By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering.
Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management.
Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria.
From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward.
From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards.
Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (818) on February 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM in Current Affairs
Unless you have lived in a cultural cocoon these last 10 years, you should be familiar with The Matrix, a great movie featuring Keanu Reeves who played the cyber Messiah, Neo. Well punch me in the nose and call me the Pillsbury Dough Boy, but frigging Obama believes that he is Neo. Did you hear his latest?
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” - Barack Obama on Super Tuesday
Are Andy and Larry Wachowski calling their copyright attorney? This is a flat out ripoff of the movie. Throughout “The Matrix,” the various characters keep asking, “is he the one we’ve been waiting for.” Hello?
Just what we need. Another fucking politician with a goddamn Messiah complex.
Taylor Marsh has more on the Obama cult (read here).
Finally, this little taste from The Matrix:
Trinity: Neo, I’m not afraid anymore. The Oracle told me that I would fall in love and that that man… the man that I loved would be The One. So you see, you can’t be dead. You can’t be… because I love you. You hear me? I love you.
[Trinity kisses Neo; Neo’s vital signs return]
Trinity: Now get up!
Oh, we loves us some Bama!
Oh, how dare you mention a racist movie where the white guy (Neo) is “the one” but the black guy who has toiled all those years (Morpheus) is second class!
Additionally, if “we are the ones” then couldn’t Hillary be the one to lead us just as well as Obama?
Morpheus was Neo’s guru/teacher silly. He was the one who had the wisdom that had to be imparted to The One.
“Oh, we loves us some Bama”?
Who is writing this stuff? Don Imus?
“Oh, we loves us some Bama”?
Who is writing this stuff? Don Imus?
ROFL!! These tactics don’t reflect well on the Clinton campaign.
However, Don got a bad rap! If it wasn’t for his show I wouldn’t have known that the Blind Boys of Alabama (black guys) had a new CD out.
Two weeks later all hell breaks loose over some stupid comment about some female athletes who will never do a thing to better my life.
Cee,
He’s mocking cultism - It isn’t about Racism
myiq2xu: I guess I was watching a different movie.
I think Mr Fishburne is a very talented actor and would think he would have done a great job portraying NEO. Ask Mr Fishburne which role he wanted. They approached him first. Really I am curious why it is racist film. Mazybe the special effects distracted me from it being as you discribed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheus_(The_Matrix)
Morpheus’ dream turned out to be right after all.
Obama makes a self-fulfilling prophecy statement!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy
You know..I have tried not to respond to this “post.” Is anyone else disturbed by the sentence, “Oh, we loves us some Bama”? I am not really a reactionary, but my consummate saleswoman of a fiance taught me something profound when we began dating. If you shut and listen, people will tell you who they are. I have kind of ignored some other posts, but this statement betrays his thoughts.
Oh, btw, Larry, the phrase “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is supposedly a Hopi Indian saying that has been used in several songs and an Alice Walker book. Try reading the quote more carefully. The subject is “we”, and the predicate also has a “we” in it. The idea is that our future is in our own hands, and not in the hands of some future savior. Ironic that you misconstrue the statement to be a messianic delusion of Obama. Contrast that to Hillary, whose latest impromptu motto has become “Yes she can.” Notice the emphasis on the singular person, and not the collective group. Your analytical skills need some polishing, methinks.
This is pretty silly as a substantive debate, but still, I forgot why I was impressed with your postings for a while until I read the previous posting on the surge. That didn’t last long.
It sort of makes you wonder how much of Larry’s position on the Dem candidates comes from a racist perspective.
The sidebar ad for the book about the Confederacy doesn’t help his case much…
I noted on a previous post that Larry made a comment that was blatantly racist. Nothing new. His comment on this post is probably just dumb.
S Markom
It IS NOT Racist - He’s mocking cultism
“Mocking cultism.”
Is that the new code for racists? Was Imus mocking cultism when he was fired from MSNBC? Was Trent Lott miocking cultism when he made that remark at Strom Thrumond’s dinner?
This one I have to remember!
S. Markom -
Larry is not a racist.
Larry was mocking Obama zombies.
Larry is an American patriot for speaking out against false idols like Barack Hussein Obama - an individual who let his constituents freeze while he solicited a mansion from a slumlord under federal investigation for kickback schemes.
Larry like most thoughtful U.S. citizens wants responsible leadership.
You’ll have to seek redress for all of these other completely unrelated items that you randomly mentioned with Barack Hussein Osama.
Good luck as it’s cold outside…
Yes she can.” Notice the emphasis on the singular person, and not the collective group.
Jacek,
Good point. The Clinton fund rising stunt recently also made me aware of how it isn’t about the peons. Mark Penn is paid millions and the staff goes wanting until the public pays up.
