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 (919) on February 15, 2008 at 9:32 PM in Current Affairs
Folks, many of whom are old friends on this blog, are miffed, peeved, perturbed, pissed off, or downright grumpy about the recent thread of articles about Mr. Obama. I hope you appreciate I am not censoring those who think Susan and I are full of shit. I welcome your opinion and dissent.
I am not going to force you into some sort of Orwellian Kossack public confession about your mean spirit or ugly talk before I let you post. I will take down material that involves a threat of violence against anyone (telling someone to kiss your ass is not a threat of violence). I also realize in the heat of the moment tempers flare. I try to moderate as I can to keep that in check.
Finally, I am very concerned about Obama’s lack of experience and the adulation surrounding his campaign. I bought into the nonsense that George Bush was a “uniter” and not a “divider.” I ignored his failed business enterprises. I overlooked his ignorance of foreign affairs. Well folks, never again. And in my book, Obama shares too many of the Bush qualities. I find it creepy and alarming. I guy as weak as Obama, who has a track record of making bad decisions while currying favor with the likes of Rezko and Ayers bugs the hell out of me.
So, for Oldtree and others, that’s why I’m doing what I’m doing.
At least we have an outlet to voice our opinions. At DKos I was called vile names just because I tried to make a case for Clinton…and I did not demean Obama.
I can handle balanced controversy…but I sure do hate being shut out of the dialog.
Thanks, Larry and Susan, et al.
No orthodoxy here. Make any case you want. Hell, I let the Obamatons lather up their guy. Blog away and welcome.
Larry: I *do* respect that you are not censoring anyone, greatly to your credit. I am glad that you finally discovered just how obnoxious “Kos” is when it comes to enforcing idiotic group think.
I want you to know that I find Clinton to be the Entitlement Candidate in the race, and that I see major issues with her history and the Clintons’ history in general. I regret that it is not possible on your web site to communicate with you about these issues. The race is now all about two sides in a football match after a whole lot of beer getting angry at each other.
Conversely, I am no Obamamaniac. I want you to know that as well. So my regret that we cannot talk about Hillary is not just about some sort of mindless worship of the other figure.
While I completely respect the candid and uncensored aspect of your web site, I really wish it was possible here for intelligent people with serious things to say to do so without it degenerating into a food fight.
One contributor to the food fight is YOU when you start putting up headlines like “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. This sort of thing is so hysterical as to border on hyperbole, and it does not create a calm frame of mind in the subsequent comment thread, which resembles, frequently, Mrs. Wallaby’s third grade “special needs” class out of control while she steps out of the room to go take a break on the can.
I believe personally that you are capable of a hell of lot more, because you are obviously going to be very intelligent and sophisticated, judging by where you’ve been professionally.
I hope for the best in terms of improvement.
and to clarify when I write “finally discovered” how mindless and creepy “Kos” is, I mean that I gave up on “Kos” years ago simply because it is really is just a goober web site for a minimally-informed mob who decide to agree with each other while being presided over by a huckster and an operator (Moulitsas) who is just looking for a ride to a bigger time and cash prizes.
Perhaps in 2002-2003, that web site was OK, but once it started getting traditional media attention, and the traffic level went up, it got worse and worse. Come 2004 and the “diary” feature, it was a total flaming pile of shit.
Glad to see you’ve rescued yourself from “Ko”. The banning for thinking differently has rescued a large number of us from using our personal time to participate in Markos’ Magic Money Machine.
BG, the “Obama’s Ties To Terrorists” headline not only qualifies as hyperbole, it is blatantly misleading. It implies that Obama has real ties to present-day terrorists, which is hardly the same thing as knowing some guy who was involved in the Weather Underground more than thirty years ago and has lived an ordinary life ever since. The post itself was also a hysterical and hyperbolic piece of hype.
Very disappointing.
Regarding terrorism. Obama’s Kenyan cousin happens to be on the wrong side of the current conflict in Kenya. Obama has been said to have reached out to him and supported his terrorist cousin. If not true, he should respond. If the old weatherman story is no longer valid, he should simply say he has no ties to this whatsoever categorically.
These things may or may not have legs but they require more than Bill Burton’s evasive answers. Burton is an old hand and not responding or giving half truth answers.
Just answer the questions.
Norrismorris, you are missing the point. Barak Obama was only around twelve years old when the Weather Underground was active. That all took place more than 30 years ago. It’s been over for about 30 years. It is ludicrous to say that he has “ties to terrorism” because he has a connection of some kind to some guy who was part of an organization that has been defunct for 30 years, and who, by the way, has been walking around free for all those years and was never prosecuted for anything.
And why should he say he has no ties to the Weather Underground? Of course he has no ties to the Weather Underground. It died when he was still a child.
For god’s sake, if you people really want to get stuff on him, find something real.
wrt a “track record of bad decisions”, can you comment on Hillary’s track record? She clearly has one. I wonder if you could identify the obvious (and enormous) flaws in her record, in addition to the lack of “experience” of Obama.
