Open Thread–Now That’s Entertainment
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on January 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM in Current Affairs
This is delicious. I have no dog in this fight and am no fan of Ann Coulter. But this interview with Matt Lauer is worth watching.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I agree with Coulter that the media failed to hold PEBO’s (President Elect Barack Obama) feet to the fire.
I agree that the irony of having a guy with the middle name, Hussein, is funny as hell. I personally want Barack Obama to succeed for the sake of our country. His lack of experience and past tendency to readily associate with shady characters remain my major reservations about his ability to handle the job. His decisions on the transition process, however, point to some common sense decision making and gives me some hope. We will see. What do you think?
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
This isn’t really even an interview.
It is like an episode Jerry Springer without the flying food.
Matt thought he could intimidate her to be quiet and let him place blame on her for them cancelling her, because they did succumb and bring her on.
As much as I don’t like Ann Coulter, what NBC did was wrong and Ann is correct.
And there too lays another problem the media is creating. When they conduct themselves wrongly, we come to the side of a person we don’t normally share much idealogically. And then when we see we agree with her here…and there….maybe she has some valid points….and it’s the other guys, the media/liberals that are just wrong.
There was a quoted report from an NBC Exec who said, they “didn’t want anyone on who would criticize Obama, because it’s a downer.” THAT is their attitude and agenda. Only praise and adulation is allowed, so we can all be “one” (as long as you believe exactly what they believe).
Yes and now I have to go toss.
…too bad they didn’t practice that concern just a tad as RESPECT for the others running with O-shit!
Hoepfully the reason they had Coulter on is because they are starting to realize thta just won’t fly for too long.
Really, people have tried Good news shows before and they get no ratings. Rainbows, sunshine, hope and change are great if you are at the beach enjoying it. Not so hopey changey in front of the boob tube. Bad news always gets the viewers. NBC can just keep doing the B. Hussen Odrama cheerleading show so they can go off the air! Bye!
I used to really dispise Coulter. Now I am a fan. At least she speaks her mind without fear! A true independent woman. Plus, I realized while watching that, that is now how I sound and I am considered a bitter, right wing bitch. Funny, just a year ago, I was considered a liberal and bashed about that.
Something is odd when liberals are the one’s taking away our freedoms and stomping on the constitution, but:
Liberal (exerpts from dictionary.com):
a. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
b.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
c.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
d. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
e. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
This Democratistan is crazyland!
Consider this, by having such an extreme person on as Coulter (and she has every right to be there and I agree with her (!) on PEBO) to make a point about Obama, only serves to make Obama and his supporters look good. Why doesn’t NBC have a rational person without the lunatic baggage on to make the case against Obama?
In total agreement. I had brought a few of her books because I wasn’t sure what all the controversy was about. Read about 20 or so pages of one book and put them down. I never thought I’d be agreeing with her, but I’ve found myself agreeing with a lot she’s said this election season. Plus I’ve gotten a wake up call, so I think it might be time to actually go back and read her books, the references and see just what else I’ve been blind too.
Sorry I haven’t been around, my father got very ill at Thanksgiving and he passed away a couple days before Christmas, I’m still reading everyday and try to read all the comments. Just not commenting. I’ve tried several times, but never posted because I find myself using my emotions which turns into rambling. As I’m starting to do now so shutting up.
I’m so sorry to hear about your dad. {hugs}
Same here. God bless you and your family in this difficult time.
I’m sure any hint of criticism of Hitler was greeted with similar qualms. Jeebus, the MSM are not only useless, they’re culpable.
The sooner NBC permanently dies, the better.
I LONG for the deaths of NBC, CNN and the rest of the slimy corporate MSM that exists today.
Oh…and the man sure is calm under pressure. His show and guests…..????
But, a very nice and calm man himself. I did a campaign event with him, a Greek Festival, for a candidate running for Congress and the people were just freaking out that Jerry was there. They were crazy and jumping all over him, running up to him, etc, he just calmly would turn around, smile, shakes hands, put his arm around them for a photo and smile and stroll his way through everyone accosting him.
“Common sense decision making” or not, Larry, I can’t support anyone who subverted our Constitution. I understand your point, but I still can’t get over how this guy — Obama — subverted the democratic process during the primaries and perhaps even in the GE (with ACORN). I’m funny that way about democracy.
