disenfranchise 2 million Democratic voters to save his own unbridled ambitions.
And all the superdelegates know it.
“And all the superdelegates know it.”
I would argue that the available evidence tends to contradict this assertion ;).
The avaialable evidence suggests that 300 superdelegates have not declared. If, as the media and the Obama camp insist, it is so obvious that the guy with the delegate lead should get their backing, and if Hillary can’t beat Obama in the delegate lead– then why haven’t they thrown their support to Obama already and ended it? This is the question the media refuses to ask. This is why Pelosi and Dean are panicking and demanding the SDs declare. But they haven’t. There are 300 superdelegates who know Obama is uneleectable and they are waiting for the PR-appropriate moment to declare for Hillary.
If this thought provides you with some comfort in the current dire situation for your candidate of choice, I have no desire to disillusion you from it.
Then present what “available evidence” you have.
zozosmom makes very clear and factual statements and thats all you can say?
A wink?
Polls are not democracy. Voting and counting the votes is Democracy; that means FL and MI. Hardly non stop Wright - only Fox and even there, they do Clinton bashing as well. Polls consistently state that people believe that Obama gets much more favorable coverage and some news people such as Crawford talk about the unfairness. It is quite obvious to all except the Obama followers that Obama is the “Media Darling”. However, that won’t last if Obama is the nominee, then the Media will go to their true Darling - McCain; it is very apparent that Obama cannot handle a hostile press - note the last debate, his “I answered eight questions” presser, his “waffle comments” and just how he stutters and uses ers, ahs and ums. None of what he has faced is anything like he will get if he is the nominee and he has already failed to put bed any of the controversies swirling around him and his campaign.
Obama was creamed in PA and he lost ground in his core groups except the AAs, while Clinton consolidated her base and expanded her dominance in rural and suburban areas and cut her losses in cities. Pittsburgh is a case in point - she won there and she did better in Philadelphia because she gained in the white vote. Obama has 90% of the black vote but is losing ground with every other demographic. Clinton also cut into the youth vote and does well with the older Millenials. She won the people earning between $100,000 and $150,000 and those with advanced degrees. So, she is also starting to cut into his “Creative Class” base. This should be huge warning signals to the SDs about Obama’s electability.
McCain’s campaign took notice and mentioned these trends and are now targeting these Democrats. Take in the polls that show Hillary voters in significant numbers saying they will vote for McCain (many more than Obama voters), plus quite disturbing polls for MA and CA, then we are indeed looking at a landslide for the GE if Obama is the nominee. And none of this is because of the Primary and the so-called negativity of the Clinton campaign - it is all the shortcomings of Obama and his campaign.
“In all seriousness, your arguments on these issues are at least somewhat worth having.”
Typical condescending, elitist tone of the Obama campaign. You don’t get to decide which arguments are “worth having” and which aren’t. Voters decide for themselves what they feel is important. If you want people to pay attention to your perspective, you need to give valid reasons. You need to engage. You can’t demand to be the Decider but then run away from debates about whether or not you are trustworthy. It’s just not how Democracy works–or should work. But after eight years of W Bush, Obama and his camp seem to be taking the fascist cue straight from the neocons– with just a little baby spin toward progressivism– but not enough to actually make any of the corporate media whores worried that their corporate masters– like war-profiteer GE and its MSNBC Goebbels’ (Olberman, Tweety)– have anything to worry about from Messiah Obama. It’s all a sham.
I’d like to quickly refer you to Godwin’s Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Then again, the post that originated this is a perfect example of that principle.
As far as valid reasons to pay attention to other issues besides Bill Ayers, how ’bout this: people are dying in Iraq and losing jobs here. Let’s engage that “perspective” instead of these petty questions.
How does continuing the conversation about Ayers make the country ANY better at all?
How does continuing to imply, suggest, call Bill and Hillary racist help the country?
How does heeping personal attack upon personal attack on Hillary (with sexist overtones) help the country?