No Jacek, I am NOT disturbed by Larry’s humor. If you google info on organ transplants you see that people of every hue are traveling to India and China for transplants. My point-underneath the skin, we are so very much alike, regardless of the color of the exterior.
Even though I wasn’t going to respond to your last comments in the post ‘How to Buy a Mansion, You can’t Afford’, I will as you seem to think the completely false assumptions you made are somehow fact.
1. Your accusation that I am a “Rabid Hillary Supporter” - I voted for Edwards in the primary and would have worked for him in the general. I WILL vote for Hillary, but will expend my help at the US Senate and Gubernatorial races locally. Quite a few degrees removed for a ‘Rabid Hillary Supporter’.
2. Your statement that I obviously never bought or sold a piece of Real Estate. ‘A’ being singular - you are right. I have bought 7 pieces of property - sold 6, 4 of which were multifamily units, and 2 single homes. Further, I am quite proud of the fact that each Multi Family I owned - had complete new plumbing, electrical, bathrooms, kitchens, roofing, insulation, and siding put on it within 2-3 years of purchase. My tenants stayed long term, loved their homes, volunteered to do their own snow removal and yard work. In one of my units was an elderly retired woman, who had lived there since her husband left her 28 years before with a 5 year old son. On her own, she insisted each tenant wash their hallways and stairs weekly. Her rent until the day she passed in 1984, was $18/weekly.
3. I got my Real Estate Sales License in 1973, and my Real Estate Brokers license in the spring of 1974. I kept it until I moved out of state for a few years. Then moved back because there is no place like it for quality of life and quality of environment.
4. I have been, and still am invovled with Zoning and Planning boards both locally and State wide. Unlike where you have been, we see the functions of both zoning and planning working together for the purpose of controlled growth. Out of state developers are a literal plague here. They want to come in, clear cut acerage, and build large developments. Depending on the area, we have restrictions against what we term ’slash and burn’ clear cutting. Changes in acerage required is increased frequently. There are also restrictions on how much open space, and access to a proposed home, thereby peserving much of the trees on naturally wooded lots. This way we discourage greedy developers, and make it prohibitively expensive.
5. Title seems important to you. Bush Sr thought because he had the title ‘President’ he could force a nuclear waste dump in a working class town near the VT border. A judge from the largest western NH city, with a JD from Harvard, and a very impressive resume, took the lead in preventing it. His wife contacted myself and several others around the state, with research assignments, which were completed within 10 days. The 2nd Planning Board meeting had so many people, the meeting was delayed for an hour and set up in the High School gym, which still ended up with wall to wall people. Bush Sr’s. minions kept trying to shout we had no choice, it was what the PRESIDENT had decided. All the research was presented, and then a 22 year old kid got up and said to Bush’s minion’s “We don’t give a damn if he thinks he is God Almighty. If he wants a Nuclear Dump he can put it on his own property in Texas and kill his own family slowly - we want our families to live”. After the cheering stopped the Minions knew they were defeated, and 2 of the Planning Board members resigned that night, acknowledging they had betrayed their own neighbors. The rest of the Planning Board resigned within a week - as they knew they would no longer be allowed to hold their position.
6. In Manchester, the largest NH city, the Mayor thought he could make some ‘back room’ deals with devlopers. He was voted out and without a job for 10 months. When he and his family were about to lose their home, he recanated his actions. A large meeting was called, and available city jobs were read out. As he was in his mid 50′ and portly, some were obviously not suitable. The people voted to give him a job as a water meter reader. You can google it, if you’re curious.
7. In case you think we are dumb ‘hicks’ a common error out of staters make - I was American Interantional Group’s(AIG) representative to the Insurance Service Organization (ISO) at the top of the World Trade Center for 5 years before I left and went into Education. Each Tuesday morning I flew on the Company plane into LaGuardia and met that afternoon with Maurice Greenberg, the same one that now Governor of NY Eliot Spitzer brought to justice. I left AIG, because of tremendous pressure to become involved in getting a data base money laudering system set up in the Bahamas. It was called OSA for Off Shore Accounts. The purpose of that system, was to bring non-insurance related money into the US tax free and ‘off the books’. I quit rather than compromise my own principles and integrity.
As an attorney, don’t you think it would be wise to ask questions of someone you don’t know anything about, before you try a smear campaign on the web? Or, is that your normal court room tactic?
The summary of all your comments and justifications add up to “Everyone does it”. If you are under 30, I will try to be tolerant. If you are older, I shall find it hard to bite my tongue.