Will I ever be able to accept Him as POTUS? Probably not, regardless of how He actually governs (common sense, etc.). As with GWB, I viscerally reject BO. In any case, He’s too much of a leap of faith — and I don’t live my life in those terms. As far as “hope” is concerned — well, I think He has made a mockery of it. I feel bad for those who think He is their Savior and answer to all of their political prayers.
Thanks for offering this great thread though and for letting us disagree with you here.
. . . VOTING DAILY FOR NQ!
Ugh. Not her again. All she does is stir up hate.
So do Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich & many other mainstream media liberal writers. Lauer’s attitude is that it’s legitimate if it comes from the Left, but if it’s from the Right, it’s poison. I think we’ve learned this year that both sides have their toxic voices and viewpoints.
& what about Matthews, Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, Shuster et. al? These are not hate-mongers? The way they talked about Palin? The C-t t-shirts? It’s a farce–the whole lot of them.
You should have heard Shuster yesterday going on and on about Bristol Palin’s fiance quitting his job. (He had to because he didn’t have the appropriate qualifications.) Shuster kept repeating in a very harsh voice that these two were unemployed teenaged parents making it sound like they were some kind of criminals. He was clearly playing up the “white trash” storyline that the media always adopts for people from places like the deep south or Alaska. (Bill Clinton got the same treatment from this pseudo-sophisticates.) It was really vicious. He then moved on to a fawning piece about Obama’s daughter. That segment is posted on the website, but not the one about Bristol and her fiance. I hope they got hammered with complaints. I know I sent one.
Here is a link to Shuster trashing Bristol and Levi.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/01/06/shuster-insists-calling-bristol-levi-unwed-parents
What a disgusting human being Shuster is.
Did anyone bother to think that if Palin hadn’t issued that unnecessary “my kid and her boyfriend are still in high school” statement that maybe someone wouldn’t have thought to ask publicly just how Levi got the oil field job that he legally couldn’t hold without a high school diploma.
I doubt that Palin or her circle actually pulled strings to get the kid the job, I suspect that the guy doing the hiring for the oil field probably looked the other way knowing who Levi was. Think of it as preemptive pay for play.
“Preemptive pay for play” What nonsense. IOW, you have no evidence that Sarah Palin pulled any strings but you want to try and inevnt a scenario and blame her for responding to some garbage the media was spouting about her kid. Get out of here. What was unnecessary was the original media “speculation” about Bristol and Levi and not SP’s response to it. Please.
Cite me ANY instance where any of these people (Olberman, Cafferty, et al) made such vitriolic and utterly nonsensical BS statements as Ann Coulter:
Called anyone a “faggot” as Coulter called John Edwards.
Wrote about the 9/11 widows: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
Lamented that Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh didn’t bomb the New York Times building
And how about these:
“If you don’t hate Bill Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”
“[Liberals] are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. … Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”
“When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”
Tolerating the mindless vitriol of Ann Coulter is a bad enough reflection on one’s self. Lauding her is trumpeting your own idiocy.
To this I say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
iLarynx, your Obamautism is astounding!
Coulter’s point about PEBO is correct. He was never vetted properly, rarely given a hardball question, and always mollycoddled by the MSM.
Forget about Obama’s sleazy minions in the MSM. Let’s consider your Guy directly: Have you forgotten that He himself flipped off both HRC and even McCain on the campaign trail? How’s that for dignified and unbiased behavior? How about his leadership in inspiring misogyny and race-bating against the Clintons at every turn? Futhermore, what about the pilfering of HRC’s MI delegates by Him and the DNC, and about that sham Roll Call vote? What about the convenient deaths during the primaries of key HRC supporters?
Up against this BEHAVIOR by your Guy, Ann Coulter’s statements (as protected by the 1st Amendment) are mild in comparison.
I agree. And I didn’t f#cking vote for BHO either. I voted for Clinton in the primaries and McKinney in the general. Ann Coulter is a SOS. If she were my broken clock, she wouldn’t be right even twice a day.
Let me rephrase that: I agree about Coulter: not about Olbermann etc. I wouldn’t watch any interview with Lauer or Coulter: I can’t stand either of them; but h#ll will freeze solid before I promote that POS Coulter staying on the air.
YES!….and below YES too.
