Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Christians4LessGvt

Pages: 1 ... 166 167 [168] 169 170 ... 178
2506
3DHS / Another one bites the dust
« on: February 11, 2008, 02:07:44 PM »
Former Taliban commander Mansoor Dadullah captured in Pakistan
By Bill Roggio
February 11, 2008 9:24 AM


 
Former Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah.
 
Mullah Mansoor Dadullah, a senior Taliban figure, has been wounded and captured along with five lieutenants by Pakistan's Frontier Corps, the Pakistani military reported. There are two conflicting reports of Mansoor's captured. The official military line is Mansoor was captured while crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan, while anonymous sources claimed he was captured in a religious seminary in Baluchistan.

Mansoor was reported to have been wounded during a firefight as he attempted to enter Baluchistan province in Pakistan from Kandahar province, Afghanistan, according to Pakistan's Inter Service Public Relations. Dadullah and his party refused to stop when challenge and a firefight ensued. "Security personnel returned fire. As a result all of them sustained injuries and all of them were captured," Major General Athar Abbas, the military spokesman said. "Dadullah was arrested alive but he is critically wounded."

But unnamed intelligence sources told The Associated Press that Mansoor and his party were captured after a joint police, Army, and anti-terrorism commandos of the Special Services Groups surrounded a religious seminary in the Zhob district of Baluchistan. Mansoor was captured along with associates Haji Lala, Khudai Dad, Khalid Dad, and Abdur Razzak, according to the intelligence source.

The Zhob district appears to be a Taliban staging area. Mansoor is the second high-profile Taliban leader to be killed or captured in the district over the past year. Pakistani security forces killed Abdullah Mehsud, a senior Taliban leader South Waziristan in July 2007. A senior US official recently stated the Afghan Taliban leadership and command and control is operating in Quetta in Baluchistan. The Pakistani government has denied senior Taliban and al Qaeda leader are inside Pakistan, which may be the reason the military is claiming Mansoor was captured while crossing the border from Afghanistan.

Mansoor was the military commander of Taliban forces in the strategic southern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan, and Zabul provinces. He took command of Taliban forces in May of this year after his brother Mullah Dadullah Ahkund, a popular but brutal and effective commander, was killed by British special forces in Helmand province.
 
Pro-Taliban supporters shout slogans during a rally in Killi Nalai [AP]. Click to view.
 
Mansoor eulogized his brother in May via videotape to a large gathering of 10,000 Taliban supporters in Baluchistan province in Pakistan. "The blood of my brother will never go waste. We will never forget his sacrifices, and the role of other martyrs,? Mansoor said. "We will complete Dadullah's mission by expelling Americans and liberating Afghanistan." The crowd chanted, "Long live Mullah Omar, Long Live Osama bin Laden and Taliban movement."

Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban movement, relieved Mansoor of his command in late December. Omar fired Mansoor for failing to live up to the rules of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. "Mullah Mansoor Dadullah is not [in] obedience to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in his actions and has carried out activities which were against the rules of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," said Omar. "So the Decision Authorities [or Shura Majlis, executive council] of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have removed Mansoor Dadullah from his post and he will no longer be serving the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in [any way] and no Taliban will obey his orders any more." It is unclear what role, if any, Mansoor played in the Taliban hierarchy after his dismissal.

The Pakistani government has captured numerous Taliban leaders, yet several have been released in an effort to placate the Taliban in the tribal areas. Most recently, the government freed senior Taliban leader Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, along with Amir Khan Haqqani, two brothers of slain Taliban commander Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Usmani, and a cousin of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

Sufi Mohammed, the leader of the ideological leader of the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi in the Northwest Frontier Province, was freed during negotiations with the Taliban in Swat. Sufi led over 10,000 Taliban fighters against US forces in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. Al Qaeda leader Rashid Rauf mysteriously escaped police custody while being transferred from a court to a jail. After the signing of the North Waziristan Accord in September 2006, the government opened the floodgates and released more than 2,500 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and leaders.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/02/former_taliban_comma.php

2507
3DHS / Illegals fleeing back to Mexico from new Arizona Law
« on: February 08, 2008, 07:45:30 PM »
 :) :) :) :) :)AWESOME NEWS  :) :) :) :) :)

Illegals Begin Leaving Arizona as New Law Approaches
Friday, February 08, 2008

By William LaJeunesse

AGIA PRIETA, Mexico: For the first time, Mexican officials in Arizona admit there is hard evidence illegal immigrants are preparing to leave the state because a new employer sanctions law is making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to keep a job.

