George Bush, Y.A.A.F.M.
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 (926) on July 30, 2008 at 2:52 AM in Current Affairs
I had never heard of ZipperFish. Let me say I am now a new fan. A buddy of mine tipped me to this today while we were working on a military exercise overlooking Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, I am in a 70 year old building in a windowless room. But enough of my belly aching. Enjoy.


So I had to watch to learn what Y.A.A.F.M. stands for — now I know.
I agree — with the Y.A.A.F.M.
Not a funny subject — however — it IS funny!
OHHhhhhhh I am totally a new fan!!!
Thanks Larry!
That was great!
I bet they could do a GREAT one on Bambi. And here I thought the Jib Jab Crew were the only entertaining political satirists on video.
Thanks, Larry, this is very funny, and how can any halfway intelligent person disagree with the conclusion?
It’s hard to believe the one man could do so much harm to our country in eight years. It’s especially frustrating that the Dems in Congress have done nothing–NOTHING–to check Bush and his agenda.
But too many voters, in their zeal to put Bush in the rear view mirror, aren’t asking the hard questions about the man who would be President–excuse me, the man who already thinks he IS President. I speak, of course, of Barack “how can you not love me?” Obama.
“…according to a witness, he told the House members, ‘This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,’ adding: ‘I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.’
Is it possible that someone worse than Bush could end up in the WH? You bet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=hcmodule
It’s not fair to say the Democratic Congress did nothing to stop Bush:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html
If the Democrats broke a fifty-year record in fighting the Republicans, it seems a little unfair to say they did nothing…
There’s also the problem that the anti-Democratic media will rarely report anything the Democrats have done–so nobody knows what they’ve done.
Here’s some of what the Democratic Congress has done (and this is with a bare majority and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority):
http://www.apostille.us/news/democratic_accomplishments_in_the_110th_congress_leading_america_in_a_new_direction.shtml
How many of these, if any at all, actually became law?
It’s moot to say that congress has ‘passed legislation’ if none of it becomes the law of the land. IIRC, Bush has vetoed the above list.
Not to mention those delightful signing statements. No. They were a disgrace.
Agree with you on that one Beebop. Truth is any way you cut it Bush and Co. seized an opportunity…( stunned nation, cowed congress ) and got away with…well…lots o shit that in other circumstances would not have happened….Makes me appreciate how lucky we were with FDR.
Good Post Larry…enjoyed that and will check out more Zipperfish.
none of those tax breaks helped me. It helped mostly people w kids.
The dem congress could have prevented most all the crap Bush shoveled on america and the world after 9/11 by taking Bush out of office.
this is a laundry list of “could have beens”. All watered down and compromised by the repubs and by dems.
On the things they were elected for: the Iraq war, reigning in Bush, the budget, the tax cuts for the wealthy, FISA, they’ve done nothing or they have caved.
I happen to agree with Perry. Compared to the destruction the Republican Congress and Senate prior????
The Dem Congress is the ONLY one moving DIDDLY!
I still am pissed at them but I will give them some credit.
The BONER Congress and Lieber/McConnel Senate have been HEINOUS!!! and beyond whinny (crybabies)
Or is it the LieberBoner Senate and McConnell cry baby Congress? lol
either way they suck
Couldn’t agree more about our current president. All the more reason not to empower his worthy successor, Republican John McCain. I look forward to the discussion that will surely ensure on NoQuarter about this WashPost article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/29/ST2008072902360.html
It demonstrates, conclusively, that McCain’s hideous attack ad about Obama in Germany is scurrilous and false. I am assuming, of course, that all the PUMAs who have been using that story to impugne Obama’s patriotism will stop saying these horrible things, because you are all fair-minded people who are only interested in the facts.
You’ve seen the story and will comment on it, right, Larry?
Now you believe the MSM/Corporate owned media. They’ve covered for Bush all of these years.
Yet when they attack McCain and defend Obama they’re now telling the truth.
Why does the MSM/Corporate media want Obama in the WH so badly?
They savaged Bill And Hillary. They savaged Al Gore. They savaged John Kerry.
Yet they rush to Obama’s defense.
I don’t think they suddenly became journalists or grew a conscience.
