O’Reilly’s Torturers Bozo Parade
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on May 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM in Current Affairs
Bill O’Reilly also challenged Hillary Clinton on the issue of torture. Hillary correctly noted that real experts with real experience in conducting interrogations recognize that torture is counterproductive and ineffective. “Not so” exclaimed Bill O’Reilly. He’s talked to two experts himself–George Tenet and Michael Scheuer.
Unfortunately, I had chosen that moment to take a sip of coffee. I’ve spent the last hour cleaning said coffee off of my screen because I spewed when I heard O’Reilly front those two clowns as “experts.” George Tenet is an expert at ass kissing and torture voyeurism. He never got his hands dirty but sure enjoyed talking tough.
And Michael Scheuer? He is a buffoon of the first order. This is a guy who was encouraged to move on to the Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) because he was an underperforming as a European analyst. This was during the time that CTC was a dumping ground for bad analysts. Needless to say Scheuer lived down to these expectations. You can check out a couple of links here pertaining to Scheuer and torture that will be worth your time. Scheuer knows nothing about this and was never involved in an interrogation.
Senator Clinton nailed both O’Reilly and the topic when she noted that John McCain had more first hand experience with this matter than anyone in the studio, and he certainly thinks torture is a bad thing. Score another for Hillary.


















Vvvvvverrrrrry Interestink Mr.Spy Guy.
I take your word for it (I wouldn’t have a clue) but might you be P.O.ing old Georgie T and the other player by saying all of this?
I’m feeling the heat radiating from my keyboard as I type. And I’m only an interested new fan of this place!
(this flat earth thing is too much)
I’m lovin it.
You nailed it Larry…..O’Reilly is such a putz…..
Timendi causa est nescire…..
( Ignorance is the cause of fear )
Good think you didn’t have a cat in your lap, you would be in even worse shape as the cat jumped and clawed your legs!
O’Reilly, as my RIP Jewish mom (another group one of Obama’s “mentors” denigrated) would say “has a bug up his tokhes” about torture.
It’s actually quite disturbing that he is seems that irrational about it, almost to the point of salivating about torture.
Remember next time you watch O’Reilly, no coffee and no cat on the lap.
Ciao/a gute nakht,
1/2 G-N-G
She might have offered to have him waterboarded on camera and then ask him to provide input.
As to Larry’s point in regard to Tenet, and the other, neither feelings, nor any political ass kissing, supersedes the security of the United States.
Torture as official US policy is counter indicative to national security for many reasons.
Larry shows courage, and independent thinking, the type of individual who who can stand up to pack thinking, when the pack is led, or misled by a Dick Cheney.
The future of our nation, our Constitution, depends on courageous people, able to risk, standing up to a grievous harmful wrong, the mediocre and stupid who have seized power.
I guess I was simply trying to say I admire Larry for his courage, and intelligence.
Taking a stand against torture, against Cheney, even, two years ago was highly unpopular, yet Larry, and others did.
So it was nice to see people in an official position stand up to Bush, and Cheney, and their deeply unamerican policies.
Remember how BAD it was even four years ago, the political climate in this country, due to the constant threat of terrorism, the bullying?
It’s better now because of people like Larry, and his colleagues.
THIS IS FROM SOMEONE ELSE ,,I AM PASTING HERE
Okay team Hillary. It appears that Guam is a day a head of us, so I guess it’s Saturday there tomorrow, which means they caucus tomorrow. I just went on a few Guam websites and there are only Obama ads posted. PLEASE take a moment to write a letter to the editor on each site. That’s the least we can do. Every vote counts. Please do what you can. I just posted a quick note to the editor of each site advising them why I support Hillary and to encourage the people of Guam to get out and vote for our girl.
Let’s Blog GUAM!!!
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/
http://www.kuam.com/
http://www.k57.com/
http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
I don’t know the first thing about interrogation but I do know that the persons O’Reilly said were on the front line actually doing interrogations were never on the front line doing anything except sitting on their ass and taking credit. And if someone like me would know that I can imagine that people in the business were probably spewing lots of coffee tonight.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Larry. These people think that if you torture someone, they will talk.
Of course they’ll talk, but they will tell you anything they think you want to hear. More than you would want to hear. They’ll make anything up.