Lastly, since this this seems to be a rant thread, I strongly object to your arrogance in TELLING Larry to go read what your wrote in comments. Larry, and the other former intelligence officials who post and comment here, are doing all of us a huge favor. They know intimately details on Foreign Affairs and National Security, that even those of us who watch tbhe news very closely, would not learn even 1/100th about. They could be chasing dollars or doing other things. However, they are true patriots, and expend their time as well as energy, finding public information to use as references, so that we can be wiser and more informed citizens. A little respect is due these exceptionally wonderful people.
Why apologize for supporting Hillary? Unless you are on the phone with an Air America host, there’s no reason to.
However, if you DO find yourself on the phone with, say, Randi Rhodes, get ready to be told that the only people who vote for Hillary are the people who are against Hope and against Change and are basically Corpo-Racists who want to keep America Divided because she’s Such A Polarizing Figure (TM.)
Today she had a caller from Michigan “worried that I’ll never get a chance to vote in a primary this year.” Randi agreed- and just you NEVER MIND that Michigan HAD a primary and NOTHING prevented Obama from putting his name on the Michigan ballot. Same with Florida. It’s clear that Obama supporters, who constantly tell us that they wont vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee, simply will not accept the idea that people might actually, sincerely, legitimately prefer someone other than Saint Barack for the Democratic Nomination.
John,
Limbaugh prefers Hillary.
Limbaugh show:
RUSH: All right, folks, I need to ask you a question, personal question from me to you. Do I sound like I need cheering up here? I’m getting e-mails from friends, “Boy, you sound like you could use a little cheering up.” And they’re sending me these stupid little Internet jokes, “for you to smile,” like an Internet joke would cheer me up. Spam would cheer me up. But do I sound like I need to be cheered up? I can’t wait ’til the Drive-Bys get hold of my thought, my consideration of helping Hillary raise money. They’ll miss the reason. They’ll just publicize, “Limbaugh is so upset at Romney getting out, he’s thinking of raising money for Hillary, period.”
But the reason for raising money for Hillary is because that apparently my party is relying on fear and loathing of Hillary to get the nomination, to unite Republicans, who are, some of them, off the reservation. The Republicans do not seem to be relying on leadership in their party to unite the party. They seem to be relying on all these external things, nobody is going to vote for Hillary, negative turnout factor. What if she’s not the nominee? We’ve got make sure she’s the nominee if the Republican Party is to be unified. What more loyal thing could I do than to run a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton? You watch, though, you watch how that will be questioned.
Again- I should vote for Obama because Rush Limbaugh, Serial Liar, says he prefers Hillary? And if he said he preferred Obama, that would put you in Hillary’s camp, right?
I don’t listen to Rush, and I don’t give a fat rat’s ass who he says he prefers. Same goes for Coulter, Hannity, etc. etc.
And if he said he preferred Obama, that would put you in Hillary’s camp, right?
Of course not. My point all along is that many people think she is easier to beat.
I agree.
You know - it’s like watching American Idol playing out 24/7.
Whether we like it or not BOTH Obama and Hillary are being supported by the SAME BIG money people. The difference being that Hillary - has more indpendence. Obama literally sold himself to BIG Money in December 2006, and has zero wiggle room.
You can read all about it here. http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/
The reality is Obama can ONLY bring as much change as his owners will allow. Since these people have gotten literally everything they want for the last 7 years, how interested do you think these corportists are in REAL change?
Talk about fairy tales - Yipes.
Further, there are just 6 Media outlets, thanks to all the mergers. http://www.corporations.org/media/ When these guys need large infusions of cash they call the Big Money people.
So ultimately the same people who finance some of Hillary’s and most all of Obama’s campaign, also control the media story.
We’ve all been played - BIG TIME! So where is the outrage?
John,
I did not feel I was apologising. My bad if it came across that way.
Simply I strongly supported Edwards.
Hillary rates high on Domestic Issues - I am not crazy about her War vote, Kyl Lieberman vote - and influx of cash from AIPAC
However, Thanks to Larry’s information on Obama’s cousin Odinga, the fact that he sent Dick Norris to Kenya, wanted to bomb Pakistan a country with Nukes, and some other information - Hillary is a much more thoughtful and saner leader.
I honestly Liked John Edwards solutions best - and if we could remove the AEI and Hudson Institute to Diego Garcia, or even Kenya - I’d feel a lot safer about foreign policy.
Well, it makes your mistakes all that much harder to understand. Well, whatever.
Please explain the humor in “Oh, we loves us some Bama!”? I find it amusing that you accuse me of smearing Larry. Would you feel comfortable saying that? If so, under what circumstances? And, what would be your intent in saying it? Finally, why is it funny?