So I ask again? Why would the same media that has been vilifying Democrats since Bill Clinton suddenly love Obama?
Corporate America always works in it’s own best interests.
and because they only vilify DEMOCRATS
BAMBI is NO DEM
Unfair attacks against Obama? And after the Obama people have been so nice…
Perry,
Love your website.
I wasn’t aware of all the bills the Democrats had managed to pass.
Funny how the Corporate media never mentions those accomplishments yet manages to praise Obama at every turn.
Huh.
Sorry Charlie, all the more reason not to put one father conflicted no resume punk in after another. Obama is Bush III.
Did you read beyond the HEADLINE?
Obama’s explanation, which came after more than a day of controversy, was the clearest in noting that it was Pentagon concerns about Gration accompanying him to the hospital that forced Obama to reconsider and, ultimately, cancel the visit.
First, Oblowme’s explanation? Please … but having said that, Gration is on the CAMPAIGN staff and not his SENATE staff. Barring Gration is business as usual, nothing unusual for the rules that EVERYONE follows on these visits. Sorry to break your shiney red balloon with the reality pin.
And, once again, this is Oblowme’s version. I don’t buy it and no one who has watched him PREEN buys it. Isn’t the Oblowme as VICTIM meme his favorite defense? We certain know that the TRUTH and a SIMPLE APOLOGY for cancelling a visit to WOUNDED SOLDIERS would never the hell occur to him.
For what it’s worth … I find you as DISGUSTING as he is ….
You find me disgusting? I don’t know or care enough about you to find you disgusting; I just generally find your commentary even more shallow, ill-considered and, generally speaking, stupid than the average PUMA post. Your penchant for calling a sitting U.S. Senator “Oblowme,” for instance, might be amusing to the average grade schooler, but for an adult who claims patriotism to speak that way of a Senator is just gross. You should be ashamed of yourself; but then again, you’re a PUMA, so you know noting of the concept of intellectual shame.
And since you also know nothing of history and aren’t interested in finding any out, you have no idea how truly shocking it is that the Pentagon would, at the last minute, disrupt a Senator’s visit to a military hospital for brazenly partisan political purposes. This is NOT something that is done all the time, or ever. Or perhaps you’d care to show me another instance where a sitting U.S. Senator was told not to enter a military hospital because he had one military advisor with him who happened to be a member of his campaign staff.
no, it demonstrates nothing but the media fawning over their chosen one, and it means obama is once again playing the victim.
you are an idiot, SF. Go change your diapers, you’re stinking up the place.
We just need to forgive the republicans, we can’t move forward if we try to hold some kind of accountabvility to them.
See also the FISA vote.
Fair trade: our Constitution for Barack’s Presidency!
Win - win or lose - lose?
Electing Obama — and decisively rejecting the Republican Party until it is purged of Bushism — saves the Constitution, along with the federal budget, our respect in the rest of the world, our likelihood of defeating Al Qaeda, our likelihood of really combating global warming and getting a national health care program, and so much more. This is win-win if I’ve ever heard it.
Telecomm immunity fits where in that picture?
More Obot cluelessness & claims not based in reality.
FISA flip-flop, faith based initiatives, gun control flip-flop, abortion rights’ flip-flops: where do these all fit into “saving the Constitution?”
And Obama is going to fight Al Qaeda with WHAT military knowledge? Oh right, he’ll ask all the “experts” sort of like W’s method. That worked out really well.
And national health care? WHERE have you been “sweetie?” HE DOES NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN. Starting with leaving a huge chunk of the American people out will cause it to fail.
Ocean or fly fishing, Mr. Murder?
FISA is a basic violation of our rights. But that doesn’t bother you right? As long as Obama, who voted for it, wins.
What has Obama ever done in his political career to make you think he can accomplish all of the things you list?
He couldn’t even protect public housing residents in his own district. But he will defeat Al Qaeda?
The slumlord friend of Obama that left his constituents to freeze during a Chicago winter in his own district while he funneled money Rezko’s way and he claims to know nothing about it.
At least one person came forward and said that they did complain to his office about Rezko. At first Obama denied it. The Obama said he couldn’t be sure. He didn’t remember.
This person is going to fix all of those things you claim.