Illegal immigrants are flooding the Mexican consulate in Phoenix for documents that will allow them to return to Mexico to enroll their children in school, the consul to Arizona, Carlos Flores Vizcarra, told FOX News. They are also requesting a document called "menaje de casa," which allows illegal immigrant families living in the U.S. to cross into Mexico without paying a tax on their furniture and personal belongings.

Vizcarra said 94 families asked the embassy for students transfer documents last month, compared to only three last year. He said several thousand immigrants asked for the tax document.

In a separate interview, Edmundo Hidalgo of the non-profit immigrant support group Chicanos Por La Causa, said 30,000 illegal immigrants said in a survey last week that they planned to leave Arizona sometime before March 1, when the state?s tough new employer sanctions law goes into effect. Under the law, employers can lose their business licenses if they hire undocumented workers.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has set up a hotline for citizens to report on employers who hire illegals. He has said enforcement will begin when the law goes into effect. Many deputies have also been given arrest authority by Customs and Border Protection to enforce federal immigration law. So in the course of a traffic stop, illegal immigrants without a driver's license could ultimately face deportation.

These factors, combined with a slowing economy, are forcing many undocumented workers to consider leaving Arizona. According to a study last year, 12 percent of Arizona?s workforce is in the U.S. illegally, the highest percentage in the nation.

At a immigrant shelter in Agua Prieta, Mexico, just south of the Arizona border, officials say illegal immigrants are leaving the Grand Canyon state because of the employer sanctions law.

In the last month, for every five immigrants trying to enter the U.S., four were crossing back in the other direction, said Rosa Soto Moreno, who runs a Catholic shelter that provides food and lodging for illegal immigrants.

Soto said illegal immigrants crossing back into Mexico is a new phenomenon, and she attributes it to the new law.

"Many of the supervisors are upset by the law, but have told their workers they have no choice," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

2508
3DHS / Florida Democrat Predicts Dem "Train Wreck" possible
« on: February 08, 2008, 07:36:47 PM »
Democrats Warn of Coming "Train Wreck" as GOP Moves Closer to a Nominee
Friday, February 8, 2008

With John McCain closer than ever to being the Republican candidate for president, Democratic leaders are sounding the alarms about a worst-case scenario in which their party has no apparent nominee until the national convention in late August, leaving them with just over two months to mount a general election campaign.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, speaking on the floor of the Senate, warned Friday that it would be a "train wreck" for the party if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot break their deadlock soon.

"Here is the coming train wreck," Nelson said. If one of our two leading candidates does not get a majority by the time that all the primaries and caucuses are over then we go into a period during June, July and all the way to the end of August at the National Democratic Convention, a period of enormous uncertainty and turmoil.

He said part of the turmoil would be the backroom deal-making of "superdelegates" elected officials and other party leaders who come to the convention uncommitted to any candidate and the fact that Florida's and Michigan's delegates will not be seated at the convention. Those two states were stripped of their delegates for holding primaries before Super Tuesday, in violation of party rules.

Clinton won the primaries in both states, and seating their delegations would benefit her.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has also said he fears an intra-party showdown at the convention in Denver.

Dean has suggested that Florida and Michigan hold caucuses to select delegates, but Nelson, who has endorsed Clinton, said you can't undo an election with caucuses.

Dean, who calls McCain a "media darling" has warned about the same worst-case scenario.

He recently told a New York TV station, The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario. I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement.

He didn't say what that arrangement would be.

Three days after Super Tuesday, delegate tallies by The Associated Press show Clinton with 1,045 delegates and Obama with 960. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to clinch the nominationl; both candidates are about halfway there.

McCain needs only a few hundred more delegates to guarantee victory; Mitt Romney's exit from the race on Thursday left McCain as the odds-on nominee, although Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still officially running for the GOP nomination.

Republicans who have clashed with McCain in the past have begun to accept his candidacy, even though some conservatives like Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who endorsed Mike Huckabee Thursday night say McCain and his moderate positions will never be palatable to the right.

And McCain has already started his general election campaign, focusing on Obama?s and Clinton's positions on Iraq and taking them on in tandem as a singular threat to conservatives.