For example, in your posting, I did not read even one sentence that smacked of racism. I thought your effort was quite fervent and admirable, but the analysis incorrect. (How did you miss the fact that the doctor earned more than the original offering price, and that a vacant lot in one of the toniest and most mature areas in a big city would not be extremely valuable? No really, I am sincerely curious about that.) In addition, in all of your comments, althogh you seem to freely enjoy insulting me (I try not to do the same…hope I accomplished that, but sorry if I didn’t), I find your dissent to be well-intentioned and reasoned.
However, Larry’s statements are making me believe that his intentions are not so well-reasoned but more because Obama is a “n____.” He states that Obama is not qualified, and I acceped that as his opinion being free of racial bais. Now, not so much. I wouldn’t say what he did. Why did he say it? Is that funny to you? In your own and SusanPc’s posts, neither of you rely upon racially charged invectives.
(Aside - I asked Larry to go read the comments not from arrogance, but to spare everyone else from cutting and pasting them all over again.)
With respect to your last paragraph, I think that is why I am posting so much. I am TRULY disappointed because I respected Larry’s postings concerning foreign affairs/security issues so MUCH. However, I have been shocked by his many many postings lately. It makes me question his judgment in ALL things now. You may consider that unfair, but that is my right./
Finally, here is a nice link to read concerning Obama’s legislative record in the Senate:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
I again ask you to calm down. Oh, btw, in the 7 properties that you purchased, I assumed you used an attorney to assist in you buying them. Did your attorney go out to visit them and make sure that they are properly maintained after the closing?
With respect to the rest of your post, I literally have no idea what you are talking about or what I have written that set you off. (Btw _ I live in Seattle now, which has quite draconian land use laws, much more so than in Illinois.)
Jacek oh Jacek,
1. You cannot have it both ways - in every comment you make there is a slam or derogatroy remark and that IS insulting. To wit, your comment Well, it makes your mistakes all that much harder to understand.. There were NO MISTAKES - go and read the comments from the same Post at MyDD http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/20117/25087
Truthteller, who lives in the same couple of blocks as Obama, has verified the accuracy of everything I have said regarding Obama’s house.
2.IF you read Larry’s post sloowly, He is mocking CULTISM. There is NO RACISM intended! Again - you falsely accuse.
Did you actually READ Taylor’s post? http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26965
Check out the the checklist for cultish like emotional control here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist
3. My point in using real life examples is that if your bend the law, no matter who you are, there are consequences - or as we say “Every Dog has its day”
4. It is my understanding that Lawyers are supposed to do something called Due Diligence.
I will not respond any further, if your comments either reflect the fact that you have NOT read an entire post, including the links, or if you persist in veering off with insulting or unrelated issues.
Simply put - we discuss facts as contained in posts - no more ‘court room type brawl tactics, or parsing of words’ - then we can talk.
Understood? So do your Due Diligence like the professional you claim to be!
Nellie,
First of all, I am not angry. But, I do like to correct factual errors and errors of ignorance. As I am not in front of you, please accept this sentence as a written statement of that intent.
So, I went to the myDD post and read every omment. The post was the same. Truthteller lives nearby? So what? My comments were concerning the transaction. How does my comments about the accounting and the process of dividing lots have to do with him living nearby? Again, this is a pretty simple transaction - the lot was divided into 2 lots; each was sold; and the vacant lot was divided again, and a portion of that lot was sold. Moneys were paid for those properties were paid and everything was full market.
2. Racism or cultism? Yah, because that is how a lot of people have interpreted it. But whatever. However, your point is well-taken. That is not something I think is a good thing, but , what can you do. Its how people are.
3. Again, no law was broken. No law was even bent as far as I can tell. if you think so, please follow standard law school analysis - IRAC…(Issue-rule-analysis-conclusion.) In other words, state the facts that comprise the crime, cite the statute that was violated, analyze and then conclude.
4. Sometimes; sometimes not. It depends on the deal. For example, lets say I represented you in the purchase of your income-producing rental homes. If you asked me to represent you in the purchase of your homes, I would not conduct due diligence of YOU. I would review the title of the home. I would not actually physically inspect the homes; you would do that or you would hire someone to do that.
Here is what I posted on another post about what a lawyer does in the deals in question though:
Please note that I am not YELLING at you, but rather, just giving you an informed commentary of what lawyers do. People would not necessarily know what it is that we do.
___________________________________________
Oh man…..I suppose from professonial interest, I am compelled to answer. Mr. Murder, the fiasco here is that Obama was funded by a guy who was a slumlord, not that Obama somehow failed to be accountable to the tenants as a lawyer tangentially connected to these developments. The attorneys are responsible for completing the paperwork for the deal, not serving as guardians of the public interest.