Look pal, you have no intellectually honest leg to stand on. All you have is spin and rhetoric and an ego.
Answering a question with an unrelated question actually implies that you don’t have an intellectual leg to stand on.
It’s called analogy, dude. It’s called Socratic. It’s called debate.
I’ve clearly overstepped your intellectual capacity.
Oh, and Godwin’s law (the use of the word “law” is horribly narcisstic) implies that my use of the term fascist is “merely inflammatory.” I am for real. I am not “merely” being “inflammatory.” Everything that the Obama campaign and his supporters have done is right out of the hate-propaganda, false-saviour playbook. It is fascism. Nothing infammatory. Just the reality.
Actually I was referring to
So Keith Olbermann is equal to Josef Goebbels? Eminently reasonable.
Yes he is. And if you actually understood what was happening in this election–instead of being buried in your elitist world where you don’t really need a president– you would agree. The effects of what Olberman is doing are far-reaching and astounding. But you don’t get it. I’m not surprised.
See, now I think absolutely none of the cable-news blowhards are actually important enough to do anything “far-reaching and astounding” (except Jon Stewart, who doesn’t really count.) Have you seen KO’s ratings?
But feel free to disagree. I’m sure you will.
OMG, you want to use ratings as a moral, intellectual argument? You are a fool.
I wasn’t making a “moral, intellectual argument.” I stick to the arguments that involve facts. It appears we have a philosophical difference here.
You still don’t explain why Olberman’s ratings should matter. Are you implying that he speaks the truth because he is popular? Now, that’s just effed up. That’s fascism.
No, quite the opposite. I’m arguing that in the long run, no one really pays attention to these guys (and they are almost all guys.) You don’t read very closely, do you?
JK Fritz: those must be the “facts” of your alternative reality, right? Come down to earth buddy; can’t live in the ether forever.
Because no one knows Obama. People have no real idea who Obama is and just like GW Bush, his campaign has always wanted it that way. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t quite have the media in his pocket like Bush did. So, some issues such as Ayers are reported on but not like they should be. All of these are part of the vetting process. If there truly is no problem, Obama should be able to put this to bed, but he seems to make things worse every time he tries to “explain”.
A simple question like the flag pin (which on its own is definitely a non issue), he can’t answer. Instead, it is still out there in people’s minds and connections with the Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etal are being made and questions about his patriotism are gelling in voters’ minds. This is exactly the meme that Democrats can ill afford to have their Presidential Nominee convey and have the Repubs once again paint the Dems as weak and ineffectual on national security.
This is also a judgment issue; which is Obama’s whole campaign on the Iraq war. So, personal and professional associations are part of that process and in defining yourself. Obama has failed to define himself (I think purposely because he wanted to be that empty vessel and have voters project their hopes on him). However, he has too many shady characters in his background to pull that off and I believe that it is fair game to bring these to light. Voters want to know what influence these associations have on Obama. Obama also needs to be able to have satisfactory answers to these questions; since he doesn’t , it is fair to think that there is either some real issues with these associations, or he just can’t communicate and get these out of the way. Neither one of those reasons give me confidence in Obama’s electability and gives me pause about how he will govern and who will be influencing him.
I agree 100%. Obama should be addressing ALL of these issues, but he isn’t.
BTW-have you
Ever noticed that he never calls himself a Democrat?
Ever noticed that he always focuses on Republicans and Independents?
Ever noticed that he never addresses AA issues?
Ever noticed that he takes for granted older, latino, women, AA, poor and middle class voters?
Not true on all counts.
“I am a Democrat because we are the party that believes we’re all in this together” - Barack Obama
Ever noticed that he never addresses AA issues
Now that you mention it, he is afraid of AA and hates whites and especially white women.
“I am a Democrat because we are the party that believes we’re all in this together” - Barack Obama
His actions and people he associates with prove otherwise.