I realize that not all Democrats, just like all Republicans, are cut from the same cloth.
Obama couldn’t help the poor in his own district. Yet he will fix all of America’s ills.
And the world’s.
I don’t believe that about any one human being. If you do that’s not political support. That’s idol worship.
I don’t worship Obama, and I’m not blind to any of his flaws. I just think he would make an immeasurably better president than McCain, and my reasons for this are rational and reasoned, not childish and fantastical (i.e., “worse than Hitler,” “wants to rule the world,” “already scarier than Bush,” blah blah blah).
And yet, you find this “mature?”
These are your words by the way … taken from a post that appears below ….
Typical PUMA idiocy. The oceans will rise, the wars will continue,
So there you are. It just depends on who is saying it, I guess. I don’t know you by anyone whose screen name appears to be “shit for Hillary” is an axxhole as far as I am concerned, know what I mean?
Based on what? His short Senate record and his non-accomplishments in Chicago?
Please.
Pony Up the Records….Real Ones SFHILLARY….Prove Your shitty messiah is ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS….mkay?
Yet you do not answer candymarl’s question.
How do you support an immoral and indifferent human being, who has lied about knowing of the suffering of his constituents while he profited from the dealings with the person responsible for their plight?
This not rational in the least or reflect any kinda “judgment”. So please answer the question! No one Obama supporter has EVER been able to.
Electing Obama — and decisively rejecting the Republican Party until it is purged of Bushism — saves the Constitution…
Rigging the Democratic primary is not a good start.
FASCIST IS AS FASCIST DOES….DFA = Dean’s Fascists for America…nuff said
Obama is Bush. Check the film again … proving something to daddy … don’t you see it? Jesus you people are blind, deaf and decidedly dumb, aren’t you?
no, this is the falsehood you want to believe. Obam and the democrats are marching right down the line with Bush: FISA, Iraq, tax cuts, the budget. They all want to keep the same power structure. why else would they nominate a prick/egomaniac/junior senator with nothing to offer but a silver tongue laced with arrogance? He is malleable so the demos will have their say.
The conservative brand is dead already–bush did that. Voting AGAINST Obama and FOR McCain ACTUALLY SAVES THE CONSTITUTUION. Not the other way around.
Barky is a trojan horse.
nominate a prick/
Had to read that twice, morning dyslexia. I thought it said pickle…
The barn is burning so BO supporters can be seen running from the barn to the house, which has a neon sign on it saying if you enter here you will be “sorry” and still they choose to ignore it.
Saying ANYTHING is better than whence they came, and not where they go. But just make sure it not anyone really qualified! That would mean reality…BO supporters can’t hack that.
I keep hearing President Clinton saying…” They really DO believe the crap.”
Obama’s excuse for not visiting the hospital doesn’t fly for me and I doubt it will for most others. If he wasn’t there to make a political spectacle, then why was he there at all w news people? Why not just go on the trip w security and leave everyone else behind? Why go to a volatile place and landmark and throw a free concert w free food? Why make sure the news knows he left a prayer in a wall? The point of the trip was supposedly to talk to some of the leaders. My guess is he wanted to just make it look like he was gaining some sort of foreign policy experience.
I don’t care that he went to the gym or played basketball. I care that Obama is making a spectacle of the election for President of the United States. He has no business running and he has no business being in the White House. McCain is not George Bush. Although not my first choice he is my second. There is no way I will ever vote for Barack Obama. Patriotic? I have serious doubts about that from anyone who sat in Rev. Wrights church for 20 years listening to racist, America hate talk and won’t put his hand on his heart for the Pledge/National Anthem. Not EVER.