That’s gathering “intelligence”? Torture. Does AMERICA stand for torture? Hillary, what a wonderful, smart candidate and she will make a great President in Jan. 2009.
The Super D’s have to drop the person that can’t win in November. That is their only function.
Hillary will prevail.
Great pics of Bill as he tours small town North Carolina…….
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/photos/story/1055572.html
this is a pretty good clip. obama in 2004 saying he did not have the experience to run for president in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) lent her name to the growing chorus of Democrats opposed to a gasoline tax holiday proposed by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain.
Pelosi said this afternoon that Congress will not consider a suspension of the 18-cent federal gas tax this summer.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/01/pelosi_comes_out_ against_propo.html
Well house speaker somehow imagines that if she is a VP candidate with Barky that all of us totally pissed off Hillary supporters will just be spawning to vote for her, thereby accidentally voting for him. Speaker is a fool. At this moment all I could think is how wonderful it would be to see her go down WITH Obama. I don’t support jealous women who don’t realize that when one woman opens a door for herself, she opens them for everyone else as well. It’s the Nancy’s of the world who have helped corporate America hold superior women down but using other women to sabatoge them.
I heard what Nancy said too — and, it really, really infuriated me. She’s gotten to the point that no matter what Hillary says, she must diametrically oppose it each and every time.
Uppity– you said it perfectly for us women, thank you.
I agree, I hope her job is a casualty of her association with Obama.
How nice of you to talk that way about Nancy Pelosi…she is jealous of Hillary??? I don’t think so - Nancy got her power on her own, remember? The gasoline tax holiday is not a good idea…many experts besides Nancy have said so. Hillary is pandering as usual…just like the ‘fill up the gas tank’ - NOT - and ‘make a cup of coffee’ - CAN’T!!! Talk about elitist? She probably doesn’t have a drivers license-she clearly hasn’t driven herself in 20 years.
Was Barry just pandering when he voted for a suspension of the gas tax in the ILLinois Senate? Or did he think he was just voting “present”?
Hoosiergal — from your keyboard to the media’s lips. I DO hope that this hypocrisy is pointed out BIG TIME.
Is this another one of those cases where he “pressed the wrong button”?
Three times?
Jeanne, Pelosi “got her power” through her associations…and those were established by her father, who was a big-time pol (a Democrat). Like many politicians–male and female, and throughout the world and the centuries–she is where she is today because of her connections, and her “leg up”. Do a bit of research, it’s always enlightening.
Obamabots never want the facts — they just like to make things up.
I wonder where the bots will go when Obama is gone? (T0 hell, hopefully.)
They will be gearing up to hijack the party again with their rude bulldozer — and ruin the NEXT election. They are the gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans. I mean, thanks to them, we got Nixon. Twice.
Well done Nicole. I was almost going to bother answering, but you took care of it.
Jeannie- I think some people, such as yourself, feel secretly thrilled when using fun words like “pander” and “triangulate.” It’s fun to repeat things you read on the Obama community website… isn’t it? Makes you feel all intellectual and wonky inside, doesn’t it? LOL.
Probably makes her feel all intellectual and wonky until she runs up against people that actually know what they’re talking about, know the issues, and can speak without using talking points. Then she stands like deer in headlight with ass in hands, after getting it handed to her, wondering what to say next.
Go back to your list of talking points Dear and see what comes next. Cat, Mimi, Uppity, Bud, Northwest Rain and the others will be waiting. They won’t need to get talking points for the simple reason that they know what the hell they’re talking about!
I’m wondering when the last time was that Nancy filled up her gas tank and paid for it with HER money.
After weeks of not looking at credit card receipts, I have started to pay in cash to remind myself of what it costs.
When the “pundits” and “experts” talk about what a “bad” idea the suspension is, I ask myself how they explain doing FUCKING NOTHING instead? Do you have a smug little answer for that?
hey jeanie, i’ve seen the same comment you made on another pro-hillary website. is that how you’re trying to woo us common folk, convince us that hillary is elitist?
Ohmigod, I don’t have a driver’s license and I don’t drive myself anywhere except crazy once in a while. Does that make me an elitist? Or does that not apply to someone like me with my 1/2 price, senior citizen/handicapped bus pass?