Let me explain how these deals are done (in a nutshell). Basically, a nonprofit community group will form a new entity in partnership with a for-profit company. The for-profit brings the commercial know-how (allegedly) to rehab the building. The nonprofit is the partner necessary to receive special local, state or federal grants. Obama’s law firm will represent the new entity. The lawyers draft the purchase and sale agreement, the loan documents, the lien instruments, and the various corporate resolutions. The due diligence(i.e investigation of the for-profit) is conducted by the banks funding the rehab project (or in this case, the City. Typically, banks do it and the funds are guaranteed by a gov’t agency.) The lawyers are not involved in confirming bank statements, financial statements and other than a sniff test when the client walks in the door. Attorneys are not really that well equipped to read and understand balance sheets, nor is the client paying us to do so. After the deal is done, the lawyer moves on to the next project and/or client, and is not involved in the project again. We prepare the paperwork; we do not monitor the housing project.
Finally, Obama was a litigator! In other words, he is the last type of lawyer you want working on a complex real estate transaction/financing like this one. I would be surprised if he knew how to draft a mortgage, let alone the complex type of lien instruments needed for this transaction.
I never post to these things, but this one did it for me. As it’s been said “When they tell you what they are…believe them.”. Larry just told me all I need to know about his true character. I truly respected him before he showed this side of himself. It also makes one wonder why if he believes in the Hill/Bill ticket is he attacking & trying to tear down Obama instead of trying to build up what he thinks the greatness of his candidate is?
Jacek since you are giving out English grammar lessons to Larry, I think you need one in French:
Your saleswoman of a fiance should be “fiancee” with the accent aigue over the former e.
Touche!
Put the accent aigue where it most uncomfortably fits!
I actually knew that, Hope..I remember that from high school french. However, the english equivalent doesn’t usually carry through the french equivalent.
Great comment. Also, qui accuse, s’accuse seems to fit.
[pursed lips, stiff with indignation, disapproving frown]
YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!
[eyes lowered, staring at shoe]
I share Jacek’s sense of bewilderment at the direction this blog has taken. I have been a loyal reader for the past couple of years and have found Larry to be a rich source of information on issues regarding security, CIA, Iraq war, Valerie Plame episode, etc., and have enjoyed watching hi commentary on Olbermann’s show. But then, out of the blue, began this non-stop onslaught of Obama animus bordering on obsession, seemingly built on innuendo and fueled with the type of histrionics (and locker room diction) usually found on wing-nut sites. I thought this whole thing had reached its nadir with the incredibly sophomoric attempt at a statistical analysis based on the primary results. My first year statistics students would easily decimate this attempted analysis for its failure to recognize the fairly obvious confounders, variables and outliers, as well as the complete lack of a mathematical construct. Spin-yes; Statistical validity – not even close. Math challenged, indeed.
Then came the NEO rant, concluding with the most condescendingly nefarious Stepin Fetchit stereotype: “Oh, we loves us some Bama.” I truly hope that this is just an example of over-enthusiastic partisan hyperbole and not an inadvertent revelation as to the underlying basis for the opposition to Obama being expressed on this blog. At any rate, this type of insubstantive racial mockery has no place in a serious discussion of the issues.
How impressive!
Oh my pond,
Since I was and still am ‘mathmatically challenged’ can you provide a nice easy to use stat number cruncher for those of us that understand general concepts, purpose and use - but those damn stat equations can drive us to seriously contemplate suicide?
So delicately stated, so sublime, oh so wonderfully magnificent and justifiably hauty!
..and to return the favor from above…it is “haughty,” not hauty, unless you meant “haute,” which would not be appropriate in this context.
Hmm, it didn;t include the smile/chuckle i put into my posts to indicate that these posts were tongue-in-cheek…no offense was intended.
The answer is very simple, if you don’t like it here, if you don’t like what is said here, then don’t come here.
I practically lived at BuzzFlash for two years. My letters were posted in their mailbag on a daily basis. Then they became ObamaFlash.com and I voiced my disapproval, as did many formerly faithful readers and we left. They are not going to change because we don’t like their point of view. So being adults, instead of staying and attacking people that we don’t agree with we went somewhere where we could find like-minded or at least fair minded people to discuss things with.
I don’t agree with everything posted by Larry on this blog. So what? Only a fool agrees with someone else 100% on every issue.But I do find the constant attempt by Obama supporters to find some racism in every remark objectionable. You might even say, dishonest. You might consider how much you alienate people when you try and insert racism into every comment.
Larry, can speak very well, and quite forcefully, for himself and doesn’t need me to stick up for him. But if you don’t agree with what he says and don’t like what he says I wonder why you keep coming here. Unless you just like to bitch and pick a fight. Which is what it certainly looks like.