He continued his assault on the candidates Friday, after speaking at a national security round-table in Norfolk ahead of Virginia's primary Feb. 12.

All I can say is that they want to set a date for withdrawal, McCain said. There would be catastrophic consequences. There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of both of them as to what's at stake and a failure to recognize that our strategy under General Petraeus, called the surge, has been succeeding. That, I think, will be a major issue in this campaign.

Obama and Clinton have tried to return fire. Clinton complained yesterday about his economic and military policies but their quest for delegates keeps them focused on each other.

This leaves McCain in the enviable role of statesman, senator and party figurehead, observers say, unshackled from the once-consuming battle among a dizzying field of Republican candidates.

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen told FOX News, With John McCain the Republican nominee, if he can get the right in line with his candidacy, and the Democrats remain divided, it?ll make a Democratic victory more unlikely in November.

McCain's National Finance Co-Chairman Fred Malek said McCain will now be able to show leadership on Capitol Hill, and not just the campaign trail.

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are out on the campaign trail kind of fighting each other on things, John McCain can be back in the Senate leading the charge on issues that are really important to the American people.

Despite tasting victory, McCain said he will not discount Huckabee, who said Friday that it?s not a lock for the Arizona senator.

An election is about a choice, not a coronation, Huckabee said in Kansas.

McCain fended off discussion of potential running mates, as rumors continue to swirl that Huckabee could be a contender.

Governor Huckabee is still in this race and he is a viable candidate and I am sure will continue to show strength,McCain said in Norfolk.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

2509
3DHS / Al Qaeda Plans Nuke Attack On US
« on: February 08, 2008, 03:02:03 PM »
Is Al Qaeda Capable of Attacking the US?
Its Plans to Attack America are Active and Nuclear
 
The information that al Qaeda is pressing ahead with its plans to attack the United States comes from three sources.

One was mentioned by the US intelligence director Mike McConnel this week, when he said: It [al Qaeda] probably will continue to devote some effort towards honoring bin Laden?s request in 2005 that al Qaeda attempt to strike the United States, affirmed publicly by current al Qaeda leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri in a November 2006 threat against the White House.?

Then there are the high-value al Qaeda captives in American custody, who over the years have insisted under interrogation that a repeat of 9/11 and additional attacks in the American homeland have never been taken off the terrorist organization's operational agenda.

But no hard facts were ever elicited on how such attacks were to be implemented. Any particulars received turned out to be incorrect.

The third source is the multifarious theological texts published on the organizations websites.

These texts, which are not in general circulation, appear aimed at briefing network and cell commanders across the world on al Qaeda?s preparations for an attack on the United States.

The credibility of the information contained in these tracts is hard to establish  as is their purpose. Are they meant as morale-boosters for al Qaeda forces in the field, general guidelines for action by the networks, or a real-life plan of action building up toward implementation? No one can tell for sure.

Some al Qaeda experts have learned how to distinguish from their style, their operational content, names, places or dates, which of these documents are worth treating more seriously than others, with respect to the threat to the United States.

Al Qaeda's masterminds have never been caught red-handed
 
Counter-terror sources report that the most recent Internet text to be regarded by these experts as worth serious consideration is dated the night of the 25th of the second month of the Hijra year 1428, which corresponds to May 13, 2007.

It is signed by Abdul Abu Kandahar al Zarqawi [named for al Qaeda?s commander in Iraq] and Siyalon bin Abdullah a-Salafi al-Shemi [for the Nations of the East].

Both are clearly made-up names, but the al Qaeda chiefs whom the operational content of the text concerns certainly know who is addressing them.

A number of points have convinced our intelligence experts to address its content:

The writers affirm that the orders to attack the United States have already gone out and the attackers have reached their departure points - whether or not inside America is not specified and await their last instructions from Osama bin Laden before setting out on their final journey.

That instruction has not yet been issued [as of May, 2007].

Many terror experts note that al Qaeda has never since 2001 been able to bring off an attack inside America. Our sources point out a permanent feature of all al Qaeda operations: One is never approved unless its planners are absolutely certain that, whether it succeeds or fails, no leads to the masterminds and controllers will be left for Western intelligence to follow, and no clues to the military, intelligence and financial mechanisms which orchestrated the attack and brought the perpetrators to target.