Maybe somebody should do a poll to see how many wives of Governors or Presidents drive themselves. Are they all elitists? Why not poll to see how many Senators, including the One drive themselves?
What a stupid comment.
Elite is a state of mind. Elite is when you think you are somehow better than the peasantry because you don’t drive yourself. Elite is when you don’t know the price of a gallon of gas and don’t really care how it impacts others so long as it doesn’t impact you.
And dumb is when you make statements that show your absolute incomprehension of issues by opening your mouth(keyboard) and letting others see the emptiness and ignorance within.
Nancy reminds me, for some reason, of a woman who does what her husband tells her, another aspect of brother love’s travelling salvation show.
Rolling Stone had an article about three months ago, essentially staining Pelosi, and the other democrats, rely on political consultants to help them sell the antiwar meme, she, and the other democrats currently losing to Bush (!) never intended to stop the war, the issue was simply used to get elected, betraying and further angering Americans.
Oh, those Obama elitists, explains a lot, doesn’t it?
Her complete impotency, her complete lack of understanding in regard to the challenges she faces, standing down Bush on torture, the war, FISA, representing, protecting the American constitution, protecting the function and integrity of our government, she has simply FAILED as a leader, nothing more than a personification of the perfect Vichy democrat.
Good riddance.
Of course she supports Obama, a weak pale imitation of democratic Bill Kristol, without the intellect…
Btw, it is those Vichy democrats, the ones unable to stand up to Cheney, and Bush, who support Obama.
The key to Hillary’s Gas Tax Holiday is twofold:
1) Immediate relief for consumers. For some folks, not only does every penny count, every penny MEANS something. Symbolism can be real.
2) More importantly, though, is the Windfall Profits Tax pegged to a certain level to fund the holiday. That not only funds the Highway Trust Fund, it forces those profiting from this situation to pay a stiff share of their ill-gotten mammon, and it prevents them raising prices to fill the price vacuum.
Unlike Hillary’s plan, McCain’s plan, and the one Obama voted for in Illinois, allows Big Oil to raise their prices to fill the gap.
McCain and Obama siding with Big Oil. Nothing new there.
So does Pelosi think her vagina will get us to vote for her? Good lord, these people and their identity politics. Don’t they realize we poor dumb hicks care about how smart our politicians are, not which restroom they use. Talk about spuds for brains….
My favorite part of O’s torture rant to Hillary was when he said something like ‘I just want to make sure that whoever the president is, he can authorize waterboarding in case we need it.” And Hillary had to point out to him that all three of the candidates opposed it.
Qwack
You can add Arianna (sp) Huffington to that jealous woman list Uppity. Pelosi is a silly ass. What has she done with her time as Speaker?
She went to Syria. Maybe she knows somebody there.
Rezko’s family, no doubt.
It’s a small world…
Aye.
Oh what did Pelosi do? Well she got herself the biggest and best office — beyond that? No impeachment — war is still being funded (but then if the dems don’t fund the war they would be “guilty” of starving the troops).
Pelosi has got to be DELUSIONAL to think that AMERICA is unaware of her ineptitude a Speaker of the House…….
I agree Uppity. Women who go out of their way to hold another woman back are beyond my comprehension. I am beginning to think Hillary may be the first true leader our nation has seen in many, many years.
Shame on Pelosi. What a lousy role model she has become. Just yuck.
pelosi is a shame, reid is a shame…all these people pushing hard for bo. can’t believe that some people are so blind! look att the crowd bo is hanging with shady characters, haters and losers.
They are not blind…..This is a power struggle within the party between the Leftist power brokers ( the new Left ) and the centrists
( New Democrats )…..
Kennedy,Kerry,Pelosi etc…..( New Left )
Clinton, Gore, Sen. Clinton etc….( New Democrats )
Ever wonder why the party let the press gore Al Gore in 2000……
They let the press go after Gore because that contingent of Vichy Democrats isn’t smart enough to fight the republican press.
It is that same group, republican and democrat, the narcissistic no talents, (but really, they LOOK important, just ask the other bloggers), who cannot compete globally.
You might as well have a group, both D’s, and R’s, of department store dummies.
They’re not smart, and they lack integrity, bottom of the barrel, after 30 years of pay to play politics, incapable of winning, much less an independent, original thought.
Period.