I presume this is why he had blowout wins in notoriously diverse states like Wyoming and Minnesota.
Presume all you like. Wyoming? Minnesota?
You can’t face the reality that BO will not win those states.
I am an independent for many years now. The tolerance level for bull is low out in indie country. The tolerance for unqualified bull is non-existant. BO is not qualified.
Obama and the DNC is dreaming, if they think independents will vote for a unqualified fraud that BO.
This is inane - one quote with no context and this shows that he considers himself a Democrat? Most of the time Obama is castigating Democrats and the left wing in particular (don’t ask me why they support him, may be because of self hate). He tries to paint the picture that both parties got us into the mess we are in and that bipartisanship is the be all and end all. He attacks universal health care that both Clinton and Edwards plans have using right wing attacks and he extols Reagan and Bush I while denigrating the only two term Democratic President and his Presidency since Truman. All of these are just some examples of how he doesn’t ascribe to being a Democrat. In my eyes, without all the other issues including the race baiting and sexism that he and his campaign engage in, this makes me not support Obama. But there are so many other reasons and plus, Clinton has proven that she is a true Democrat who will fight for Democratic principles. No contest as to who is the superior choice. Many other reasons that Clinton is better and Obama fails the “smell test”.
It is about judgement. Obama’s sucks. Everyone of his BBFs is anti-american.
I and millions of others only want the best for this country and he ain’t it.
We need someone with solutions not speechs. Someone who will reach both sides to try and fix problems. Not someone who will vote present or sleep thru the vote or be too busy campaigning to hold committee hearings.
This country deserved a lot better than Obama.
Write about health care.
Write about Iraq.
Write about social security.
Write about home foreclosures.
Write about safeguarding women’s rights.
Write about stopping our government’s use of torture.
Write about the ongoing degradation of our environment.
Write about gay rights.
Write about global warming.
Write about the erosion of the separation between church and state.
Write about the persistent outsourcing of American jobs.
HEY!!! maybe u should listen to Hillary in a debate instead of moaning Obama’s name…or just google those topics. You will find LOADS of pro-hillary supports writing about them. Heck yu can plenty right on this blog!
Nice try. Tell me what percentage of the past week’s posts have addressed any of this.
JKFriz:
Last week? Do you have attention deficit disorder ? There has been a campaign for over 18 months: get over your lazy attitude and look the hundreds of posts on precisely these topics that there are in the archives.
Haven’t you figured out that LJ and his Clintonista insurgents have no shame?…
I know they like to sling the poop at everything Obama and anything anti Billary, but they seriously have no shame these days.
And I used to think LJ was credible and intelligent……
Egads…
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the Weathermen’s stated cause, but hold on a moment–Ayers bombed the Pentagon, the FBI, robbed banks, organized riots, hijacked a student peace movement and formed a terrorist cell from it.
That’s not merely wrong. It’s politically suspicious. It’s terrorism–even if it was done in the name a of a good cause.
and if Hundt merely says it was wrong, then he may not really understand the tonnes of bricks that the GOP will bury Obama under.
Hundt is like most of the out of touch elitists who support Obama who suffer from impaired memory syndrome.
They forget what the GOP did to Cleland, Gore and Kerry. And these men had none of the radioactive baggage he does.
The GOP will eviscerate Obama on Ayers, Wright, Hamas and Rezko.
My money is on Obama being cooked and ready to served by September.
Their cause was phony…..It was bull shit….
Agree and they ruined the anti-war and progressive movement that was started with Dr. King. Larry is right to question if Obama and his “friends” are bent on this type of “change”.
Sen. Obama does not understand the past period. Just like his followers, we need to educate his followers before its too late.
He has no understanding of this country history, so tell me how could he have the ability to change a system that he knows nothing about?
What has Sen. Obama done for South Side of Chigaco?
we need to educate his followers
I wish you well with that endeavor. They are here constantly baiting and arguing on form over substance. It’s like watching my niece test her mother. You would think that she was inventing envelopes.