Her flaws have nothing to do with Obama’s dealings with criminal Tony Rezko his fundraiser and donor, and many, many, questions that remain unanswered that reflect on his honesty, character, and pretense of purity.
Hillary is not the issue here. It is not a matter of experience either. There are real questions. Read and pay attention to the unanswered questions and Obama’s contradictory record on quite a number of matters and issues of importance. Obamatons never question. They follow.
It’s more than just a little weird. Obama was elected to his first national office four (sic) years ago, and has done little else that run for president since. No one knows what his positions are. He has come from nowhere to the top. His drawing unprecedented crowds, 20,000 at a pop. Things like this do not “just happen”, they are highly engineered.
Becoming aware of the crowds just today my initial reaction was that we are being “colored (flower)-revolutioned”. Large crowds of young people are the hallmark of the various “Soros revolutions”, orange-Ukraine, rose-Georgia, tulip-Kyrgystan. There is a methodology to getting out the crowds. When you factor in that Soros is one of the principal sponsors behind Rollover.org, then something that is already very strange starts to get even more stranger
Where is the evidence that George Soros is a “sponsor” of MoveOn.org? I’ve only heard that on FoxNews, and its been denied several times. Just curious for the cited material to back it up.
Other than that, yes, Obama’s overall campaign does not ring my bell. And all the huffing and puffing of the rabid ones cannot change that. What has happened as a result….
Hillary Clinton was absolutely my NotMyCandidate nonOption. You have no idea how much I was not going to vote for a Democrat if it was going to be Hillary Clinton. I wanted something very different and he is too short for many to see. He’s funny looking and sounds a bit squeeky when he talks apparently. But Dennis Kucinich earned my vote in 2004, and this year he’s been even more lampooned. Is he a perfect candidate?
Yes, in my opinion. Shaft it if you can’t deal with it.
He calls for a Department of Peace. Why not!
Great idea! Ghandi’s legacy lives in ashrams in his name, organizations in his name. Dr. King has a legacy here including a federal holiday. But no Department focused on Peace. Some might argue the State Department is that branch because thats where our ambassadors operate.
He was willing to step up and seek impeachment of the Vice President and to challenge him directly about attacking Iran. I didn’t see either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama call for impeachment, step to his side at all. I’m disappointed in any politician who cannot call for impeaching Cheney.
I couldn’t ever hear his positions in debates because he wasn’t going to have cameras or mics on him. The front runners were already designated by Matthews, FoxNews, CNN, and many of the print writers. It got more and more narrow as they fed from the beast.
Now, I know there are areas I disagreed with Dennis, but in the times I met him in 2004 he was open to my responses and opened up. This won me over as a friend to him from then on.
But, now I’m left with Obama and Clinton.
Clinton, I know…well enough that is. There are areas I cannot know her unless she becomes President, just like some didn’t know Bush until he became President, or even worse…That dickweed Dick “Should be tried as a traitor” Cheney…did anyone really know he would be nearly as bad as he actually was?
I knew Bush was a lameass because i live here in Texas. I wish I knew you back then to tell ya he’s a chump. I tried to tell that to all the Gore supporters who were bashing my candidate back then. “LOOK, If you can’t beat this idiot on his record, then that’s your f—ing problem friend!”
He had shown no mercy for Karla Fay Tucker here, or anyone else. His ilk were changing Texas politics in ways that I never had seen before. I was not a partisan in anyway. It just didn’t occur to me because my family isn’t particularly political. But there were Republicans running Texas. This new batch of assholes were mean too.
To have a candidate who says, “I’m not from Washington”…is nothing new folks! Its Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with Jefferson Smith. Didn’t you watch that flick? It inspired me my whole life. And in that utopian spirit, Americans want an outsider. Its how Bush got any traction at all in 2000. I believe he didn’t win, but am absolutely convinced it was the fault of the Democrats that it wasn’t a shut out.
When you watch a mediocre to good team blow a game because they can’t get their shit together in the big moment, you can’t help but want to slam their coaches and captains. The Democrats haven’t learned a goddamn thing it seems except to continue to assume that unless you are the Deep Red Republican base you will vote for their candidate.
Tell that to John Kerry in 2004. Anyone but Bush was the mantra. John Kerry got the nod…a Vietnam Veteran against a Champaign Division AWOL Jerk….and guess who won.
Now you have a total creep John McCain vs…..
Who will it be?
I know what I don’t like about Clinton…and that is more comforting than it was a few months back.
THANK YOU!
I know there are so many areas I disagree with her, and find her bothersome.
Oh my God, Thank you.
See, because I was popped out of my comfort zone in the conversation…I’m using my critical thinking now.
And guess what, Obama looks like a cloud of smoke right now. He isn’t playing a straight up game. Today he pulled some hypocritical crap about “attacks”
“she says nice words won’t help America, I say, negative attacks don’t help america either (applause line)
THEN PROCEEDS TO ATTACK HER!
What the hell are they drinking to not see this as bullshit hypocrite nonsense?
Mr. I’m So Above the Fray is biting his own ass then.
March 4th cometh in Texas. I wasn’t going to vote in the primary, but will now. Thanks folks.