Notice how Matt didn’t argue with Coulter over the press adulation of Obama. He countered all other points, except that one.
I want Obama to succeed. I don’t think he realizes how the circumstances can overwhelm the man. He may turn out to be a good president, but not in the way people expect. The law of unintended circumstances will be in play more so than usual.
The infusion of new blood will shake things up, but nobody can tell how it will. Already the Congresssional Black Caucus is faced with new challenges:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07blacks.html?ref=politics
I hope everyone, including Obama, rises to the occasion and meets the challenges at hand.
I watched a news conference this morning with Barack giving his spill on the economy. My impression; the guy is a fronting a script. He, personally, has very little idea what’s going down or has very little idea what to do about it. He has a squad of busy bees working overtime to develop workable policy, mostly independent of der leader. This has been his MO from the Harvard Law Review to a failed CAC, no project of which he has much to show.
How this will pan out? Maybe good on the foriegn policy end, not so good on the economy - but any success will be indirect, a consequence of how others do, not his own abilities, or lack thereof.
My thoughts exactly. He was the front man for Ayers in the Annenburg Challenge, and it was a miserable failure (his only executive experience, except for the HLR stint - which was also a flop). Emil Jones handed Obama the legislation others had worked on in the Illinois Senate, so Jones could “make himself a Senator.” Obama makes a good front man - but he has very scant experience in being THE MAN. I wish him the best, but I’m very worried.
Fruit from the Tainted Tree will always be tainted.
It is a natural human tendency for us to want to establish a degree of emotional balance after a stressful occurrence. It helps us get over things.
Unfortunately, that requires a level of acceptance and, dare I say approval, of the new condition in order to internalize the thought.
In doing this one small act, we literally take a running leap at the Slippery Slope.
I can no more approve of any appointment made by The Kenyan than I could say that certain generals under Saddam were nicer than others.
It would be no different than having a popularity contest as to which bureaucrat in the Wermacht was most efficient.
These people, including Hillary are enabling an ineligible criminal to usurp the leadership of the nation.
There can be no approval or absolution.
Lay down with dogs… expect fleas.
Absolutely, Zeke! We don’t have a President as much as we have an Usurper — an Osurper, that is!
BTW, I just saw the Canadian B-movie THE TROJAN CANDIDATE and thought it is worthwhile viewing for those who like conspiracy narratives. Another favorite of mine is SHOOTER.
I am an AA female Hillary supporter. I don’t give a d@mn about the black caucaus (especially Clyburn of SC, Lewis of GA), JJSr, Al sharpton or none of them. They are the disappointment of the century. People who could not stand up for truth and justice against the race-baiting Obama regarding his lies about the Clintons can kiss my @ss forever. They are all cowards and deserve the scorn of the whole country.
Stop crying about the circumstances overwhelming Obama. He lied and cheated for the job, if he can’t do it let him resign. Practically everyone he has named to his cabinet was part of Clintons cabinet. WHAT HAPPENED TO TURN THE PAGE? The silly trolls did not understand that he meant to turn the page backward to the Clinton Administration hoping his could be as successful. FOOLED YOU DIDN’T HE?
Coulter has always been outrageous in the same way Rush Limbaugh is outrageous. They’re entertainers, who like to sell themselves and their “products.” I don’t agree with Coulter on most stuff. She likes to stick her finger in people’s eyes. But at the same time I don’t feel any sympathy for Lauer and his ilk who offer up pablum to the masses and call it journalism.
It’s all entertainment and most of it’s stale and boring.
Lauer was really a jerk here. He argued with her, instead of letting her speak and responding to her points.
Coulter was muzzled by the Republicans during the election. Now she is in full title book selling mode. All about the $$$.
Coulter was muzzled by the Republicans during the election. Now she is in full tilt book selling mode. All about the $$$.
Matt Lauer is an arrogant sexist. He, like so many of his male cohorts, interrupts women in the middle of making a point and then scolds them–”the tone” of what Ann was saying. While I may not agree with the outspoken Ms. Coulter on some points, I think she should be able to finish her points w/o the condescending male power plays. We’ve seen so many males in the Keith/Chris/Brian/Tim mode demean and diminish women this year. If Matt and this bunch of male hooligans had any guts, they’d let their female guests finish a damn sentence or thought, even if it shortens their list of supposedly newsworthy questions.