I suppose we all thought the same thing at one point in the Viet Nam war. We marched. We participated in peaceful protest. My college was in DC, so we usually had people sleeping on our floor in the dorm. But when people started blowing things up, I drew the line. Isn’t that what we were protesting against?
So if I’m not radical enough for Bill Ayers or Barack Obama, I can live with that. I think most Americans can.
I appreciate that you’re defending substantial conversations on here. I’ve noticed your many posts about American foreign policy, health care, and the declining American dollar.
Hey, it was, like, forty years ago, man, and it’s not like anybody died or anything.
Oh, wait . . .
With regard to Ayers, you have to do a lot of reading about his history before you understand how really bad he is. He and his Neo-Liberal coterie are the worst sort of academic leftists. These people have disproportionate influence on the Democratic party. And these are the people who keep losing us elections.
I can’t believe the DNC is forcing this guy down our throat to run against a damn war hero. Do they have some deal worked out with the GOP? I honestly can’t figure this out.
Bizarre.
Yes, when General Electric–owner of MSNBC and war-profiteer extraordinaire– is propping up Obama (via Olberman, Maddow and Tweety), one has to wonder who is pulling the strings of the Democratic Party.
This from a commenter on a site that uses FOX News clips almost exclusively…
Another meaningless ad hominem attack. All you people have is spin.
I like your style! ZoZo is a lucky child!
Thanks for the high-five, beebop!
The Obama supporters remind me of a yuppie parent whose kid keeps getting into trouble.
“He’s really a good boy. He just got in with a bad crowd. He would never ever steal a car. He has hypoclycemia and ADD. He broke into his grandmothers house, but he didn’t hurt anybody. He’s not like the rest of those kids you usually deal with. ”
Nothing the little darling does is wrong.
Good post Larry….There is no exscuse for racial suprematism or marxism.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P0hNnvq_gN8
how long it is going to take for the DNC to admit that Obama is the poison pill for Democrat in the general election?
Besides the 3 amigos: Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Obama managed to piss off almost every demographic group, women, hicks, GLBT, garlic nose, small town, blue collar. FL is a grave yard. And Axelrod just came out and insulted the latest group, old people.
The reliable thing about old people is they forget … and then they die.
Not in time for November of course … just sayin’
The one thing I really don’t like about Hillary Clinton is her Israel Über Alles position, but this position is held by almost all Congresspersons. Barack Obama made some mild pro-Palestinian remark and regretted it. He won’t do that again. But Wright, Ayers, et alia are passionate and outspoken about the Palestinian plight, and I imagine Ayers, Barack, and Michelle have had many bull sessions about the harm Israel does. Is this part of Obama’s not-to-be-spoken-about-before-the-election agenda?
indeed it is. just think about why hamas endorsed him and has a call center in gaza making cold calls for him.
Uppity has a very on target statement … they just intend to change the direction of the guns. I am afraid that that is exactly the case.
Jimmy’s misbegotten adventure did nothing to assuage my concerns …
OT
“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States … I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare,”
John McCain.
McCain will destroy Obama
thank heavens someone will save us from this nightmare. clearly the dnc is too stupid.
Certainly. 100 more years in Iraq. Thank heavens. And YOU won’t have to leave the party, lucky you.
You don’t get it. Hamas, a terrorist organization, has endorsed Obama and Axelrod, instead of repudiating this, stated they were flattered by the JFK comparison (what a stupid, stupid comment). Israel, who most Americans support, has snubbed Carter, because he met with Hamas. It is actually a good thing for Obama that Carter hasn’t officially endorsed him. Add Farrakhan, Wright, his Church’s support of Hamas, Kahlidi, Brzezinski, another top adviser who is very critical of Israel and pro-Palestinian, and the Repubs will have a field day defining Obama has weak on terror, anti-Israel, effete and out of touch. In fact, the 527’s will go even further, and perhaps even suggest he is not patriotic (and worse). This is a nightmare for the Democratic Party.