In seven years, al Qaeda has managed to uphold this principle. Never so far in the war on terror has any counter-terror agencies cracked these mysteries.

This document states clearly for the first time that the next attack on American cities, especially New York, will be nuclear [not a bomb but some kinds of radioactive substance that contaminates the environment].

This reference ties in with data incoming from other sources in the last two years.

The bombers wait only for Osama bin Laden's say-so

The text also lists the US cities to be targeted, with New York at the top, followed by Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Seattle and Houston.


Here follows an approximate summary of the text:

Link to the original

The operations are ready but we are awaiting orders from the Supreme Commander, Osama bin Laden. He will decide when to strike, what to hit and what not, and how long to wait.

We shall pursue the following operations and bring about the fall of the United Atheistic States of America.

A quality attack is planned for the big and the biggest towns of America and its economic centers.

For some of these operations nuclear weapons will be used. It will be executed with the help of trucks which are undetectable. [DNW: A clue to American vehicles driven by terrorists capable of posing as authentic Americans].

The operation will employ ruses and tactics that will astonish the Americans.

Because we already know that you [Americans]) take no notice of our warnings, we will be forced to carry out further operations without mercy, because you have brought destruction on your own heads by refusing a hudna (truce).

[This is a reference to bin Laden?s offer to the Bush administration of a truce in an audiotape released Jan. 20, 2006 - provided US forces quit Iraq and Afghanistan.]

All these blows will land on you [the American people] because of your support for the White House robbers and your concurrence in their deeds.

In the first wave, five cities and one state will be struck.

The first is New York, the United States? economic nerve center where Allah proved for the first time that He is with us. [9/11]

Target: The fall of the United Atheist States to the mujaheddin

The second is Los Angeles, the most important West Coast city of the Atheistic Union.

The third is Florida, from which many funds reach the East Coast [the meaning is unclear] and which is the location of the Kennedy Space Center, which will also be struck.

We will of course not omit Washington.

The fall of the American capital into the hands of the mujaheddin will be one of the most important events of the New Era.

Seattle will be targeted as America's strategic center on the Canadian border; and Texas as the center of the big oil companies in which Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld have stakes.

In consequence of these attacks, the American economy will collapse; death and permanent injuries will result from nuclear damage; the American people will lose faith in its government and its centers will break down.

All this will lead to the evacuation of American forces from their places of deployment, because they will be needed to care for the desperately injured at home.

Some may decide not to return to the United States but rather seek asylum in other countries.

US military deployments will rapidly fall apart in their world bases, as officers and men come to blows, regular payments stop reaching the units and fuel supplies are no longer delivered to the army, air force, navy and armored units.

Young Muslims will obey the dictates of Allah, which include the liberation of Muhammad?s Island from the rule of Ali Saud, liberation of the eastern bank of the Jordan River from the American family which rules there and great progress for beloved Palestine.

[source: e-mail]

2510
3DHS / Will Hillary be a gracious loser?
« on: February 08, 2008, 02:46:37 PM »


Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?
By PEGGY NOONAN
February 8, 2008

If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?

Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.

She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal.

Does her sense of toughness mean that every battle in which she engages must be fought tooth and claw, door to door? Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare? I wonder if she is thinking: What will it mean if I win ugly? What if I lose ugly? What will be the implications for my future, the party's future? What will black America, having seen what we did in South Carolina, think forever of me and the party if I do low things to stop this guy on the way to victory? Can I stop, see the lay of the land, imitate grace, withdraw, wait, come back with a roar down the road? Life is long. I am not old. Or is that a reverie she could never have? What does it mean if she could never have it?

We know she is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?

It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.

I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.

The day she admitted she'd written herself a check for $5 million, Obama's people crowed they'd just raised $3 million. But then his staff is happy. They're all getting paid.

Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.

And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html

2511


January 31, 2008

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan?s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader?s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton?s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan?s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton?s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan?s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world?s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton?s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra?s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton?s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Mr. Giustra was invited to accompany the former president to Almaty just as the financier was trying to seal a deal he had been negotiating for months.

In separate written responses, both men said Mr. Giustra traveled with Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan, India and China to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of ?any particular efforts? and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an ?observer only? and there was ?no discussion? of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton ?of course made an impression.? Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra?s company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he ?may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing? efforts.

As Mrs. Clinton?s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president?s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

Mr. Clinton has vowed to continue raising money for his foundation if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, maintaining his connections with a wide network of philanthropic partners.