Well Simon…..I don’t disagree with your assessment so to speak….I’m using terms that are relevant in terms of interparty politics as they shifted towards the end of the 1980’s.
The platforms of each faction is very different. The centrist were much more the natural heirs to FDR progressives in one foundational theory. They understand that all social progress comes through shared economic interests.
By focusing on the economy we achieve social progress, albeit often through increments…..It is still progress.
This is imporant because it explains why centrists are hated by both the Left and The Right…..
Particularly relevant today….
Ehemmm……They let the press Gore Al Gore because the Left wanted to regain power….That is why they invented the myth of Clinton having a stranglehold on the party….
During the Clinton/Gore admin. the left and it’s agenda took a backseat….
The New Democrats were the best thing to happen to the party in 30 years….
so then maybe it’s time for a 3rd party, don’t you think?
btw, when i referred to “blind” i meant the public. i count the new left among the losers that support bo, jmho.
Agree….Each party has it’s centrist factions….There is talk and it is serious talk of a third bi-partisan centrist party.
Things that make you go Hmmm……..
Director Mueller on torture:
http://www.youtube.com/v/M0m2STKotTo
see, she handled him. And would Obama have done the same thing?
She simply pointed out that a tortured person would confess anything you like. Anything at all.
obama would’ve thought he was being tortured by questions that weren’t just softball setups for his standard lines. and he would’ve whined and ummmmmmm’d and bs’d. then his people would go all over the place later saying what obama really meant and attacking o’reilly and calling him racist.
so saddened (formerly known as may not have to leave party)
Oh, Barky on O’reilly? Not a chance. For one thing, it would take twice as long, what with all the uh, uh, hmmm, stuttering, etc. that Barky does when he isn’t on script. And no teleprompter if he’s there! He doesn’t have the guts.
As I suggested before as a solution on how Obama could debate Hillary, this could also be used to do an interview with Billo:
Stick a wireless speaker in Obama’s mouth and have Axelrod do the interview.
Naw — put the teleprompter thingie (technical term) in Obama’s glasses — then he can read the teleprompter –whatever is written– he’ll read it with “style” and emotion.
He’d be the perfect puppet!!
Axelrod stutters as much as Barry during an interview. I think he puts in the ahh and umms to relate to us common folk. Plus Barry’s trying hard to picture the talking pionts on the blackboard in his head.
I wish the racist rogues gallery of Obama and Axelrod would do us all a favor and please get out of our lives already.
Barky.. ok, that’s funny. Yeah, listening to him is like pulling teeth and lately even the bots sitting behind him look like they need more novocaine.
It’s my program to get everyone to call him Barky. He’s Teddy’s poodle, you know.
Well BARKY is much easier to spell!
Hillary was masterful against O’Rielly, who seemed far too excited by torture. I wish she had ended his little rant immediately by pointing out that when America accepts waterboarding to get information, we are giving permission to any other entity to do the same to our troops and citizens. It’s as simple as that. We cannot torture and expect the rest of the world to abide by the Geneva Convention.
Petition against Andrew
——————————————————————————–
post this petition so here it is. It is in response to Andrew jumping over to Obama’s camp
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/voters
I thought that switch was hysterical. Basically the reason is we need to hurry up before they find out more stuff about Barky Obama. Just the kind of panic that leads to a loss in November due to a REALLY poorly vetted candidate who becomes so unacceptable by October that it forces moderates and most adults to vote republican.
Shoes - One of the Best Pics of the Campaign!
——————————————————————————–
Check out picture #7, it may be one of the best pictures of the campaign! I wish I could have it as a screen saver!
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/pho…y/1048900.html
——————————————————————————–
Wow…it’s powerful…
Surrounded by dress shoes…a pair of heels will rise…hahaha.
Thank you Larry. Reinforces the theory that proponents are proponents because they’re so phenomenally twisted they enjoy this sort of thing.
My people used to work for the O’Rielly’s in the old country. When the O’Caisides (Cassidys to the likes of you) started chasing the hapless O’Riellys into the Fermanagh bogs we’d step in to do our gallowglass bit and save their bacon by slicing and dicing the aforementioned O’Caisides.
All for tax-free lands in Cavan.
If only we’d stuck with raiding the Irish coast, the O’Caiside lads would have made certain that there would be no fuckwit O’Rielly’s today.