Big ups to NoQuarter. Thanks for what you are, you’ve done your job. Keep it up.
Now that’s a hell of a top-notch rant! BRAVO!
I just wish that Edwards were Hillary’s remaining opponent. Him I could not only live with but enthusiastically support. Praying he’ll endorse her — she can promise him anything, incl. the VP slot, and I’d be great with it.
appreciate the feedback. had to let that out.
Yes, I really liked Edwards. Edwards is well liked in our house. I don’t fall for Lawyers joke crap because I grew up with a big law firm in the family. I know what a “lawyer” is, and how many types there are. Edwards sniped so well when he owned his ties to the Law lobby. There was a sense he wanted to be a lawyer to help people and wasn’t ashamed about it.
Seasoned fellow I hope we hear from him again too. Yes, VP would be something I’m comfortable with. He’d be critical I believe. I appreciate having a critical VP. (lets not even honor the snake in office).
AG?
Susan - I agree - Edwards was my choice but MSM just “ignored him” to death and got dazzled by the idea that Bubba Six Pack would actually vote for a “person of color” (fuck the record of un-acconplishments - did it for Bush) . . . a Hillary/Edwards would work just fine, followed by a Edwards/Anyone for the next cycle - and maybe enough time will have passed the the Justice Department and Supreme Court would be returned to sanity . . .
Jess Wonderin -
I’ll keep my fingers crossed!
And I’m totally cool with your support of Kucinich — the man has the courage of his convictions.
Wasn’t it incredible about Bush and his piss-poor record … and if Kerry had run a better, more aggressive campaign, he might have pulled it off. (I don’t think he would have been a great president, but better than the Shrub,)
Kerry became the embodiment of the Swiftboat coward. It wasn’t cool. I know he didn’t lie about his Vietnam record, but there comes a point when a person has to stand for their honor and not flinch. And when a people can see you do that and not flinch, even as a nice guy, they instinctfully seem to follow you.
Kerry is a pretty noble character overall in my view. I have been delighted to have bullshit glow about elders cloud my judgement of their wisdom. I think many of these veteran statesmen are thick headed now and haven’t been in regular old America for a while. Must be tough, I have no clue.
I love tha Kuch. He’s got a well ventelated ego. I’m nothing like him. He’s consistent in his principles. I even really had a great time hearing that great whacked out Mike Gravel. God bless him for shouting at the top of his lungs.
Democracy isn’t such a bad thing if its applied and appreciated. It was fun to read Heroditus talk about the basic Greek city state life and to imagine how that sort of citizenry could emerge from our McNation.
Chris -
John Kerry was painfully dull. I gave his campaign thousands of dollars and grew to hate him. He couldn’t pull off a sound bite if you put a gun to his head. He bored democrates into not voting.
The MSM finally stopped going to him for interviews because there simply isn’t enough time. I’m sure that they’ll dust his ass off for the General Election for a little while, but ugh - please find a way to make him stop!
That’s quite an assertion.
Soros doesn’t direct MoveOn, he does endow them.
Mr. Murder -
If you endow enough you direct.
Soros the multibillionaire is behind Obama. A self hating Jew who despises Israel and a huge contributor to Russia.
He is all part of the Carter administraton bloc of anti semitic and anti Israel oldies like Zybignew Brezinsky who is as old Washington as you can get. Obama lies about this as well as his entire cadre of foreign policy advsors who are left overs from the failed and horrible Carter administration that helped sink the party. A few leftover Clintonites, too. All seasoned DC hacks.
They are an incompetent bunch who failed miserably at handling the hostage crisis, and not a one is an innocent. They are ALL Washington hacks. Obama is full of s**t. Trouble is the children voting for him, and those that are considered “elite” [ugh] haven’t a clue about Carter and his dreadful foreign policies.
Expect nothing good in foreign policy here from Obama’s proven incompetents. The childrens is not learning.
Ah yes! The old self-hating Jew canard! A sure sign of desperation and incoherent mental process when they drag that one out.
For the record, your “self-hating” jew comment is pretty damn offensive. Has he called himself that? Its little different than calling someone High Yellow or other smears of division.
Criticize him however else you wish, people of his power need scrutiny. But can ya leave the “self-hating” jew crap out?
Chris, it’s the only answer they have to Jews who criticize Israel. They can’t argue their case logically based on facts, and they can’t use the anti-Semite canard, so they hurl the old self-hating Jew thing.
Larry, just posted on the GBCW thread but it would have been more appropriate here. Again, thank you for your public and courageous support of Mrs. Wilson.
Larry: I happen to think you rock for what you’re doing–and believe me so do plenty of others. (come on guys–a little love for Larry
Do you know why? Because it’s long fucking overdue. Someone needs to air this shit out and it may as well be you. I’ve noticed the past few days, however, that articles like yours with a serious vetting tone against Obama have been surfacing, and becoming more mainstream–like it’s finally breaking through the blogs and into the MSM that Obama just may not be ready for primetime or needs to be looked at more closely.
