Overview: This is a story of big-city behind-the-scenes politics — of scratch-my-back and I’ll-scratch-yours backroom dealings. It is a story of how Bill Ayers and Barack Obama — sitting on a charitable board (for which they were paid) — aided and abetted the lucrative real estate development projects of Obama’s former law firm associate Allison Davis and Davis’s development partner Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

The Woods board on which Ayers and Obama sat ended up giving those two development partners the sum of one million dollars, from which both Davis and Rezko reaped considerable financial gain. And Obama did not recuse himself from the board’s vote on this large real estate transaction despite a clear conflict of interest from his past associations. Obama then became the beneficiary of large — very large — campaign contributions from Rezko and many of his wealthy associates. It all worked out very well for Sen. Obama.
_______________________________________

Bill Ayers, Obama’s friend and benefactor, was introduced to the public during Wednesday’s Democratic debate, much to the chagrin of the Obama campaign and his supporters.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Ayers was not a radical; he is a domestic terrorist (Ayers once suggested that young people should “Bring the war home. Kill your parents.”). There’s a big distinction between having radical ideas and violent plans. Gloria Steinem, Tom Hayden, and Todd Gitlin were radicals. The desire to kill innocent Americans makes Ayers a terrorist.

Larry Johnson makes the point that:

William Ayers is not just some guy who lives in Barack’s congressional district. He helped Barack organize his run against State Senator Alice Palmer. Ayers raised money for Barack. Ayers contributed money to Barack. And Bill Ayers and Barack Obama sat side-by-side as paid board members of the Woods Fund.

Contrary to Obama’s claim that who your friends are shouldn’t matter, the fact that his benefactor is an unrepentant terrorist calls into question Obama’s judgment. If Obama were applying for a job with the FBI or any American intelligence agency, his relationship with Ayers would receive the utmost scrutiny and would likely result in him receiving a rejection letter:
(more…)

The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.

To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls. During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president’s role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.

On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush’s Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.

(more…)

(Thank you, C.S., for the fast video work!)

Earlier: Larry Johnson will be on ABC World News tonight to discuss Bush’s veto today of the legislation that bans waterboarding. Tune in, or check for video here.

UDPATE, via MakeThemAccountable.com, from ThinkProgress “MSNBC Host Falsely Claims McCain Opposes Bush On Torture Bill Veto“:

On MSNBC this morning, anchor Monica Novotny claimed that President Bush’s impending veto of the Intelligence Authorization Bill would put “a chill” in his alliance with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Bush is vetoing the bill because of an amendment that puts the CIA’s interrogation program under the standards of Army Field Manual, which Novotny claims McCain supports.

“He doesn’t like a provision that’s been pushed by, you guessed it, Sen. McCain,” claimed Novotny. Watch it: [VIDEO]

The problem is that Novotny has her facts dead wrong.

Though McCain has criticized the use of torturous interrogation techniques in the past, he voted against the bill that Bush is set to veto tomorrow: …

Here’s the news story, via Fox News, “Bush Vetoes Legislation Barring Waterboarding, Says It Preserves Tool in War on Terrorism,” along with Larry’s writings here on torture, and more: (more…)

While Obama supporters often obsess over the Iraq War Vote, there is no denying that Senator Clinton has far more Foreign Policy experience than Senator Obama.  If one reads the Foreign Policy Speech she gave yesterday (link), there is an impressive grasp of world affairs.

But giving a speech is not the full extent of her foreign policy experience.  There is testimony from all parts of the world about her involvement in world affairs, playing a role that is far beyond that of a typical First Lady or even a US Senator.

(more…)

On the lighter side, the New Yorker’s Hendrick Hertzberg links to campaign limericks that Andrew Sullivan’s readers have been contributing to his blog at The Atlantic:

There once was a mayor called Rudy
Who went to Long Island for booty
The taxpayers paid
So that he could get laid
Did 9/11 come before Judy?

(more…)

EVENING UPDATES:

     (1) “[T]he Senate-House Intelligence Conference voted today to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all detainee issues in interrogation and detention methods — or ‘the law of the land’ as my source told me. That means for the CIA and all branches of the national security, military, and intelligence establishment.” - Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
     (2) Tomorrow, Steve Clemons will write about “the powerful and disturbing film Taxi to the Dark Side and the discussion we had this evening with director Alex Gibney, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, former Abu Ghraib and Bergram* military intelligence interrogator Damian Corsetti, and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.” (I remember the story of the horrific, incalculably cruel torture and murder of the hapless, innocent Afghan taxi driver, but didn’t know a documentary has been filmed, with interviews of several military personnel.) The documentary’s creator also did Enron.
     The author of Salon’s review, “Beyond the Multiplex,” notes that the documentary’s creator hoped that showing how the “[Bush] administration has eviscerated the Constitution, and abandoned basic tenets of human rights and human dignity, [would provoke] some constructive rage. But right there on the sidewalk, my rage was not constructive. I wanted to get stinking drunk in some dead-end bar. …” U.S. premiere dates via IMDB: 11 January 2008 (New York City, New York) and 18 January 2008 (Los Angeles, California).
     [*Susan’s Note: I think Steve meant to type Bagram, the base in Afghanistan where the taxi driver was beaten for days before he died.]

ORIGINAL: The Supreme Court, and the number FIVE. Here are the ages of the current nine justices:

What was it that reminded me that the next president will very likely appoint one, perhaps two, new justices? Last night, I watched BBC World News America’s and PBS Newshour’s coverage of the court’s hearing of arguments yesterday on “whether terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in court.”

I listened to the commentary of Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. Professor Katyai “successfully argued the 2006 Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the Bush administration’s military tribunals system.” About yesterday’s arguments, Prof. Katyai observed:

(more…)

The media are piling on Hillary Clinton for her remarks at the Dem debate this week about New York governor Elliot Spitzer’s efforts to bring illegal aliens out of the “shadows” by granting them restricted driver’s licenses. It’s not just the commentators — it’s carried over into “objective” news reports that call her remarks “evasive” and “vague” and more.

I watched that debate. I heard her remarks. I heard something entirely different from all the pundits and news “reporters.” First, let me say that that was not her best night — and this is something I’ve not heard a single person say: She looked tired and tense to me. And when one is tired and tense, one isn’t in top form. It happens to everyone. And I’m not writing this to defend Hillary Clinton, even though she is my favored candidate, but simply to express my bafflement over this huge pile-on. (I have said, and will continue to say, that I will support the Democratic candidate, whoever that is.)

Let’s get back to what I heard her saying: To me, she was trying, in a very short timeframe, to describe the complexities of the immigration issues facing our nation’s 50 governors who don’t have a comprehensive federal immigration plan that serves them well. She wasn’t endorsing or evading an endorsement — she was describing and expressing sympathy for Gov. Spitzer’s predicament.

She was also being the “wonkish” Hillary we’ve heard so much about: She likes to look into the complexities of issues and express all sides. To me, that’s an admirable trait. And I think that John Edwards’ remarks that the American people want “simple” answers are insulting to the American people! There are complex issues that require consideration of all sides. And, instead of Edwards and Obama joining her in the common sense remarks she made that the Bush adminsitration has failed to create a federal immigration policy, the two desperate second- and third-place competitors turned on her. It’s nonsensical — in terms of smart political strategy — that Edwards and Obama would abandon the correct focus on Bush’s failures and instead solely attack one of their own. I know you guys are desperate to move up in the polls, but this is low. (more…)