We bear the curse of history.
Did O’Reily bother to mention that yesterday, May 1, was the fifth anniversary of our unelected president and chief moron, giving his “mission accomplished” speach?
That was one of the tougher questions posed to her - not because of the issue of waterboarding - but that O’Reilly tied it in with Tenet - who Bill Clinton first appointed to head the CIA. Considering that I think she managed to sidestep that issue without falling into his little trap.
Having personalled been there when the two towers collapsed I probably would have waterboarded these three guys just for the heck of it. But then I’m not in charge.
Joe Andrew who jumped ship to Obama.. guess where he work?
He is a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP , a 700 member law firm. They gave over $75K to Obama.
Here comes the money connection.
Money does indeed make the blind see.
Joe who?
Also can you believe this guy Joe Andrew is a Yale gradate and he back stabbed felow alum Hillary …
The penis connection is stronger. Oops I’m channeling Uppity!!
haha… but then again there are some people that see testicular fortitude in women
thank god for those men
I’m of the firm belief that only real mean support Hillary…you know what I mean?
Okay, my post above was rendered meaningless! I meant to write…Real men support Hillary.
God, I really need to remember to edit myself.
Ehemmm……Caveat actor….Cave canem !
( Let the doer beware…..Beware of the dog ! )
Andrews is just another chickenshit Judas on the take….
Okay, this is COMPLETELY off topic, but your reference above, “Cave canem,” reminded me of a restaurant that opened in New York City, years ago in the 1980s, that served food inspired by ancient Roman cuisine (!). It was called Cave Canem and was actually a renovated Gay club…the communal “baths” were left intact, on the level below. My table was next to one at which sat Jodie Foster and the actress who starred in Flashdance (Jennifer Biel, I think). At another table sat Barbara Walters with some guy who could have been a Senator…who knows. The restaurant probably lasted 6 months.
Off topic, but important. Gene Robinson has a grossly misleading article in today’s W Post criticizing Hillary’s stand on the gas tax holiday. I posted this in response and I would encourage you to also point out the flaws in his reasoning. Even Krugman seems not to have heard her entire proposal which is not surprising since the media is not reporting on it. I was lucky enough to hear her speak on Monday in Charlotte, so I do know what she proposes to do and it makes a lot of sense. Her’s my post:
Mr. Robinson is grossly misrepresenting Hillary’s position on the gas tax holiday by saying it would take money out of the highway trust fund, when she explicitly proposes paying for it by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. She also proposes increasing supply by releasing some of our stragic oil reserves and by temporarily stopping the addition of more oil. In addition she wants an investigation into evidence of Enron-style manipulation of the market to artificially inflate the price of oil. Taken together these strategies stand a good chance of easing the pressure on gas prices which is a big factor driving the price of things like food. Since peak demand comes in the summer months, it makes sense to act now to ease this short term pressure. Cooling the inflation spiral would also have a positive psychological impact, increasing confidence that our government is capable of heading off economic disaster.
Simply threatening to tax the oil companies as well as investigate possible illegal market manipulation puts pressure on them to cut prices. Considering the record profits they are amassing, they can afford to do this but have no incentive at present.
There is good reason to think that Hillary’s approach would be sound policy. It is a way to ease inflation, particularly in food prices. Slowing the rate of inflation is more important in the short run than is addressing the climate. Hillary has very clear strategies to address this long term problem, but right now the economy is the bigger issue. We are facing a huge disaster if our government does not do more.
Imagine Gene Robinson not being totally truthful?
Can you say In the Tank for Barky?
I was there in Charlotte when she spoke too and heard the same thing, and the media is silent on her whole proposal.
She was fantastic too! My 19 year old son who at first supported BO and then was for Hillary, started making phone calls after seeing her in person. He commented yesterday “she tore China a new one” in her speech, media never covers that either.
Very interesting thing of all the calls he has made, he has not come across one, not even ONE BO supporter, one person was undecided, the rest were Hillary or had already voted for her in early voting.
One man even commented, I’ll vote for McCain if she isn’t the nominee.
I am stunned by the results of his calls and very pleased.
Also what elistist people like Obama and Michael Bloomberg do not understand is that we are also going into a holiday travel period which does not just affect the average person, it also affects industries that depend on holiday travel plans. So that “$30/year savings” that Bloomberg and Obama are turning their nose up at could have much more significant economic implications.