Or maybe they just realized how fucking ridiculous they’re looking (ie Tweety and the chill he gets up his leg for Obama) fawning for this Junior senator with dubious political Chicago ties.
Whatever the case may be, consider yourself part of a vanguard community that’s taking it upon itself to enforce this rule of running for high office: You must be and you will be completely vetted and put through the grinder. Fuck this goo goo gaga love affair already–we have an important election going on. They don’t call it the “Crown of Thorns” for nothing.
Right on. Enough with the goo goo gaga. Btw, it is STRESSFUL to write this stuff. First, what we find out is disillusioning as hell — and it’s no fun to go after someone. I don’t get a minute’s pleasure out of it. Then there’s feeling like I’m swimming upriver in a stream full of mud and rocks because of the media bias towards Obama, which makes it very difficult to get the word out. All we can do is hope that people read the blogs that are speaking out, and spread the word themselves.
Thanks Larry..
as you know..I have not attacked Obama in any mean spirited way..But I have agreed with may of your Posts going back to your concerns about the bush administration just after 9/11 and when you first started this block…I know that when it comes to larry johnson..what you see is what you get…and you have never changed your style..You are a two fisted puncher and most of the time I agree with you..or understand where you are coming from and why..
This is YOUR Blog..You can run it any way you want..or call it like you see it..I understand why you are often angry ..about the Issues..and about the bureauracy and Political Abuses..You understnd events better than most ofg your Critics ever will..
and there is always some truth in what you say..and you have been Fair and Tolerant with the rest of us who post here..
As Far as Mr.Obasma is Concerned..he is Running for PRESIDENT of the United States…Wiould be the CIC..the Decider…and could potentially run the Government the way HE wants to and make expenditures and Appointments in the Same Manner George W. Bush has..
George W. Bush and most of the members of his administration were pretty well known and Vetted by the time they got into office..Thwere were those who understood the Agenda of the Neo Cons..and expressed thier concerns..they were ignored..and look what happened with the Bush adminstration..and possibly will again with aMcCain Administration..
I am with you Larry…NEVER AGAIN…
I am a lifelong Democrat..and deeply want the democrats to win the coming elections..I would like to think Mr. Obama is the real Deal..but He MUST Be Vetted..and the Tree needs to be shaken..We need to Examine the Bath Water..NOW..
we know what we are getting with Hllary after the Republicans did thier 85 million dollars Investigations..She is a great Lady..a great Public Servant..We have seen the XRAYS..
I don’t know much abour Mr.Obama..but if he is going to be given a Palm branch escourt to the White House..
I want to know what horse he is riding to get there..
Larry Johnson is a courageous leader and patriot and has been for years. Susan must be the toughest woman alive. I have no idea how she is coping, much less posting.
They really are good shepherds. There are always a bunch of sheep wanting to herd you off a cliff.
I’m glad they aren’t just following the herd.
If people don’t find anything they like here they can watch MSNBC or go to Kos.
Yeah go sit in the old oak tree with Big Foot and that old Owl Olbermann!
“:-)
no quarter.
no complaints.
Yeah, but the trouble is that Hillary may end up as another JOHN KERRY! I found an old column by Cragg Hines:
“…Republicans have learned to construct a strong narrative, good stories, which is ‘a structure our brains naturally crave’ if only because that’s how culture was transmitted for millennia.
Democrats, searching for elusive agreement or even unanimity, shy away from emotionally compelling language or images, Weston said, substituting ‘laundry lists’ for a coherent narrative.”
So basically Obama is running like a Republican and Hillary is running like a Democrat. So if Obama beats Hillary for the nomination then that means that Obama is running a winning campaign, whereas Hillary is running a losing campaign, even among Democrats! So if Hillary is running a losing campaign even among Democrats, how is she supposed to get elected, even if she wins the nomination somehow?
I heard a good one from Laura Ingraham. While McCain was still Pure Evil from her perspective she told her listeners to forget McCain’s stance on the war, it was everything else that he was wrong on that they should remember. Then McCain gets a lock on the nomination and she says they have to support McCain. Why? Because he’s good on the war!
I find nothing to fault you for Larry. I’d much rather read someone who is honestly passionate about their politics and expresses it in such a way that I don’t feel patronized.
My lack of support for Obama just simply stems from a gut feeling that he is weak, vulnerable and generally silly. I don’t find him brilliant as some Harvard scholar has written and I don’t find him inspiring. I’m far too old to buy into this idealistic fervor that seems to have a choke hold over so many people. It can only come to naught in this dangerous time in which we find ourselves currently living.
People want so badly to relieve themselves of all the horrible crimes Bush has and continues to commit against the American People and the Constitution. And that is as right a thing as it should be. But why, once again, throw ourselves into the arms of disengenous politicians who sharpen their teeth at the thought of devouring us, as their unwitting victims?
America needs balance. We are swinging like a mad pendulum from right to left ad infinitum. Moderation, moderation, moderation! When are we going to get it right?