Okay, I’m ready to be attacked now. Oh and please, lay off the free speech crap, I never suggested you didn’t have the right to come here, I just wondered why you did if you ain’t happy here. Seems kind of dumb to me.
Good idea!
Been a registered Democrat since 1972.
Voted for Bill Clinton twice and all I got was a Repulbican-Lite president who got a blow job.
Will never make that mistake again.
If Hillary Clinton is the top of the Democratic Party ticket…I’m voting Nader.
wow, if your a true democrat you vote for the nominee. I guess your one of those democrats for a day, thats just wrong. As a proud dem that just goes against everything I was taught. I just cant for the life of me think what Tip O’Neil would think. I bet hes turning in his grave. What a shame that you would rather have president McCain, I really dont understand why is Bill Clinton villified. I mean the nafta vote was the worse thing, I remeber him doing. Hell, I am a Union girl and that was slap in the face for us. I remember working my ass off and making really good money. I.B.E.W, (International Brotherhood of Electrical Works) actually got our pay rates back from when Regan was in office. Had to take a massive pay cut just to say competative. It looks like thats whats gonna happen again. But thats ok, cus it could be worse, like a war, high gas, high food costs and health care hikes. Oh, wait, thats whats going on now. Silly me!!!
So, you do your thing, and I will vote for the nominee. I may not like him, but he sure as hell will be better than republican. If you dont think so, God help you. I may not work my ass or anyone in the union, cus we are a special intrest group. I guess he thinks we are gonna just do what we always do, and thats GOTV. I think hes got another thing coming from my brothers and sisters.
I would not vote for a corrupt man, democrat or not.
Voting mindlessly for a nominal democrat is to surrender to the French banking industry, according to Romney, ok, I’m kidding, voting nominally for a corrupt democrat is enabling a system harmful to Americans, why would I do that?
I guess the diffrence between us is that I go do something. I dont sit around and act pious and self-rightous. I go to my local democratic meeting and if there isnt something working, I try to fix it. I guess you can call me an activist, if a pol is dirty, I dont want him. I want someone that has my intrests and the party intrests . I dont want someone that is all about him, hell, anyone can do that. I want someone that wants to make the country and the world a better place. Lets face it there are not many ppl out there like that.
So, yes, I do vote party, but I do so, with the best of intrest in this country. Perhaps, you dont understand the concept of civil duty. Making sure that our pols are clean and do the right thing is that duty.
I know a lot of tongue-cluckers who stick “Save Darfur” yardsigns out just so their neighbors can see them (while doing absolutely NOTHING to Save Darfur, piously promise to vote for Nader if Hillary is the nominee, and spend pretty much every waking moment trying to convince us great unwashed masses how Enlightened and Pure they are.
They are the Republican Party’s best friends.
Love your reference to the Icon Tip O’Neil!
I have a better idea. If Hillary is the nominee this year, just vote for McCain. Same difference.
Idiots like you gave us eight years of Bush instead of Gore. Might as well keep up the great work, and get us started on eight years of John McCain. But please, spare us the “I hate this evil war” BS when McCain puts us into Iran next year. Because you gave him the green light.
Some people are really just too damned stupid to be trusted with the ballot.
>>> Voted for Bill Clinton twice and all I got was a Repulbican-Lite president who got a blow job.
Personally, I never got laid off while Slick Willie was in, and I didn’t feel that my government was out to screw me, tap my phone, read my mail, take my house, pension and Social Security and give it to rich bastards in Wall Street.
The economy was good enough that I could afford to go put on a date and perhaps get my own BJ occasionally.
Unlike the last seven years.
>>> If Hillary Clinton is the top of the Democratic Party ticket…I’m voting Nader.
Hope you enjoy what you get… a McCain administration.
At least he was just a regular crook (Keating Five) and not a Chickenhawk, draft-dodging coward, like the present idiot/hypocrite.
Well said
. . . and you better not be gay, poor, Muslim, Mexican, in need of any major medical care, or be anything other than a good solid Sunday Christian - ’cause the McCain Court and Administration will make Bush seem down right liberal . . .
Nader vote, now there was a REAL help for Peace and Freedom in the world . . . \snark
Maybe Larry’s sick of the way thin-skinned Obamamaniacs slaver and hyperventalate over every little perceived slur to Their Leader.
As a former Deaniac, the behavior on the part of online Obama supporters is uncomfortably familiar. Hysterical outrage over “slights.” Deifying every little quirk and utterance of the love-object. Long posts musing about how stupid people are who vote for the other candidate. Wonderment that the voters “just don’t get it.”
It’s going to be an ugly day out in Obama-Land when the bubble bursts. But don’t say you haven’t been warned. We’ve been here before, in 2004. Ask any Deaniac. They can tell you.