It blew my mind that he was going on about the country not wanting “divisiveness” now - and in the same breath berating her and being totally rude to her.
Ann was right. The country (i.e., media) wants “unity” as long as it is a liberal viewpoint.
There is no respect given to conservative ideas.
This holier-than-thou attitude among the left is just as obnoxious as when it came from the far right.
Yep, ask his ex’s and….future ex’s.
If you thought Matt was bad, you should see the interview Harry Smith did yesterday. He could just barely disguise his revulsion for Ms. Coulter. Both of them have gone so far beyond the line of “journalist” that it would be hard to see them as anything other than liberal commentators. At least guys like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity don’t bill themselves as dispassionate journalists - they’re conservative commentators and don’t make bones about that. The media has become so dishonest and distasteful that my television doesn’t do any of the network channels anymore. I just don’t see the need. If I want biased reports, I’ll go to the internet sites for news that clearly state what side of the aisle they’re seeing things from.
I think he was trying his hardest to be arrogant towards her but she shut him down. He figured out that he was no match for her by the end. She can definitely get her point across, like her or not. Regardless of the content, I enjoyed watching her give Lauer the smackdown. He deserves it.
As a lifelong disappointed democrat at the selection Obama, I am neutral toward him. I hope the new administration does what is good for the US and ALL of it’s citizens.
I agree with AC, the press did hold his feet to the fire. He basically slide past all the rules to get this position. Now we have to wait to see what transpires; basically because we do not know this man.
America should never worship a man who walks, talks, and breathes and walks this earth as they do. It is dangerous.
That was HILARIOUS! I haven’t been a fan of Coulter’s, but I really enjoyed that. Watching her smack-down Lauer’s simpering “let’s all just get along” MSM propaganda with such panache was satisfying. She nailed the “let’s all come together” b.s. by saying, (paraphrase) “That is just your way of telling conservatives to stop talking, and let’s all praise Obama.” It’s so true. The Dems did it in the primaries: don’t cause trouble, don’t make waves, don’t point out any criticisms of Obama for the sake of “Unity.” It’s also a fallacy. There are diametrically opposing viewpoints–it’s a fact of life. You cannot “resolve” pro-life vs. pro-choice. Someone needs to take a stand and fight for what they believe in–that’s our adversarial system. That’s why Obama hasn’t spoken out about the Middle East yet and voted present 130 times. He does not have political courage.
I thought Coulter was very amusing also. But I don’t agree with the opinion that she is just an entertainer. Calling somebody by their middle name is not a vicious hate crime as Ms Coulter rightly points out…would this country have ignored a Thomas Hitler Dewey…I don’t think so either. Liberals are quite self-righteous and should have their pomposity skewered on a regular basis. I like Coulter in that regard, but I can’t accept any defense of the Bush/Cheney adminstration from anyone. Also, remember Coulter said she would go out and campaign for Hillary if McCain were the Republican nominee and she consistently called out the phoney John Edwards. She is not off-the-mark on everything.
I’m not a fan of Ann Coulter but I can see how a lot of her act is to gain attention and be controversial. Even so, Matt Lauer and his “tone” remarks. Maybe he’d prefer if she said it all in a rainbows and unicorns tone and not try to hurt anyones feelings? Just kind of like Obama did his whole campaign (h*ll, his whole political career) when he didn’t want to alienate anyone so just voted present or talked out both sides of his mouth depending on who was in the audience. Sometimes a straight direct answer in a definate “I mean business” tone is called for instead of a wishy washy, let me consult 40 experts and use my intuitive experience to think about it and get back to you on January 20th response.
Ann Coulter is allowed the same Freedom of Speech everyone else is. Well, she probably won’t have it for long under the new administration and their desire to silence the right. But the fact that Matt Lauer has to always be so snarky is a little nauseating. Fair and equal reporting is a long dead thing in this country. It will take years after the Fraudbama mess is over to restore any dignity and honesty to the media.
The wheels are starting to wobble. Not long before they start falling off the bus. Obama’s lack of experience is allowing many to start testing the waters. Finestein, Reid, Blago,and Burris in the first two days of this week have challenged Obama, as has Pelosi. And I don’t think its because we are waiting for Jan 20th to happen. Its because Obama is untested and the Dems know what they can get away with. I hope the first dog is a tough one with a good bite because he is gonna get kicked.