Larry,
I was an Edwards supporter. After he withdrew, I really hesitated between the remaining two. I’m way too old and suspicious to get swept up into any sort of general enthusiasm for any candidate, but frankly I think it’s kind of nice that the wall of apathy that surrounds so many of the young has finally been breached. They’ll learn soon enough that it’s a lot harder to bring about actual change than it looks from the beginning end of the process.
I can appreciate your suspicions after being burned by Bush, but, to be honest, the red flags that indicated that he was callow and feckless and a mere creation of the press and the repub establishment were hiding in plain sight from the beginning. Obama is nothing like Bush. He has genuine intellectual achievements. His record in the Senate isn’t long, but neither was John Kennedy’s. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (who I rate a lot higher than a lot of folks) also came to the White House without a lot of Washington experience. Part of the issue is his learning curve. In the last debate in which Edwards took part what impressed me was the general high caliber and intellectual ability of all three candidates.
I think both Obama and Clinton are able and intelligent. Certainly she’s more experienced, but I think his learning curve is very steep. I’ve been very unhappy with Clinton’s expressed views on the war, not just in the past, but her recent rationalizations for it, as well as for such things as support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. While I know that either one of them will run up against the bureaucratic and political realities of our existing military-imperial entanglements, my impression is that Clinton does not see them as problematic, and that Obama, perhaps, has a greater awareness that they are. I’m also unhappy with a number of aspects of the way the Clintons have been conducting the campaign against Obama. Such tactics are best left for the race against the repubs, where they will need them. They don’t need to destroy each other now.
I have no illusions of political transcendence or magical unity ponies. I know how quickly such things wear off. But I think Obama is actually pretty tough. I’m going to support him in my state’s primary, which is one of the last ones. If he loses, I’ll support Clinton. My big fear is that the contest is turning so angry for both sides that they won’t be able to reconcile for the fight against McCain.
And thanks for inviting these comments.
Yeah, that’s the plus-side to the mania. Though if he dashes their hopes, he’ll have created another generation of apathetic voters. I’m thinking that’s an unforgivable sin.
Well, nothing ever works out as we hope. There are no shining knights. That’s the lesson of life. The activists of the 60s and early 70s learned it. But there have been very few people under the age of fifty who have been involved in progressive causes in the old sense. If they can get involved and stay involved once the first fine careless rapture wears off, I guess that’s the critical point. Some will and some won’t.
Thank you for the work you’re doing here, Larry. As others have said, it’s your blog and you don’t need anyone’s permission or agreement to write whatever you want. When I see posts from people who demand that you stop writing about their precious, I wonder what the hell they’re thinking. If they don’t like it, no one is forcing them to read it. Attempting to squelch dissent — on a site owned by someone else, no less — is utterly ridiculous.
From my point of view, it’s imperative to find out all that we can about the cipher named Barack Obama. We can rest assured that the republicans are doing detailed oppo research on him. In fact, they undoubtedly have everything you’ve written about here and a hell of a lot more. And we can be equally certain that they won’t hesitate to use it if the need arises, nor will they be warned off by protestations of unfairness or accusations of racism. Actually, pulling those old chestnuts out will only spur them on. If Obama’s supporters think their guy can’t withstand this level of scrutiny, how will he be able o deal with the gop slime machine when it really goes into overdrive?
I hope no one in the Obama camp is naive enough to think he’ll continue to get a free ride right up to the general election. The press ain’t in love with the guy, no matter how many thrills Tweety gets watching him. (Does anyone else think they ought to rename that show Hard-On for the many man-crushes of Chris Matthews?) After their one true love McCain gets everything in train, they’ll turn their fire on the Democratic nominee, whoever that happens to be. If it’s Obama, Rezko, Kenya, Auchi, the Weather Underground, etc., will be used to bludgeon him in the weeks leading up to the election. Bear in mind that there are a scant two months between the party conventions and Election Day. Our worst nightmare should be the republicans springing all of this (or worse) just after the convention, with no time to effectively counteract it. In light of that possibility it’s best to thresh it all out now, before we’re locked into a death-spiral with a potentially mucked-up neophyte.
Count me in the ‘never again’ column. I did voice a concern earlier, but I’m glad you wrote this piece. I guess you have to do what you have to do.
I came here for the first time 2 days ago because I’m on a self-imposed media blackout. I WILL NOT WATCH THE NEWS until they get off this ‘golden pass’ they’ve given Obama. And that means no HuffPo either. I will not give Arianna’s rag one ‘click’ on my computer to help her advertising revenue. I hope other Clinton supporters do the same. This is still February Sweeps on tv.
After 8 years of Bush, I’m tired of ’stumble bum’ politics. Look, I’m an AA and even I’m concerned about this guy’s experience. I read on another blog that the other day Obama’s telepromter didn’t work and he had to use index cards or some such and their was a big difference with all that glorious oratory. Hillary is a good extemporaneous speaker and her comments are fluid. She always demonstrates a solid command of her facts and knowledge. Obama hesitates, is tentative, says ‘uh’ a lot. He doesn’t dazzle beyond those empty speeches that say absolutely nothing.