Congress has been throwing money and tax breaks at banks and rich people left and right. As far as I’m concerned it is about time they pandered to us working class Americans. I am paying $600/month for gas to get back and forth to work. My grocery bill has skyrocketed in the last few months. I do not know if I am going to lose my house or not right now. SO, Fuck Gene Robinson.
Families in America need help, and Robinson is living in a dream world if he thinks taxpayers don’t know that Washington D.C. is all fine with bailing out banks and Wall Street, but when we (the bitter ones) are hurting, then they suddenly become all about being “fiscally responsible”. I know roads need repaired, but they won’t fix the roads I drive on anyway. And I can’t afford to drive on them. Oil companies owe something like $10 billion in taxes right now. Why do they need subsidies? Congress needs to make them pay up.
There are lots of places Congress can find money to help working Americans. They do not want to. Hillary understands that poor and middle class people need some help.
I live in Colorado, and we are pretty dependent on tourism. I wouldn’t drive here this summer. I don’t think many other people will either, except maybe in August. This state is going to suffer because of the price of gas.
ot……..Clinton is up by 10 in latest poll in Indiana.
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/16106143/detail.html
A very accurate pollster in that state.
From Forbes just yesterday … polls are not Barky’s friends lately ….
Obama Slides in the Polls
The most recent polls clearly show that Barack Obama’s momentum has stalled. This is a trend Trailwatch has been tracking since the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
The current Real Clear Politics average of 7 national polls taken since April 24 gives Obama a 2 point lead over Hillary Clinton. CNN, which also averages other recent polls but uses a slightly different collection of polls, shows a tighter race, with Obama leading by only 1 percent, down significantly from the 9 point lead he held two weeks ago.
Gallup shows that the two candidates are in a statistical tie and have been so for the past week. Yet in the days before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama’s margin over Clinton in April was as big as 11 points.
One bit of good news for Obama comes from Gallup, which conducts daily polls, so it has been able to gauge the reaction of Americans to the latest controversy surrounding Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright made a number of public appearances over the past weekend, ending with a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on April 28. The interviews conducted by Gallup on Tuesday “show no immediate impact of Obama’s remarks on voter preferences.”
We may not know the real impact of this controversy on voter preferences until the results come in from next week’s primaries in North Carolina and Indiana.
–Andrea D. Murphy
Gee you think? This is not a slam against you beebop:
When I see reality I don’t need no fucking pollster to tell me its real.
Yeah I know, even the campaigns use polling data and us supporters celebrate good polling data for our candidates.
Honey, I know you’re not slamming me.
I think though that the average little newbie to politics Barky supporter is not liking the news and so more of his support erodes … or am I guilty of wishing that beggars will ride?
I know that you know but wanted other people to know in case they thought I was slamming you.
I think that makes sense.
BTW, “bop” is my musical style for the most part.
Zogby is the pollster most in the tank for Obama. He’s run the same strategy all year:
1. Lead up to primaries by showing polls indicating great Obama strength (for instance, suggesting that Obama is dead even in Ohio, Texas and PA and miles ahead in NH.)
2. Go on POTUS 08 to pimp these polls and suggest Obama has amazing momentum.
3. The day before the primary, publish the REAL poll (Obama goes from being tied in PA to being down ten points.)
4. Spend the next several weeks crowing about how Zogby International was EXACTLY RIGHT concerning the latest primary result!
You can set your watch to it.
Hmmm, gee, do you think this is why the Barkybots (thanks, Uppity!) are FREAKING out, what with Andrew telling her to drop out and claiming that he’s switching because of the GAS TAX?? (gimme a break), and the CNN pundits (see John King) calling Barky the “Presumptive Nominee,” and Barky himself attacking her so relentlessly?
Nah.
See ya in Indiana and North Carolina…
As someone who has had kin tortured by the enemy (which I shall not reveal here but would respond to your personal e-mail) there are other considerations as well. There are certain universal moral principles by which societies operate (e.g., the moral code against incest). If the U.S. in effect advocates a relaxation of morals for treatment of POWs, captured civilians, diplomats, etc., to quote some minister, the chickens will come home to roost. That is why there were many advocates within the diplomatic community against inhumane treatment. (I do not count Rice, who is regarded as a joke.)
that’s one of the arguments i would have liked hill use directly in the BillO interview, and she sort of alluded to it but did not directly talk about moral principles. i think that when she started the argument BillO actually started talking again, have to watch the whole thing again for that detail.