Obama in his short time on prime time has broken every rule of law to become elected President. He literally bought the presidency with the money he amassed from the internet and possible foreign donors. He makes tricky Nixon look like grade-school.
The democrats have sunk so low, they are worse than the Republicans use to be. With Al Franken “winning” his senate seat, it makes me realize just how good the dems have become at stealing elections. So much for any democracy or the will of the people. I would be curious to know, who did the people of Minnesota actually want as their Senator? Who did the people of America actually want as their president? None of that seems to matter. Perhaps it never did and only this time I have paid attention. It’s all about who can steal and lie and cheat the best. When you look at the “winner”, you can know for sure they are the one that learned to cheat the best.
hear! hear! Susan. Of course we want what is best for the country, but he used blatantly anti-democratic methods to seize the nomination. For me, just like Bush, he is illegitimate. I do not share Larry’s open-minded approach to Obama. He used fraud to gain his position–he poisoned the well.
Of course we all want what’s best for the country, but I am confused by the seeming lack of acknowledgment now of how Obama got into this position in the first place. We cannot change or dwell on the past, but the fact is: he is illegitimate. He used blatantly anti-democratic practices to seize the nomination. Now, we are supposed to judge him only based on the choices he makes going forward? I cannot reconcile those two things, just as I could not when it happened with Bush. You cannot steal an election and then rule with legitimacy. I understand that you want to evaluate his policy decisions and actions in the present, but the fraud, intimidation and manipulation that was used is the foundation of his entire presidency.
Precisely why I do not respect Soertoro/Obama; he has no courage and no visible convictions beyond an obsession to accumulate money.
Unfortunately, this Louer interview was typical of NBC interviews as they are equal opportunity offenders. NBC interviewers of both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin subjected them to the same treatment so we can’t blame it on the interviewee being “politically incorrect” since the only thing Clinton and Palin had in common was opposing Soertoro/Obama in an open election. They are just biased, and like Soertoro/Obama, neither afraid or ashamed to show it.
A year ago, if you had told me that I would be sticking up for Ann Coulter I would have thought you were insane. Well, as bizarre as it is, I am totally on her side. Even though she has said some pretty ridiculous and offensive things in her career, she does have the right to say them. If someone is asked on for an interview they should be allowed to get their points across without being interrupted and treated disrespectfully.
I agree. I have not been a fan of Coulter’s but I have to love the fact she stands up for herself. Of course, it was great to see Matt put in his place.
vici,
I’m with you… Coulter doesn’t leave room for ‘Bots to “see the light,” as it were. IMHO, I see the bloom coming off the MSM’s rose already as the cartoonists on the editorial pages are really warming to this new “Change” already.
When Coulter insults the centrists who, out of race guilt or Republican hatred, voted for the Fraud, she shoves them more over to the left.
Ya do have to admire that stuff Coulter has that Lou Grant said Mary had, “Spunk!” But I do think she only preaches to the choir because that’s where she makes her money.
Regards
I have to admire AC, she plays against the feminine “type”, yet is always vamping for the camera…what a bunch of stuff.
Lauer showed the kind of naive crowing than most hear on a daily basis…the whole let’s do things my way, and no one will be unhappy.
It’s a pitch back to the 19th century.
HA! On Fox, a reporter just said that people in Washington are wondering how a “constitutional law professor” like BO didn’t immediately know that not seating Burris wouldn’t be legal.
The IL Sec. of State has to certify Burris first. The issue is whether the IL Sec.of State has authority to withhold certification or not (which the SoS likely does not - they must certify). Blago did his duty to fill the seat, but the IL SoS has not. As it stands, Burris, unlike all the other senators, has not been properly certified. It’s doubtful that the Senate has authority to seat someone not certified. But no surprise that this is lost on Fox News, and it’s viewers.
iLarynx. Please don’t post comments that have incorrect information. The truth of the matter is that constitutionally the IL SoS does not have to sign Burris’ papers. The IL SoS reinterated that today saying that the U S Senators were trying to make him the scapgoat. Reid may say that he is not certified, however, the senate has NO constitutional grounds for not seating Burris. Are you aware that Judicial Watch has filed suit against the secretary of the senate and the US seante? Serve Reid and Obama right for their illegal antics of not seating this man.