Yes, maybe it was a little over the top around here, but to me the left wingers are acting like raving lunatics over Obama because of their Hillary hatred. I give you respect because at least you are not closing down any discussion. And that’s the way it should be in Democracy!!!!
Larry I want to express my sincere appreciation for you and your crew. At some point if you can, It would be instuctive in understanding what your mind set was in 2000, that would have a pro with your experience and insights voting for Bush. Although I did not vote for Bush, I found comfort in the appointments Bush made. They were individuals with a lot of experience and would be able counterbalance the lack of experience I saw in GW. Boy was I ever so WRONG. Strong leadership AND experience are required. Thanks for the breeze.
Never Again
NickelBack
larry i appreciate your article even if i dont feel you have a damn thing to explain to anyone. if anything, i think sometimes you are too tolerant with some posters … especially when it comes to personal attacks. i have been part of this blog, in my very small way, for about six months now … i want to thank you, susan, and the other participants for allowing me to be involved … i am most grateful that this blog is what it is … everyday, even if i dont agree with a particluar article it gives me something to ponder. what more could i want?
John Edwards was my first choice. I moved on to Hillary Clinton with the strong reservation of continuing the Bush Clinton dynasty. I was willing to overlook that fact and welcomed Hillary’s in-depth explanations and serious policy statements. Yesterday, however, I moved to Obama. Senator’s Clinton decision not to cast a vote against telecom immunity was something I could not overlook.
Concerning your point equating Bush to Obama in their smooth demeanor masking disastrous decision making doesn’t wash. In my opinion Bush is not very bright, contrary to those who try to burnish his intellect. More than that he is intellectually lazy!
Obama is demonstrably bright. I may not get all the policies I want from Obama but at least as president, for the first time in eight years, someone with brains and intellectual drive will inhabit the oval office.
Larry,
I’m kinda worried about you, my friend. It’s obvious that you haven’t accepted the Lord Barry Obama as your political Lord and Savior, and, worse, that you are succumbing to the sinful temptations of Lucillary.
Next time you are in town, let me take you to the local Branch Barakian office. We’ll sing a few inspiring hymns of change, and you’ll hear my brothers and sisters testify as to how they came to see his low power, ecologically sound, sustainable light. If we sit close enough to the aisle, perhaps you can even touch his $3K suit as he passes by, while Sister Michelle is stuffing the offering from the Altar of Hope into the Night Depository bag.
Please come with me to the Church of Faith-based Change.
Or, if it’s more your style, we can go next door to the local pub, have a few drams of whiskey, light up a couple of contraband Cubans in the cigar patio and shoot some darts at the twerp’s photo. You choose.
halleluya, I choose Change. Yes, We Can!
Retired -
I was thinking how funny your post was until I realized it was like the Madonna Concert Tour video vs. the mockumentary Madonna Concert Tour video.
It was too difficult to distinguish between the two, which simply lingers as sad.
Retired - write more!
Funny sarcasm minus the anger is good to wake up to on Saturday morning.
I try to stay well informed. Don’t have cable or high speed internet, so I prefer the text based websites. (For Keith Olberman’s Special Comments, I will download for hours; Thursday the 14th was special indeed!)
The articles that made me realize I might be able to vote for Clinton were at No Quarter. Larry thinks highly of Hillary Cinton because of personal experience and personal experience with a candidate counts for a lot. (This is also why Iowa and New Hampshire are important first caucus/primary states.)
As with other comments here, neither Obama nor Clinton was my first or second choices. I’m still not compelled to change my voter registration to support either in the May 20th primary.
But one thing is for sure. I will NEVER vote for another Repug. Their actions in the last ten years border on treason. Emptying the US Treasury, allowing corporations to write legislation, not investigating the military anthrax attack on Senators Leahy and Daschle, lying about WMD and just about everything else… Need I mention revealing Val Plame’s identity for political gain?
So I do not fear that Obama or Cinton will not be up to the task if elected. I fear instead that there will be a continuation of an imperial presidency with no investigation of past crimes. Regardless of who is elected.
Repugs…actions in the last ten years
border onare treason.Well-written, Lar. I have to agree on the Bush-like qualities, though I think he’s a lot more competent, and it would be difficult to be as crooked. Lack of experience IS a genuine concern, and seeing people who (after the last eight years) think it’s no big deal is worrisome.
For those who don’t see the similarities to Bush, I would then suggest you at least look at the similarities to the Clinton-42 campaigns. It wasn’t that Bill was a bad president, it was that he underestimated his enemies ire and the lows that they would stoop to. Obama appears (and maybe he’s just playing them) to be making the same damn mistake.
Just so you know, I am not made up on either. What I don’t understand is some of what we know about voting. We must guess a lot about his position, agreed. But no one can express an opinion in today’s pre election nightmare without having 50 million bucks spent to crush them from the GOP?
I am ready for either to prevail. My candidate isn’t in the race, I have to settle for someone.
One of the overriding things is he voted against the war before that was popular. It was correct at the time. He doesn’t applaud the acts of Bush in his congressional dog and pony show.