Mr. Giustra said that while his friendship with the former president ?may have elevated my profile in the news media, it has not directly affected any of my business transactions.?

Mining colleagues and analysts agree it has not hurt. Neil MacDonald, the chief executive of a Canadian merchant bank that specializes in mining deals, said Mr. Giustra?s financial success was partly due to a ?fantastic network? crowned by Mr. Clinton. ?That?s a very solid relationship for him,? Mr. MacDonald said. ?I?m sure it?s very much a two-way relationship because that?s the way Frank operates.?

Foreseeing Opportunities

Mr. Giustra made his fortune in mining ventures as a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, raising billions of dollars and developing a loyal following of investors. Just as the mining sector collapsed, Mr. Giustra, a lifelong film buff, founded the Lion?s Gate Entertainment Corporation in 1997. But he sold the studio in 2003 and returned to mining.

Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada?s second-largest gold company.

With a net worth estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Giustra began looking for ways to put his wealth to good use. Meeting Mr. Clinton, and learning about the work his foundation was doing on issues like AIDS treatment in poor countries, ?changed my life,? Mr. Giustra told The Vancouver Sun.

The two men were introduced in June 2005 at a fund-raiser for tsunami victims at Mr. Giustra?s Vancouver home and hit it off right away. They share a love of history, geopolitics and music ? Mr. Giustra plays the trumpet to Mr. Clinton?s saxophone. Soon the dapper Canadian was a regular at Mr. Clinton?s side, as they flew around the world aboard Mr. Giustra?s plane.

Philanthropy may have become his passion, but Mr. Giustra, now 50, was still hunting for ways to make money.

Exploding demand for energy had helped revitalize the nuclear power industry, and uranium, the raw material for reactor fuel, was about to become a hot commodity. In late 2004, Mr. Giustra began talking to investors, and put together a company that would eventually be called UrAsia Energy Ltd.

Kazakhstan, which has about one-fifth of the world?s uranium reserves, was the place to be. But with plenty of suitors, Kazatomprom could be picky about its partners.

?Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,? said Fadi Shadid, a senior stock analyst covering the uranium industry for Friedman Billings Ramsey, an investment bank. ?A second-tier junior player like UrAsia ? you?d need all the help you could get.?

The Cameco Corporation, the world?s largest uranium producer, was already a partner of Kazatomprom. But when Cameco expressed interest in the properties Mr. Giustra was already eying, the government?s response was lukewarm. ?The signals we were getting was, you?ve got your hands full,? said Gerald W. Grandey, Cameco president.

For Cameco, it took five years to ?build the right connections? in Kazakhstan, Mr. Grandey said. UrAsia did not have that luxury. Profitability depended on striking before the price of uranium soared.

?Timing was everything,? said Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born businessman whose London-based company was brought into the deal by UrAsia because of his connections in Kazakhstan. Even with those connections, Mr. Kurzin said, it took four months to arrange a meeting with Kazatomprom.

In August 2005, records show, the company sent an engineering consultant to Kazakhstan to assess the uranium properties. Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived with Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said an aide to Mr. Nazarbayev informed him that Mr. Giustra talked with Mr. Nazarbayev about the deal during the visit. ?And when our president asked Giustra, ?What do you do?? he said, ?I?m trying to do business with Kazatomprom,? ? Mr. Dzhakishev said. He added that Mr. Nazarbayev replied, ?Very good, go to it.?

Mr. Clinton?s Kazakhstan visit, the only one of his post-presidency, appears to have been arranged hastily. The United States Embassy got last-minute notice that the president would be making ?a private visit,? said a State Department official, who said he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for ?opening up the social and political life of your country.?

In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev?s government.

?I think it?s time for that to happen, it?s an important step, and I?m glad you?re willing to undertake it,? Mr. Clinton said.

A Speedy Process

Mr. Clinton?s praise was odd, given that the United States did not support Mr. Nazarbayev?s bid. (Late last year, Kazakhstan finally won the chance to lead the security organization for one year, despite concerns raised by the Bush administration.) Moreover, Mr. Clinton?s wife, who sits on a Congressional commission with oversight of such matters, had also voiced skepticism.

Eleven months before Mr. Clinton?s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded ?alarm bells? about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan?s bid ?would not be acceptable,? citing ?serious corruption,? canceled elections and government control of the news media.