I’m not laughing. Obama, Congress and the MSM are stifling dissent to what end? They won the election already. Smells totalitarian to me. If nothing else, who will they have to blame if (when) it all goes south? Yes, he made some good cabinet picks, but that could just be due to odds. As long as there remains rampant spending and corruption and they continue to utilize ‘grass roots community organizing’ techniques to bully others into submission, I am not buying it. Waitin’ on the change, here….
Which United States president has NOT had an active and vocal opposition?
What makes PEB0 special, are they afraid he can’t stand up to criticism?
Red, such one dimensional characters as BO can ill afford to turn sideways, for fear of disappearing altogether when criticized.
Speaking only as a Sci-Fi fan, wouldn’t that be two dimensions, height and width?
One dimension would be an infinitely narrow line…
(sometimes I can be a real pain in the ass, huh?)
BO’s “good picks” so far are just part of his strategy of cooption and appropriation (i.e. make potential dissenters and adversaries part of your team, etc.).
I must say that as I gain more experience in this world, my viewpoint moves more conservative. AC is point on when she says that many of the problems we see in society stem from a breakdown in the nuclear family. I see so many of my 13 yr old son’s friends who are either without fathers altogether or who have both parents but they spend so much time with two high-powered careers the child is home alone much of the time. What I see in my experience with these kids is that their behavior is HIGHLY correlated with the amount of time their parents spend with them. The neglected ones whether they are rich or poor, smart or average almost always have problems with irresponsiblity, trashy language, prematurely sexual, lying, etc. The kids who spend more time with their parents tend as a rule to be much better behaved and less egocentric.
I agree with the premise, but must note that Sarah Palin is much more believable on this topic than Ann Coulter. Somehow Ann just doesn’t come across as a family gal. This is not to imply that she does not have every right to advocate for family values.
lol
Yes, great idea to take life-lessons on family relationships from a swinging-single, foul-mouthed, boozing trollop.
Well at least she was responsible in not getting pregnant to trap a man, while thinking if it fails to keep the father that way… she can go on welfare as she party with other men,and the child is neglected.
I have more respect for AC, she suffer no child. Should be a lesson to many.
Gee, and we get called “bigots.” ROFLMAO. As for AC, if you had listened to what she said, or read what she wrote, she actually QUOTES statistics that she didn’t make up. I find it rather refreshing that there are people who have some sense of the family unit and family values. Hey, isn’t that what Fraudbama alleges about HIMSELF too? Funny that a single woman can’t have any values, but a Fraudulent criminal usurping the White House is the “poster boy” for American Family Values and Apple Pie. LOL LOL LOL…
“swinging-single”, how RETRO!
Hugh Hefner would be proud.
Why is this type parenting you describe “conservative” and not “liberal”? I know many liberal parents (my relatives) who pay a great deal of attention to their kids and who impart in them a great moral sense.
New on Drudge…”Blago wins” (Senate will seat Burris.)
Bwahahaha…. Popcorn!
More butter, ma’am? Some fresh ground sea-salt?
For later, we are serving Caramel, mind the Bridgework!
Lauer stating that Ann is paranoid really ignited some steam,which I was delighted to see heating up his poor attitude in conducting this interview.
If Obama faced only 20% of that kind of pressure cooker treatment then the world would not have to worry how mentioning ” Hussein ” is politically correct or not !
I don’t hold any sympathy for Coulter’s feelings about the media’s failure to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire”. Where the f— was SHE during the primaries and general election?
The most that Joe-McCarthy-in-Drag could do was to express disgust at the idea that McCain might become the GOP nominee and state that she would vote for Hillary if McCain got the GOP nomination. (This, of course, provided fodder for the anti-Hillary sharks who now saw this as “proof” that Hillary was a closet Republican.) No. The Coultergeist largely sat out the entire campaign year. Where were her scathing articles showing Obama’s lack of qualifications? Michelle Malkin had to step up and become the neocon attack dog against Obama because Coulter kept quiet. And now, Coulter has the audacity to complain about the media’s sycophantic fawning and failure to really hold Obama accountable.
Nope. The Coultergeist needs to go back to wherever it’s been hiding out for the past many months.