Send your critique to the Hill campaign, it would help her.
Well DUHHHH! Gallup! No, it wouldn’t show an IMMEDIATE impact. It is just another drop, although more like a bucket really,of the clean water of truth melting the candyass of that lying, racebaiting ergo RACIST, misogynistic, homophobic,hoodwinkin, bamboozlin LOSER obamalamadingdong. I wonder, since Ms. dong always looks like she just smell’d obamalama’s dirty sox…what is she gonna look like when he LOSES!? Just wondering, enquiring minds wanna know! Speaking of which, how come when the enquirer was headlinging about Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers during HIS campaign it became the paper of RECORD for all the talking heads and corporate media but NOW when I see headlines about obamalamadingdong cheating on the shrew it gets NO MENTION? How come? Why’s dat huh?
O’Reilly kept on trumpeting that card as a “me macho know better” what a disgrace; does he have any idea of what is he talking about?
“I talked to very powerful people, these are big names” he kept on saying to HRC as she were the new kiddo on the block taht had no idea …. What a moron…
When I heard Scheuer’s name I thought exactly that: BOZOS (both O’Reilly & Scheuer) What an embarrasement…
HRC certainly stood taller than her interviewer and all the other names being thrown at her by him combined…
Off topic, but anyone else catch Cynthia McCain on POTUS 08 yesterday, talking about how she first met “John?”
She said she met him at a cocktail party, she thought he was a “little weird,” and he ended up “chasing her around the buffett table” (giggle giggle.)
It would have been disgusting even if we didn’t know that McCain dumped his loyal first wife for this politically-connected millionaire heiress. Knowing that, it’s even more repulsive. And she thought it was a funny story!
It’s just as easy to marry for money as it is for love.
Not sure, but I think he and his wife were already separated when he met Cindy.
“Mr. Robinson is grossly misrepresenting Hillary’s position on the gas tax holiday by saying it would take money out of the highway trust fund”
Tim Kaine gov of Virginia was on the radio saying exactly the same thing this morning.
It must be the newest Obama campaign talking point.
I hope that they aren’t trying to sell that to the people in the states where the bridges are testing at “unsafe” and are still in use without any plan on the part of the government to fund repair.
I was out trying to find Eugene’s opinion on the IRS stimulous checks. How can you honestly sit in your Ebony and Ivory towers and tell Americans that you feel their pain but NO SOUP FOR YOU?
Overall, I’d say Wright’s anchor is sinking Obama’s ship:
Poll watchers, Hill is up 1.2 points from 04/29 to 05/01 numbers in Indiana according to Real Clear Politics:
RCP Average 04/23 - 04/29 – Clinton +4.8
RCP Average 04/25 - 05/01 – Clinton +6.0
The trend has been up for her and continues to climb. A lot of Hard work still needed but things are looking good.
North Carolina has been trending Hill’s way but latest has Obama up 1.3 points between 04/30 and 05/01 numbes:
RCP Average 04/26 - 04/30 – Obama +7.1
RCP Average 04/26 - 05/01 – Obama +8.4
This is good news…..
Perhaps as a nation we are experiencing a collective Caveat emptor ?
( let the buyer beware )
Yes.
Has anyone noticed that Andrea Mitchell is starting to look like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons?
And I saw a Senate hearing last night in which the incredibly smarmy Sen. Casey from PA looked like he’d been beaten in the stomach. There are many forms of torture. Of which the only truly effective one seems to be karma.
Would have to agree with Larry, torture is a ridiculous (and hideous) way to try and get information. Of course, people will tell you whatever you want to hear to avoid agony. Duh.
That makes the information you get totally unreliable.
Does anyone recall the Spanish Inquisition?
I know, I know “no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.” (Monty Python)
Would OReilly have the unmitigated gall to ask John McCain about torture?
I think not …
” Give her the …..COMFY CHAIR…..” Michael Palin the spanish inquisator…
I could not resist…
“NO…..Not the COMFY CHAIR!!”