I guess that some of us lack further tolerance with the decorum that seems to be the driving reason for the congressional standstill that ignores the laws broken and is concerned only with a campaign primary season and how that can distract from the criminal investigations being sidelined and derailed. I want facts as much as any one. And those facts are going to be the subject of the biggest and fastest swift boat we have ever seen. I agree, Clinton knows how to fight back. It is unknown if Obama does. He has never been attacked.
there is no option. the opposition has just endorsed all that Bush has promoted. that is what needs to be defeated. the endless war.
“he voted against the war before that was popular.”
No, Oldtree, he did not. He could not have because he was not in the Senate at the time of the Authorization bill. Since he has been in the Senate, he has not voted against a single funding bill. His voting record on Iraq is just like Hillary’s except that he did not vote on the first one that authorized the invasion.
This is absolutely correct.
When I think of voting for Obama, I see myself as voting for the only figure remaining whom I could vote for and maintain at best a minimal amount of integrity.
Through all the protests and activist “stuff”, long before the invasion of Iraq, I held on to one clear understanding: the knowledge that the war *was* going to happen, no matter what any of us wanted, and it was going to happen because of the corruption and lunacy of our government officials.
Well before the invasion, I was promising myself that I would never, ever support anyone who had a hand in starting that damn war, ever in my life. It was a ballot-box capitol sentence. Anyone who had a hand in starting the war … that’s it.
I have a long memory, much longer than just a few years. And I keep my promises. While there are many reasons I deplore the Clintons’ candidacy, its the simple fact of the matter that I could never vote for her because of her AUMF vote. There can be no accountability in America without voters holding the politicians accountable at the ballot box. And so be it - I almost don’t have any representation at all in this race at this point - but I’ll be able to vote and minimally maintain my integrity with Obama, though I think he is probably no saint at all.
Banquo’s,
your words so closely reflect my sentiments until the last few weeks. And what has changed is that I am convinced Obama is blowing smoke about what he will or will not do.
You said, you would never support a candidate who had a hand in starting that damn war. May I point out that Obama didn’t even blink when suggesting he’d launch missle strikes into Pakistan. If you do not think this will not start a war, then …I’ll not second guess you ..I’m sure you know what that would do.
In fact, what those comments already did was provoke Musharaf, the pathetic pile of shit for a man, to start blasting Obama as naive and careless. He’s right, even though he’s a thug.
I really get what you are saying about never vote for….but my only other option would be, don’t vote. I won’t vote for a dream candidate, but a real candidate. I don’t have my preferred either, so I have to vote for a realistic candidate.
This ain’t fun.
Fair enough. We disagree on the need to vote. For me, there will be no better future possible until voters hold these politicians accountable. So I keep my promise, first and foremost.
Pakistan etc.: Yes, Obama definitely doesn’t support a foreign policy picture there I like. Ditto with the Clintons. Ditto with Bush. My conclusion is that there is no hope for any head of state to improve the foreign policy in Pakistan any time soon.
“This ain’t fun”: I wouldn’t want you to believe that I see this election as anything other than a testimony to the failure of the American political system to respond to its own discrediting by Bush and numerous real disasters in the world it has created. If I vote, it’s not out of inspiration.
Yet you give Obama a pass on Rezko, despite the filth, just look at Rezko’s true dealings in IL politics.
It’s either cognitive dissonance, or you’re disingenuous.
So, you lack a certain credibility, to me.
I think I consider the Iraq war to be of greater importance. It is a “priorities” thing. I hope you can understand. I personally can’t compare Rezko to the Iraq war. You are free to do so if that fits your moral universe.
Don’t forget Obama’s bellicosity toward Iran (which is more than matched by Hillary).
Clearly bellicose, and clearly more than matched by ol’ nuke’ em’ Hillary.
It’s not clear to me how you can maintain integrity by voting for Obama given that once he was in the Senate he has done nothing but support the continuance of the occupation, which rather calls the sincerity of his initial opposition into question. Didn’t he, like Hillary, even support The Surge™?
And what’s up with his plan to increase the military by 100,000? What is he going to need all those additional troops for if he really plans to withdraw from Iraq and refrain from further military aggression?
He didn’t start the war. I don’t think he is great.
Hillary, on the other hand, never met a war she didn’t like.
Interesting how that’s become the conventional wisdom, though isn’t it? The way he’s worded various sound bite comments has made it SEEM like he voted against the war. Sleazy, but a smart thing to do.
He did, however, sponsor (or similar act) a state resolution in Illinois against the invasion. However, I don’t happen to know the timing of that. (As has been stated on this blog many times, Clinton gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, that he was going to use it as Bill had, to force S.H. to comply with weapons inspections). Could have been later, when it was obvious Shrub meant to actually invade.
I personally believe her giving Bush the AUMF was all about setting up her presidential run. Random assholes in street protests who read the Guardian UK online could recite chapter and verse on how the “bulletproof intelligence” was bullshit, the issues with Feith and the Office of Special Plans, the PNAC, etc.