“OT
“I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States … I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare,”
John McCain.
McCain will destroy Obama”
It’s oh so illuminating that your knee-jerk reaction is to slam Obama with these remarks, rather than condemn the remarks themselves.
You mean like Axelrod did about the Hamas endorsement? Get real, I have serious reservations about Obama on this question, mainly in that I think that he will worsen the situation and making Israel more intractable and giving weight to antisemitism in the region. Plus, forget the Jewish vote - they aren’t about to go for Obama after this. I can’t condemn McCain’s remark because they are true and Axelrod nor Obama have come out with denouncing this endorsement in any believable manner. So, how in the world can we, if even we were predisposed to do so, condemn these remarks?
If the nominee, Obama will be The Tomato Can From Heaven for the GOP machine.
As a cynical exercise, the Repukes might even put a GOP idiot of the female variety on the ticket as VP…Julie Nixon comes to mind…just to rub our noses in it.
The answer is yes in my opinion.
Count me in on not forgetting!
Obama campaign is a huge excuse machine. Obama is unelectable in the GE no matter how much propaganda they spew.
It appears to me Obama’s relationship with Ayers (and all the other people he would love did not exist at this time) was fashionable at the time he had the relationship. Those were the crowds he was comfortable with. Sad for Obama now that the heart and soul of America is moderate and not into extreme politics, past present and future. I can’t see how Obama can be elected in the GE no matter how the Obamabots and MSM spin him.
Maybe Ayers will have to go on Moyers next? LOL
how can i make my name appear ,,,blue,,
throw a url in your profile…
It’s standard operating procedure for white ultra-leftists to recruit blacks with oratory skills as tools/pawns in order to co-opt ‘Black Power.’
The great black intellectual Richard Wright (author of ‘Native Son’ and ‘Black Boy’) described how he was recruited by white Communists as a tool so they could play the ‘race card’ in an intra-party power struggle:
“Without my knowledge or consent, they confronted the members of the Party with a Negro, knowing that it would be difficult for Communists to refuse to vote for a man representing the single largest racial minority in the nation …” (from ‘The God That Failed’)
In the classic novel ‘Invisible Man’, Ralph Ellison describes how white ultra-leftists recruited gifted young black orators because they wanted the power to trigger black riots at will.
I suspect the Weathermen were ‘at it again’ when they sponsored Obama’s early career. It fits the pattern: white ultra-leftists looking to use Obama as a tool to manipulate ‘Black Power.’ How their strategy played out is a fair and relevant question.
I’m sorry if the question embarrasses Obama, but he’s running for Commander-in-Chief. His record is slim and people have doubts. If he doesn’t want us to ask our questions, what does he expect us to do with our doubts?
zozosmom, thank god you are on my team. I admire your debating skills. You eat trolls for breakfast without puking. Amazing! LOL
Dear Larry Johnson:
You are turning into an embarrassment. (which is why you are not invited to comment anymore at your former media hangouts)
It is insulting that you raise the name of Wiesenthal, and what he would say about a rebellious act that took place decades ago.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the history of the State of Israel, where the largest terrorist act took place when Shin Bet’s Zionist Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel filled with women and children, an act planned and executed in agreement with the highest Jewish political authorities in Palestine, the Jewish Agency, and its head, David-Ben-Gurion.
In case you think Obama shouldn’t have served on the same community board with the bomber, you should also know that Menachem Begin became Israel’s sixth Prime Minister.
Your desperation in trying to find excuses to smear Obama, and the bringing up the name of Wiesenthal is most distasteful and petty.
I’ll let Larry defend himself if he wants but I am curious about your statement if you can back it up.
This I will reply to personally:
I agree he should have shown the wise presidential judgment to not associate with “the bomber” as you call him. Obama is not presidential and mainstream America has already rejected him.