Maybe Larry’s sick of the way thin-skinned Obamamaniacs slaver and hyperventalate over every little perceived slur to Their Leader.
Fribbles,
Since you have such insight, can you tell me the difference between the Obamamaniacs, Obambis, Orange (whatever it was),Obama Nation and Obamabots?
I need to know what cult I’m in as I follow my dear leader. LOL!
I forgot to add sarcastic *sshattery toward those who hold up the mirror.
No cult talk now!
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton told roaring partisans she’s the candidate of “dreams and practicality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/hillary-clinton-im_n_85729.html
You forgot the Obamazoids!
Yes, I also was for Dean - I did have a little bit of “starry eyes” but that was because he actually had concrete ideas and he was quite partisan unlike the new “Kid”.
Another difference was the media against Dean before the Primary season (I believe that Dean had favorable treatment from the media at about 37%, while Edwards and Kerry’s was in the 70’s. Dan Abrams came out with his study and the new “Kid” is getting high 80’s% favorables, while Clinton is at 47%.
You are right though, there were quite a few kool aid drinkers for Dean - but, I think that it is much, much worse with the Obama followers.
Folks,
When in doubt call me a racist. Let me turn the issue on its head, if Barack was not black (or at least considered black), would folks be as enthusiastic about a white guy who is a clever speaker with no significant accomplishments on his resume?
And I will repeat my “obsession” about Obama. He is not qualified to be President. Not yet. He does not have enough experience or knowledge about the Washington bureaucracy–especially the national security bureaucracy.
I am scared to death of the cult of personality. We gave Bush a pass in 2000. He was a likable guy (at least then). Earnest. Not a lot of experience running successful operations and zero experience on the foreign policy front. So, excuse me for my obsession, but Obama is not competent. If elected he will make the kind of mistakes that will pave the way for a Republican backlash. But I’ve resigned myself to the fact that we are dealing now with emotion, not reason.
I agree with the comments on the role emotion has been playing in Obama’s movement. For some reason today, I got up disturbed about an uncomfortable flavor of militancy to Obama’s campaign. That phrase he is using as one of his themes, “now is our time” keeps coming back to me. It is getting a little creepy.
Almost seems a little hysterical, doesn’t it?
If you are using “reason” then what resume (I mean real resume) does Hillary Clinton have?
As a Senator she has had no major legislation since she came to office. Prior to that she was the wife of a President who did not have security clearance and therefore was not part of that team in any way (unless something shady was going on). And prior to that she was the wife of a Governor. Her real career was as a corporate attorney with the Rose Law Firm and more recently running for President for the past 7 years.
So other than smoke and mirrors pray tell what exactly makes her more qualified than Obama?
Frankly I am not thrilled with either choice and would have preferred someone with real experience like Joe Biden but he’s not a “rock star.”
Both Clinton and Obama are highly intelligent people and both have limited experience in office. So for me the difference is integrity and judgement. Therefore it has to be Obama.
integrity and judgement.
Integrity. Leaving people to freeze without running water and saying he did not know. (lie)
Judgement Rezko. (poor)
“now is our time” ? What line has Obama been waiting in too long?
Yes!
I agree with you Larry, but what I wonder is why you think Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama? Here is part of a quote from a poster from huffpo
“If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I know from personal experience living in the buckle of the Bible belt that her name alone strikes fear & loathing into the hearts of right-wingers, especially many evangelical Christians. She will unwittingly mobilize them to vote against her in droves.”
Ask your self this what is more important winning the election or going with the best candidate?
There are currently three candidates Hillary, Obama and McCain
McCain will be nothing but more of the same so it is obvious we dont want him. He will have months to rally and unify his base against not Hillary or Obama but against the Democrats in general who will be portrayed as weak on national security and as Mitt Romney said “a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the terrorists”.
So that leaves us with Hillary and Obama.
Hillary is divisive and will generate exactly the kind of conditions that the poster I quoted above said. Will Obama generate the same? Maybe but maybe not.
So my point is simple. Do you back someone who is the better more qualified candidate that through NO fault of her own will guarantee that McCain wins or do you back a candidate that might have even a slim chance of winning?
I believe the answer is obvious.
You’re right- let’s only nominate candidates that the Republicans approve of. The GOP hates Hillary, so she’s out. Republicans seem to like Obama, so he’s ok.
I’m sure the Republicans will someday return the favor and ask Democrats who they would like the GOP to nominate.
I have a better idea- let’s not assume that the Democrats can’t ever win any battles worth winning, so we’d better spend the next four years bending over backwards to accomodate the Republicans, because maybe if we give them EVERYTHING they’ll stop being mean and calling us Terrorist Supporters and (gasp) Liberals.