Obama didn’t visit the hospital because the Pentagon is in the bag for the GOP and told him, once his group was already in the air, that he couldn’t. He didn’t have media with him — that’s just a lie that McCain is saying and clowns like you mindlessly repeat. Your other inane comments make equally clear that what is standard operating procedure for any other politician in the middle of a campaign, is not acceptable for Obama. McCain and HRC and everyone else make exactly the same international trips to look good and they make sure to have the media along — like all the cameras that captured Hillary’s moment with the little girl in Bosnia which she later “misremembered” as having been dangerous, or McCain bringing along dozens of media people to record his infamous stroll through the “safe” Baghdad market along with a couple hundred troops — but when Obama does it, it’s evidence that he doesn’t love America. I know you will NEVER vote for Obama and I couldn’t give a shit — most Republicans will never vote for Obama, that’s no surprise. I’m just appalled, as always, by the ignorance, disinformation and sheer ugly personal hatred that fuel your diatribes, and glad that so many other Americans are moving into our court, as evidenced by every last recent poll except the USA Today outlier and its crappy likely voter methodology. I’m also glad, btw, that McCain is running the ugliest and most inept presidential campaign in recent history. The past couple weeks, since he turned so clumsily negative, he isn’t just losing the election — he is disgracing his own reputation. Man, we Obamans are going to kick your Republican asses from here to Sunday in November, and I will enjoy immensely coming to this site and listening to all your poor PUMA sniveling whining about how America is about to be destroyed, right when we actually embark on a national renaissance after this horrible years of Republican ascendance.
I can live with another Republican President.
What I can’t live with is a Democratic President that got in the WH based on cries of unfairness and racism.
The civil rights movement didn’t liberate Obama’s ancestors.
In case you haven’t noticed Obama’s father was Kenyan - not a descendant of slaves. His mother was white - not a descendant of slaves.
When did a disagreement about a candidate become whining?
This is why you’ll never get PUMA support.
You don’t know how to ask.
But keep digging.
>I can live with another Republican President.
>What I can’t live with is a Democratic President >that got in the WH based on cries of unfairness >and racism.
Typical PUMA idiocy. The oceans will rise, the wars will continue, The Supreme Court will tilt conservative, the nation will continue going bankrupt, millions will sicken and die because they lack health insurance — but god forbid that a Democrat should get into the White House based on “cries of unfairness” (whatever that means in the context of a two-year electoral campaign). This kind of brain-dead drivel would be funny if it weren’t so scary. Oh right — nobody takes you people seriously because your numbers are miniscule and Obama is pulling away from McCain and will defeat him in a landslide. So no, your blithering nonense isn’t scary, it’s just funny. “Cries of racism” are more important than health care, tax policy and the Iraq War. Hilarious!
Oh FUCK OFF SFHILLARY ! you are tedious….WE DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR SHITTY MESSIAH….scram
nobody takes you people seriously because your numbers are miniscule and Obama is pulling away from McCain and will defeat him in a landslide.
LOL! I love how the Obots keep repeating that our numbers are “miniscule” like they have facts about that. Do you not see the repeated polls showing the large faction of Dems who WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA? Obama is “pulling away from McCain?” You mean the USA/Gallup poll that has McCain up by 4? I can’t wait for the 527’s to destroy Obama. That will help with the polls too sweetie. Elections are decided in the last weeks, not July. Read some history.
p.s. if all those “horrible” cataclysmic images you paint come true: blame the corrupt primary process for hijacking the election and refusing to “select” the true Democrat in the race.
And by the way, I know I will never get PUMA support. PUMAs are fools and, being fools, you will vote for McCain. That’s fine; he’ll get a solid 47% of the vote, maybe 48%, and PUMAs will be among that losing 48%. If the polling showed that your numbers were relevant I would be concerned about your “movement.” But your numbers are not relevant so I don’t care about you and your hatred of Obama at all. You can have your fun pretending your efforts have meaning. I’m here talking to all the non-PUMAs who surely visit this site on any given day. In the midst of learning that “cries of unfairness and racism” should be deciding factors in one’s vote this fall — as opposed to, just to offer one of many examples, McCain’s desire to make Bush’s tax cuts for rich people permanent, which if enacted would almost certainly make it impossible for America to pay for Medicare within another 15 years — I feel these readers might welcome a voice of sanity.
You might want to know something. I’m an honorably retired disabled veteran.
I’m world traveled.
I’ve been shot at by terrorists.
I know what the stakes are.
I’ve had troops that I would trust with the security of the US before I would trust Obama.
Thanks for your service candymarl.
I second that…
oh Hell yes about the troops!
Grab me any PFC out of formation. I would gamble their judgment over Bambi’s any old day!
