Why Obama should withdraw now
By Carl
(via) In July 2005, ChicagoBusiness.com reported that Rezmar, Inc., a corporation owned by Tony Rezko (Obama's indicted bagman who is about to stand trial for corruption charges today in Chicago), signed a joint venture agreement with Iraq to operate...wait for it...a power plant in Iraq.
What makes this truly interesting is another piece of the Obama puzzle I reported on the other day: the connections between an exiled Iraqi oil billionaire Nadhmi Auchi and Barack Obama's campaign, in which the billionaire feloniously financed through a loan to Obama's campaign an Obama fundraiser in May of that same year, 2005 (presumably this was to repay debts incurred in his rookie run for Senate).
For the mapless, let me draw one:Iraqi oil billionaire, repatriated oil assets, ready customer base, US President
The deal was signed before the $3.5 million dollar loan to Obama, and was arranged through Tony Rezko. Quid pro quo? Maybe not, but it sure smells funny.
But wait, there's more, as the kids say: Tony Rezko has ties to former Iraqi Energy Minister Aiham Alsammarae, who was tried and convicted of stealing $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction funding provided by the Bush administration. He also lived while in exile from Iraq in...Chicago!
This theft also partly explains why Iraqis only have about eight to ten hours of electricity every day.
Funny how all this corruption surrounds the energy industry in Iraq, isn't it?
Funny how it all centers around Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. After all this is a man who's positions on Iraq have run from "No war" to his July 27, 2004 comment that there's "not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage" to his current "once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out," flimflam.
We now get a look behind the curtain at this particular "evolution in action" moment of Barack Obama, lubricated in large part by illegal campaign financing, outright theft of American taxpayer money, and shady connections to a country who's economic and physical future is dependent upon who will be the next President.
I think Obama, for the good of the Democratic Party, should consider dropping out now, before this embarassment becomes exploited by the Republican party.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
(via) In July 2005, ChicagoBusiness.com reported that Rezmar, Inc., a corporation owned by Tony Rezko (Obama's indicted bagman who is about to stand trial for corruption charges today in Chicago), signed a joint venture agreement with Iraq to operate...wait for it...a power plant in Iraq.
What makes this truly interesting is another piece of the Obama puzzle I reported on the other day: the connections between an exiled Iraqi oil billionaire Nadhmi Auchi and Barack Obama's campaign, in which the billionaire feloniously financed through a loan to Obama's campaign an Obama fundraiser in May of that same year, 2005 (presumably this was to repay debts incurred in his rookie run for Senate).
For the mapless, let me draw one:Iraqi oil billionaire, repatriated oil assets, ready customer base, US President
The deal was signed before the $3.5 million dollar loan to Obama, and was arranged through Tony Rezko. Quid pro quo? Maybe not, but it sure smells funny.
But wait, there's more, as the kids say: Tony Rezko has ties to former Iraqi Energy Minister Aiham Alsammarae, who was tried and convicted of stealing $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction funding provided by the Bush administration. He also lived while in exile from Iraq in...Chicago!
This theft also partly explains why Iraqis only have about eight to ten hours of electricity every day.
Funny how all this corruption surrounds the energy industry in Iraq, isn't it?
Funny how it all centers around Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. After all this is a man who's positions on Iraq have run from "No war" to his July 27, 2004 comment that there's "not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage" to his current "once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out," flimflam.
We now get a look behind the curtain at this particular "evolution in action" moment of Barack Obama, lubricated in large part by illegal campaign financing, outright theft of American taxpayer money, and shady connections to a country who's economic and physical future is dependent upon who will be the next President.
I think Obama, for the good of the Democratic Party, should consider dropping out now, before this embarassment becomes exploited by the Republican party.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Labels: 2008 election, 2008 primaries, Barack Obama
posted by Carl at
10:03 AM
11 Comments:
Obama should drop out because a connection may or may not exist?!? Should people be sent to jail because someone may or may not have said they were guilty?
That's not even reasoning. That's fearmongering.
Stop it.