The Nation magazine, an underfunded lefty journalist outfit, ran a multi-page investigative piece called “The Men from JINSA and CSP”. This piece covered 30 years of history of the key “neoconservatives” (Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Wurmser, etc.) and anyone who read that had a huge perspective on the “threat” to the US being fabricated.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was a sitting US Senator from New York at that point, and the wife of the previous President.
She voted for the AUMF because Bill’s campaign advisors were setting her up to run and told her to look “tough”. She had no shortage of information on the Big Lies being sold to the broad public. Neither did John Kerry, for that matter, who was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and certainly had access to better information than the Guardian UK, which is all that was necessary to have counter-arguments available against what Bush, Powell, Rice, and Rumsfeld were telling the public.
This post (indeed, this thread) made me think. I enjoyed the exercise.
I began wondering about a fine line between acting on the facts given you about a situation, such as AUMF, and the equally valid problem that “perception is reality.” Smart, savvy people in representative positions have to appreciate the gap between what they know and what the public knows–and what the public believes. A leader who gets too far out in front–based on private facts–may find himself, or herself, abandoned by an angry public that is convinced it has been betrayed.
A leader who can’t take a stand based on the earned trust of that same public has abdicated leadership responsibility.
I don’t remember who said or wrote this, but it seems to apply: “When two people meet, there are six people present. Each person as he sees himself, each person as he sees the other, and each person as he really is.”
I’m finding that as I grapple with the problem of who I’ll back, I’m less and less troubled by inconsistencies or changes in this or that position, and slowly paying more and more attention to which principles I will not abandon. It’s slow work. So far, all I can say is, the Republican position is “whatever gets ‘us’ the White House” (my interpretation of the Romney and Giuliani decisions) doesn’t work for me. “Winning at any price” sounds too much like BushCo.
So I find my attention swinging more closely to the so-called “long Clinton memory” as a worry. I’m troubled by the ease with which a handsome young man without enough of a history to attack can seem invincible.
I can’t know who they really are. I can’t know how they see themselves. I can know how I see them, but I find that how I see them is really a reflection on how I see myself.
Hillary cannot help but be about change, because she’s not who she was before Bill’s presidency. Barak cannot help but be about part of the establishment, which will change him before he can revolutionize it. Organizations are heavy things, not easily “changed.”
So the promise of this election, as I see it, is the opportunity to examine myself. It’s the only lens I have through which to look through the endless pile of valid observations about any of the candidates.
I’ve really loved reading this blog, because unlike 2000-2001, the liberal blogs (one of which I served as an advisor and moderator, briefly) have become echo chambers. I remember when Freeping was a right-wing behavior.
Be careful out there! And thanks. I’m so sorry you were badly treated by Kos.
Wow. Good posts you guys.
Yes, I thought, “This is bullshit!”, even before Wilson’s OpEd. Didn’t even need the Guardian. One example, Scott Ritter on CNN explaining in full detail why and how the centrifuges and other materials S.H. bought COULD NOT be used the way that the WH said they might. I’ll be damned if CNN didn’t cut him off mid-sentence in order to go to the WH and show Rice saying the exact bullshit that Ritter was debunking. (Which is by the way the reason I think Anderson Cooper is full of shit also… on Maher’s show he said, “Well when everyong in the world thought he had WMDs…” Fucking hacks!).
But the fact that it would have been POLITICAL SUICIDE for Hillary to vote against it in 2002 is clear to see. Backed into a corner by weasels and MSM assholes who helped them in the hopes of getting a pulitzer or other recognition (like Bernie “I think I crapped my pants in a Bagdad Hotel” Shaw).
Well, more cursing than I usually do. But I do like to dredge up the stuff we should be angry about and point in the direction it should be aimed now and again.
We live in a country steeped in Christian mythology and, as we can see in the case of Al Gore, suffering political destruction while maintaining or even restoring one’s own integrity and vision, can be a very powerful thing and lead to an even bigger future for a politician. Hillary Clinton should not have done wrong. Political suicide, as you describe it, would have made her an absolutely unstoppable primary and general season candidate this year.
Instead, she approaches the public from the standpoint of being someone who failed.
Sounds like a lot of excuse-making to me.
Also sounds like a real lack of integrity on the part of Hillary.
Of course, expecting integrity in a politician is foolhardy to put it mildly.
Like everyone else that night, I’m sure he was not alone.
like Bernie “I think I crapped my pants in a Bagdad Hotel” Shaw
I remember him calling in CNN on live TV calling in hits and misses.
In memory of:
“As has been stated on this blog many times, Clinton gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, that he was going to use it as Bill had, to force S.H. to comply with weapons inspections”
That’s what she CLAIMS. However, there are a few things that call that claim into question:
1. It was BUSH, not Saddam who was refusing to have inspectors in Iraq. At the time of that vote Saddam had been virtually begging for weeks to have inspectors come into Iraq. They could send just about anyone they wanted, he said, and they would get full cooperation. It was Bush who was saying “no way”. Therefore, there was no need to give Bush approval to attack Iraq in order to “force” Saddam to do anything. If anything, it was BUSH who needed to be forced. Does anyone think Hillary was unaware of that dynamic?<