I am not assuming any bias on your part I am just replying to what you said and adding my 2 cents.
Sorry I wasn’t clear, or you didn’t get my point:
The “bomber” I referred to was Menachim Begin, i.e. a former bomber became Prime Minister of Israel.
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant Ayers was “the bomber.”
Liberman: it is you who is are clearly unfamiliar with the history of the State of Israel.
When that even took place in 1946 Israel didn’t existed as a state yet. That came in 1948. The bombing of the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Irgun (which indeed killed British, Arabs and Jewish) under Begin’s leadership was atrocious. It was also the reason for the debacle between the Irgun and the Haganah and then the dismantling of the Jewish resistance movement at the request of Weizmann.
The history of the creation of the State of Israel is very complex and long. And your cheap shot clearly reflects your ignorance and your hate for Israel.
To compare the struggle of the Jewish people many (like Begin) coming directly from the Holocaust to Palestine to fight the english with the 60’s and the weather undergound a group of mostly spoiled brats
living in the United States of America is absurd.
Moreover, Ayres is, to this date, unrepentant.
Begin recieved the Peace Nobel Prize for Israel and Egipt peace treaty.
And all of this is besides the point for it is not anyone associated to Begin; but Obama who is intimately associated to Ayres the one who is runing for President of the United States.
But he [Ayers] did monstrous things
Like what?
As he [Ayers] stated in a different interview, he regrets he did not do more.
“We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why.”
Robert S.McNamara,IN RETROSPECT:THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAMby ROBERT S. MCNAMARA WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK
Wiesenthal does have something to bitch about.
Ayers walked because the DOJ screwed the pooch: He’s the Weather Underground’s OJ.
However, I think that the way you slant your tactic in pillorying Obama for Ayers’s past will turn on you since most of the stuff currently written about it is bullshit.
In the first instance Ayers completely repudiated the NYT whack job that is furnishing all the “Ayers does not feel one shred of remorse” statements. Ayers own words on this are:
“My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy.”
That’s repudiation enough for anyone. He guilty as hell but unless you push aside the Fifth Amendment you’re still up the creek.
Sooner or later, an opponent with a few wits to rub together will gut you with your argument. Rather, I would approach the whole Ayers thing this way.
Obama is a construct, a Ken doll put together over the years that looks like this:
He went by Barry until it was time to be black. He then went by Barack, started attending the church run by that batshit crazy Rev and additionally started channeling Malcolm X. Hoodwinked and bamboozled went right to the cortex of anyone who was black and completely over the heads of anyone who was white and not eligible for Social Security.
He uses one or two speeches over and over. His latest bittergate problem is illustrious of that. Post bittergate, Charlie Rose ran a puff piece on Obama where he gave the Pennsylvania Senator that supports Obama a half hour of very cloying air time. This was followed by a 2004 interview in which Obama repeated, almost word-for-word the same speech minus the snake handler Jesus freak and survivalist gun nut spin. The difference was the audience. The 2004 Rose interview went out over PBS to a diverse audience but the 2008 bittergate speech was before a group of San Francisco liberals who think that everything east of I-880, south of Palo Alto and north of Marin is overrun by a cabal of The American Nazi Party, the John Birch Society and the NRA.
The Ayers connection is just another part of the construct. Ayers and Dohrrn have cachet with those who are growing misty-eyed over the old days of the 60’s (even though there wasn’t even a Weatherman faction until the SDS meltdown in ‘69)
Thus the Ayers connection builds a bridge to the aging New Left and their kids, the well-off, educated yuppies that are the core of this support amongst whites.
The kid is a phoney, not a terrorist: He makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X.
(sorry Chappelle)
Hi!heal! http://eydgkiqw.com zjaou qmedo http://nkoqsviw.com chysh mwwxb
Hi! kadyk rmkui ksvlq bkqum
Hi! kmqoo qaggo zwfde qltys