Don’t you think Malkin has more credibility than Coulter?
Yes. Coulter sells her credibility down the roaring river of sensationlism for $$. She’s no one to admire.
Thank you,Ann for telling it like it is. B Hussein Obama!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0qN6EBrhPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTQoKKwyy6E
My favorite part of the movie “La Bamba” is when the record producer recruiting Valens asks him a question in Spanish, not understanding he is a first or second generation American.
Valens looks at him and says “English…”
This is entertainment, too ; )
We boycotted Msnbc/ nbc/cbs/abc/ and Cnn except Lou Dobbs
Chicago…. Who Runs it?
> Senators: Barack Obama (now prez elect) & Dick Durbin
> Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
> Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich (arrested)
> Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
> Illinois Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
> Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
>
> The leadership in Illinois? …..all Democrats.
>
> Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
>
> Body count in the last six months: 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago
> 221 killed in Iraq State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.
>
> Cook County (Chicago) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country. (Look it up).
>
> Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country.
>
> Of course, they’re all blaming each other. They can’t blame Republicans because
> there aren’t any.
>
> This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he’s going
> to ‘”fix” Washington politics for us? Good luck and may God help us.
Matt Lauer looked like an idiot. I am no fan of Ann Coulter, but Lauer looked like a vapid ass.
The shallow media got it’s shallow, know nothing president. The likes of Lauer, Couric, and Shuster are just extentions of this idiotic nightmare.
Lauer and rest promoting this “can’t we all just get along” BS is like a seven year old promising to clean their room after being caught lying.
Until the media can report the truth about Obama there IS NO getting along. Someone has to be the parent. So patriots and crazies like Coulter will have to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.
Sheesh- this reminded me of why we no longer watch national news, period.
Matt Lauer looked like a vapid idiot in this interview. I am no fan of Ann Coulter, but she did set the record straight on the media’s complicity in getting a shallow, know nothing azz (s)elected president.
This whole “why can’t we just get along” media BS reminds me of a seven year old that promises to clean their room and never do anything else wrong after being caught lying.
The media is incapable of reporting the truth about Obama. Someone has to be the parent.
Isn’t it funny I never liked Ann. And I use to watch Matt everyday! Now I love Ann - hate Matt, never watch NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. I just watch Fox. I was a Dem now I must admit I can’t stand them. I voted Republican this year. How things change. And Obama will never be my President. He is not who he says he is.
Ann Coulter had said during the primary that she would vote for Hillary herself! I believe she said this in a discussion with Colmes Hannity on their show and it was actually uplifting. She meant it.
What she says about Hussein is right on. We were never allowed to refer to His Hopeness as Hussein. But now, just before he takes over the Top Dog’s Job, he finds it useful.
Noticed this? During the primary, he kept his middle name under wraps. He needed domestic tranquillity to get the votes! But now, he’s got them. He needs international creds and what better cred than Hussein? Guess he wants to upstage Hillary by using his friendly muslim name?
Coulter does have some valid points. She’s not a “Lunatic” by any means. I don’t agree with 95% of what she says. But hte “single mom” issue needs more discussion. It’s not a single-issue. Now if they brought Hillary in the discussion, they’d find out that she did more research on children’s welfare and single mothers’ problems for the last 3 decades! Does anyone invite her to hear her opinions on this?
It’s been a while but it’s amazing to see that some of the posters here are still “fighting the fight” regarding BHO. Of course, there’s no cohesive thought to WHY there’s still a “fight” to wage…At some point, I would hope that everyone can move on…even Larry has… Happy New Year No Quarter!
Rezko, corruption and his molestation of the American electoral process.
And did I mention pay to play?
You’re kidding, right?
Open Thread-
More … Ahem… CHANGE…we can believe in…
“Obama picks lobbyist as Pentagon No. 2″
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_defense
“WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama, who deliberately distanced himself from lobbyists during his campaign and his transition, appointed a defense contractor’s lobbyist Thursday to become his No. 2 official at the Defense Department. Obama acknowledged that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm’s length.
William J. Lynn III, Obama’s choice for deputy defense secretary, was senior vice president for government operations at Raytheon Co. and lobbied as recently as last June on issues including missiles, sensors and radar, advanced technology programs and intelligence funding.”
Read the rest of this very interesting article…it only gets better…