With exagerrated gleam in his leering eye Palin answers…..
” Yessss……THE COMFY CHAIR !…….”
I’ve noticed that a lot of the commentators are looking sick to their stomachs when they say good things about BO that they know are untrue. I’m sure you all recognize that “I know I’m lying, but they’re paying me a lot of money” look :-b.
Clinton was really on her game.
I marvel at her stamina.
Scott Walterman (POTUS 08) has some dick from Zogby International on to tell us how Obama is “rebounding” from his bad week in Indiana and North Carolina- and just you never mind that this idea goes against EVERY OTHER POLL OUT THERE. It’s Zogby, it must be so!
This guy tells us that the polling firm has NC Obama 51%, Clinton 34%, with 15% undecided. Zogby has Obama winning among CATHOLICS in NC. In the Western, rural part of the state, he has it Clinton 42%, Obama 40% with EIGHTEEN PERCENT UNDECIDED.
Why so many undecideds? “Democrats are nervous, they don’t know when the next shoe is going to drop..will Bill say something crazy???
Yeah, Democrats are nervous because BILL CLINTON might say something crazy. What the fuck ever.
Zogby also has the polls dead even in Indiana, where every other pollster has Hillary in the lead and expanding that lead.
I’m convinced that Zogby International is totally in the tank for Obama. On Monday, they’ll suddenly tell us that Hillary has surged to a ten-point lead in Indiana, then they’ll congratulate themselves for “getting it right.” They pulled the same crap in Ohio, Texas and PA.
Why do these guys get a regular slot of “non-partisan” POTUS 08? Zogby even has his own SHOW every Monday on that channel. This is a disgrace.
Indianapolis Star endorses Hillary.
Editorial Experience makes Clinton better choice in primary
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080502/OPINION08/805020400/1291/OPINION08
The empathic and wisdom aspects of the universe endorsed Hillary a long time ago.
Actions speak volumes against flowery rhetorical insincere utterances (”historic speech”) from that guy wearing a diaper running against her.
Imagine the nerve to call that speech “historic,” when you consider it was made as a propaganda misdirection from Obama not having the inner truth discernment skills to walk away from his “mentor” 20 years ago.
Quayle’s paper endorses Clinton…..I never thought I’d see the day when Quayle would make me smile again….Potatoe ?…..chuckle…..
…..SHAPIN UP TO BE A FINE STRING OF VICTORIES FOR SEN. CLINTON….
Larry, your comments on both Iran and waterboarding are to the point!
But the clear thing that came out on both nights is something that has been a sticking point by Obama and his bots, over Hillary’s being polarizing! Everyone knows O’reilly is a jerk and can easily invoke heated debates and yet, Hillary tamed him and agreed to disagree. This above all else proved a major plus out there these past two nights.
It is something which cannot be done by most Democrats, to be civil to the likes of Bill O’reilly, and yet Hillary did it in fine form! That is a President, not scared to take on the toughest of critics and come out agreeing, even if the agreement is to disagree!
As the saying goes, Bullshit talks and knowledge walks!
Sorry about your screen Mr Johnson, exellent post.
I am still waiting to hear from Michael Scheuer as to which books he was reading when sent to the library for remedial reading detention.
Larry, you crack me up. If I wasn’t happly married…
[...] O’Reilly’s Torturers Bozo Parade (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) Bill O’Reilly also challenged Hillary Clinton on the issue of torture. Hillary correctly noted that real experts with real experience in conducting interrogations recognize that torture is counterproductive and ineffective. “Not so” exclaimed Bill O’Reilly. He’s talked to two experts himself–George Tenet and Michael Scheuer. Unfortunately, I had chosen that moment to take a sip of coffee. I’ve spent the last hour cleaning said coffee off of my screen because I spewed when I heard O’Reilly front those two clowns as “experts.” George Tenet is an expert at ass kissing and torture voyeurism. He never got his hands dirty but sure enjoyed talking tough. And Michael Scheuer? Click through for more. [...]
Sir,
Water-boarding worked. It is not torture; no one died. You and your acolytes with the silly e-mail names are safer because of it. Move on to objecting to something of importance — like Senator Clinton’s threat to “obliterate” 70 million Iranians if her Israeli masters succeed in goading the Iranians into attacking them.
Respectfully yours,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA 22043