I too am a VET so I APPROVE this MESSAGE!!!
The only non PUMAs here are idiotic bots like you- go back to evil orange where you phony progressives can solve the world’s problems by Selecting a phony democrat like empty corrupted suit Obama.
I’ve heard the argument from bots many times that they are here trolling for all of the people who are not PUMAS who are reading this blog. This argument is usually made to dispute our numbers and is often followed by “Obama’s gonna win anyway and I can’t wait to come back here on Nov 5th and laugh”…But they are fearful of PUMA influence because they admit that “others” are reading this blog. Well who do you think the “others” reading this blog that you are supposedly trying to reach are? Obama supporters? No! The Obamacamp and the DNC know that there are more Democrats who will not vote for Oblahma than even the number of official PUMAS who have regisitered online and who blog…that’s why they’re worried and that’s why they send bots here to try to discourage us by minimizing, marginalizing and dividing us. PUMAS stay strong!
the hospital because the Pentagon is in the bag for the GOP and told him, once his group was already in the air, that he couldn’t
Link please? What is this, excuse number seven?
He could have gone ALONE without the fanfare but that was not to his liking …. drop this one. You are losing. Americans know the real story. Even the liberal media apologists know he f*cked up on this one boychick.
Horseshit. You want a link? How about the front page of today’s Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html?hpid=topnews
Here, I’ll give you the first few paragraphs:
McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence
By Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A01
For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.
The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival’s patriotism.
The essence of McCain’s allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. “I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers,” McCain said Monday night on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”
The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.”
Did you read the whole article batshit brains?
Gration is a member of his CAMPAING STAFF and only SENATE STAFF can accompany … do you get it? NO SENATE STAFF accompanied … HE WOULDN’T GO BY HIMSELF!!!!!!!
I see. The fact that he was planning to take one military advisor with him on a trip to a military hospital, and the Pentagon raised this horseshit objection (which they’ve never raised with McCain) therefore means that Obama was only interested in publicity?
You’re full of shit, Beebop. But that isn’t news. You will all take any ridiculous opportunity to impugne Obama’s integrity, patriotism, whatever.
Can you name a CAMPAIGN advisor that John McCain wanted to take to a military hospital? NAME that person and I will concede this point. YOU CAN’T …. go back and look at every statement released by the Pentagon and also take a look at this
On Monday, Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs said the campaign decided not to go to Landstuhl because Pentagon officials said it would be a political event, though the officials did not tell them not to visit.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/28/mccain-campaign-continues-to-criticize-obama-over-scratched-european-troop-visit/
Maybe the campaigns left and right hands should meet and get THEIR FREAKING STORES STRAIGHT!!!!! Especially before they send out their paid trolls to spread garbage and LIES.
And as for You will all take any ridiculous opportunity to impugne Obama’s integrity, patriotism, whatever:
I am still waiting for EXAMPLES of integrity, patriotism and DECENCY … axxhole.
I’m still waiting for the AUTHENTIC…Birth Certificate…Pass Ports
Where are your papers BARRY…huh?
Obama’s “integrity, patriotism, whatever.”
That’s a good one! Obama and integrity in the same sentence.
Yep, I couldn’t ever say that sentence with a straight face…ever!
If that’s true then why didn’t he go? If he planned to take no other people and McCain is lying then he could have gone to Ramstein and Landstuhl, I’ve been to both.
He could have left the military campaign adviser behind and gone with the base PA people and visited the troops.
I’ve seen these dog and pony shows before. If you’re a sitting Senator no base official is going to prohibit you from visiting troops within Pentagon guidelines. They will provide the escorts and personnel if necessary.
BO lacks conviction.
boy have you got shit for brains. the media is in the tank for obama and are trying desperately to paint obama as a victim.
hey, obama can’t defend himself, just like Kerry. That is not a man I want in the whitehouse.
you are really an idiot and expose yourself time and time again! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok , let me explain that a friend’s sister in law sent her this email and it was from that ladys uncle.
Rec’d July 23, 2008:
I don’t know each of your personal political convictions, and apologize if anyone finds this offensive. I thought it was important enough to share.
This is Jeff’s first hand view of Senator Obama.
Hello e