By
egeswender, at 3:49 PM
So something smells funny and he should get out of the race? With no regard for the movement he has created, the excitment he has generated, and the candidacy that has won 11 contests in a row? What are you implying here, that Obama is a big phony? That, as president, he would be just like Bush, using Iraq to enrich his buddies and cronies?
Come on.
Clinton has basically spent the past month belittling Obama, whining about press coverage, and acting like a Republican. The plagarism charge, the "phone call in the middle of the night ad," the "change you can Xerox" quip. She was the frontrunner for a long time. The nomination was hers to lose. And then she started losing it. And then she and her campaign started shifting the goalposts. And all we have now is her win-at-all-costs scorched-earth strategy.
For the good of the party, it should be her who gets out after tomorrow's votes. Even if she wins Ohio and pulls even in Texas, even if she declares victory, even if the media buy the spin, what we will have once more is Obama on the rise. He was never even supposed to be close in Ohio and Texas, just like he was never supposed to do well on Super Tuesday, or in Virginia, or in Wisconsin.
Clinton is a strong candidate, yes, but she is losing this race. Too bad, but that's just the way it is. She should bow out gracefully, not continue to destroy everything that stands in her way, all in desperation as the end draws near.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 3:53 PM
Yes, I too am getting quite tired of slash and burn politics, Clinton style. Anyone who covets the presidency as much as they have is no better than "Smeagle" seeking his "Precious."
By
Swampcracker, at 11:23 PM
The reason Clinton is slighly behind (not losing) is because of the republicans crossing over to vote as they did in huge numbers in South Carolina and other states that allow this gamesmanship.
Everything I have seen shows her winning among Democrats. Do you honestly think that those same republicans are going to vote for Obama in Nov.?
Do you honestly think that Obama doesn't "covet" the presidency so much that he will do whatever it takes to win?
By
MagginKat, at 10:37 AM
magginkat, among rank and file Democrats, Obama has a 6 point lead over Cllinton in the popular vote. With respect to those crossover votes, most of them are independents, and a large majority of them vote for Obama.
Most surveys show the independent vote going to Obama in an Obama vs. McCain contest, and most independent votes going to McCain in a Clinton vs. McCain contest.
Bottom line: Obama is the stronger of the two candidates and the choice of a majority of Democrats. Clinton is acting the spoiler in this game.
By
Swampcracker, at 11:01 AM
Rumors surface, so Obama should quit. You think there aren't at least as many conflict of interest stories surrounding Hillary and McCain?
By
Anonymous, at 12:18 PM
I am an independent, I will not vote for Hillary. Nader will get my vote first. If Obama is the candidate, I will noy waste a vote for nader.
KAK
By
Anonymous, at 1:04 PM
Your anger distorts your judgment. Your posts on Obama are routinely the least thoughtful and most partisan.
By
Anonymous, at 2:38 PM
These are well sourced stories. I stand by my opinion. If it was earlier in the primary season and he had sufficient time to explain and exonerate himself, I'd suggest your positions are more valid.
Right now, we can't afford to make this mistake. Sorry if that bugs you.
By
Carl, at 3:34 PM
I confess it does astound me that,well, if Obama was a Republican, you Obombers would be all over him, mocking him and advising him to give it up now.
But because you buy into his flimflammery, you somehow can turn on a reality-distortion field and disregard the basic tenets of reporting.
The facts are there. They are documented, not rumoured. They are public record, including the FBI log of at least a half dozen visits by Obama to Rezko's offices simultaneously to Al-sammarae.
I should think you might want to remove those logs from your eyes before pointing out the speck in mine, but hey, I'm a big enough man to take cheap and unwarranted criticism! :-)
By
Carl, at 3:45 PM
I think Obama should withdraw. Way to much republican money and votes have gone his way. After all, he did say in June that the current administration has done nothing grave enough to warrant impeachment. Without the republicans and their media supporting obama over hillary, hillary would have won a long time ago. The republicans know the only way they can win is against obama.
By
Anonymous, at 2:48 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home