Evangelicals cannot carry an entire election. Independents and motivated Dems will determine this election. Self-identified Republicans are dwindling while more people are identifying with the Dems even if they haven’t officially joined the party.
>>> …would folks be as enthusiastic about a white guy who is a clever speaker with no significant accomplishments on his resume?
You mean like, oh for instance, Gary Hart?
Where’s a Donna Rice when we need one.
He was a likable guy (at least then). Earnest.
Larry are you not being subjective? I take it you have met GWB?
The guy gave me the creeps in 2000 as he does now… he was an enforcer for his dad, I have read.
But was he vetted back then and was GWB ever qualified? Regan did not think so…
We gave Bush a pass in 2000
Ah, Larry,
Speak for yourself. I knew how jacked up he was and I switched parties to try to get McCain (the best at the time) as the nominee.
I think Noonan made some good points in this article.
Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase “Republican and Democratic attack machines” from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack…
With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. “He’ll raise your taxes.” He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won’t go low.
Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they’d be delighted to go at her. They’d get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Are you aware of the republican emails being circulated, regarding Obama, mainly centering on his ties to Rezko, and Auchi,(and republicans should know…).(one site is breakpoint.com, I believe, but I will check).
It’s best this information be vetted BEFORE the democratic nominee is chosen, to avoid a sure loss to the Republicans.
I do not like Karl Rove, in the least, but he is smart when it comes to marketing his candidates, he can read the public very well.
I can also foresee Rove using Obama’s connections to reprise the “weak on terror” meme against the democrats, perhaps even costing them Senate and House seats…
Is that such a leap, given Rove’s battle techniques?
Simon,
I’m aware of what the GOP is doing. How much of it has come from what was printed here and at the other pro-Hillary blogs?
Mudkitty is right. We need to end the circular firing squad and be careful of what we say.
I cursed at you the other day. I regret it but these unfounded remarks piss me off!
Did you deduce that Obama was tied to terrorists or did someone from the GOP say so?
David Schuster is sure thinking of that today.
Sorry Mr. Murder. You might not get your debate.
“I, at this point, can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network,” he added.
Clinton and Barack Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UMAS3O0&show_article=1
No, no, Obama is tied to Rezko, and Auchi, directly, through campaign donations.
Have you read the Chicago Sun Times or the London Times, both in regard to Obama, Auchi and Rezko?
They have both made the connections. Given Auchi’s relationship with Sadaam, and the network that eventually connects back to Congress, and the Pentagon, it’s there.
Combined with Brewster-Jennings work, and the Plame case, back to Cheney, well, it’s just waiting for a special prosecutor.
Not very difficult, you have Google?
And Cee, you are really are intelligent, you have given me so much information, I am so indebted to you.
Really, you’re a wealth of information.
No, no, Obama is tied to Rezko, and Auchi, directly, through campaign donations.
Have you read the Chicago Sun Times or the London Times, both in regard to Obama, Auchi and Rezko?
Simon,
I’ve read it all. There is nothing there!!
Will you believe it if Clinton supporters say it?
Rezko STILL Not An Issue
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 07, 2008
At FDL, one of our favorite blogs, a post argues that Rezko IS an issue for Obama. Both Jeralyn and I are on record stating our view that Rezko is NOT an issue…. In this light the Rezko connection become ominous. But a little research shows this entire construction to be [false.]
Pols are pols and to expect them to scrutinize every donation they get is simply ridiculous. In my review of Obama’s dealings with Rezko, I see nothing untoward. It remains a nonissue in my view.
http://www.talkleft.com/
We need to end the circular firing squad and be careful of what we say.
The “circular firing squad” assumes that people are shooting at the same object.
Be careful of what we say?
What a breathtakingly stupid post. “Mr Obama will not be easy for the Republicans to attack…the race won’t go low…”
The ability of Obama supporters to delude themselves is just astonishing. The GOP will gut Obama like a cold fish this autumn. And it wont even be hard.
They’ll go after Hillary too, of course, but she’s already proven she can fight back. The only thing Obama has proven is that he’s good at hiding behind his starry-eyed zombie followers. And he’s still whined over the perceived slights tossed at him by the Clintons. Wait till the GOP gets at him- the great mass of Obamaniacs will provide very little covering for him when THAT storm arrives.
John,
I don’t agree with Noonan regarding the GOP not using a racial attack.
The rest of your comments make you sound like a scared loser. Buck up, babe!
Gee Cee-
Once again you resort to your tiresome two words - racist and sexist…
No wait -
You’re calling John “babe”. Now you are being sexist. I mean unless he’s your child or something…
P.S.: Still no rebuttal to Michelle Obama being a corporate whore?