In a written statement to The Times, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman said the former president saw ?no contradiction? between his statements in Kazakhstan and the position of Mrs. Clinton, who said through a spokeswoman, ?Senator Clinton?s position on Kazakhstan remains unchanged.?

Noting that the former president also met with opposition leaders in Almaty, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman said he was only ?seeking to suggest that a commitment to political openness and to fair elections would reflect well on Kazakhstan?s efforts to chair the O.S.C.E.?

But Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president?s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan?s readiness to lead the group, a position he called ?patently absurd.?

?He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,? Mr. Herman said. ?There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.?

Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an ?atmosphere of intimidation? and ?ballot-box stuffing.?

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. ?Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,? Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.

Within 48 hours of Mr. Clinton?s departure from Almaty on Sept. 7, Mr. Giustra got his deal. UrAsia signed two memorandums of understanding that paved the way for the company to become partners with Kazatomprom in three mines.

The cost to UrAsia was more than $450 million, money the company did not have in hand and had only weeks to come up with. The transaction was finalized in November, after UrAsia raised the money through the largest initial public offering in the history of Canada?s Venture Exchange.

Mr. Giustra challenged the notion that UrAsia needed to court Kazatomprom?s favor to seal the deal, contending that the government agency?s approval was not required.

But Mr. Dzhakishev, analysts and Mr. Kurzin, one of Mr. Giustra?s own investors, said that approval was necessary. Mr. Dzhakishev, who said that the deal was almost done when Mr. Clinton arrived, said that Kazatomprom was impressed with the sum Mr. Giustra was willing to pay and his record of attracting investors. He said Mr. Nazarbayev himself ultimately signed off on the transaction.

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom?s choice of UrAsia was a ?mystery,? said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

?UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,? Mr. Clark said. The company became a ?major uranium producer when it didn?t even exist before.?

A Profitable Sale

Records show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when.

In September 2006, Mr. Giustra co-produced a gala 60th birthday for Mr. Clinton that featured stars like Jon Bon Jovi and raised about $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan?s intention ? not publicly known at the time ? to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation?s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation?s proposal to a former president.

Mr. Clinton ?said this was very important for America,? said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton?s home.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton?s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

?You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,? Mr. Giustra said. ?Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.? Mr. Giustra said the meeting ?escaped my memory until you raised it.?

Wednesday, Mr. Clinton?s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a ?correction,? saying: ?Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.?

Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president?s records, which he said ?show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.?

Mr. Dzhakishev said he had a vivid memory of his Chappaqua visit, and a souvenir to prove it: a photograph of himself with the former president.

?I hung up the photograph of us and people ask me if I met with Clinton and I say, Yes, I met with Clinton,? he said, smiling proudly.

David L. Stern and Margot Williams contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&ex=1202446800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

2512
3DHS / Cya
« on: January 31, 2008, 05:31:33 PM »


Top Al-Qaeda Commander Killed in Pakistan 

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 31, 2008


al-Qaida commander Abu Laith al-Libi


Abu Laith al-Libi, one of al-Qaeda's most senior commanders, was killed in Pakistan on Monday, Western officials said today.

The officials declined to comment on whether Libi's death was related to a reported U.S. missile strike, launched from an unmanned Predator aircraft, that killed at least a dozen people Monday in Pakistan's North Waziristan region.

U.S. officials had offered a bounty of $200,000 for Libi, who used a nom de guerre and his whose true name was not known. He had been identified by U.S. officials as orchestrating the 2007 bombing of the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, during a visit by Vice President Cheney. Cheney was not injured, but 23 people were killed in the attack.

Libi fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan and was jailed by Saudi Arabian officials for two years for covert activities there. He was also believed to have organized an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Libyan ruler Moammar Gaddafi in the mid-1990s.

His death was first reported by al-Ekhlaas, a Web site often used by Islamic militants for announcements. The site carried a banner about his death, according to the Washington-based SITE Institute, which monitors such Web postings. "As the banner was posted on Ekhlaas by a webmaster of the forum, it seems as if the announcement of his death has been confirmed to the forum administrators," a SITE report said.

The SITE report quotes a posting on al-Ekhlaas by the al-Fajr Media Center, a radical Islamic news outlet linked to al-Qaeda. The al-Fajr statement says that Libi was "martyred" in the land of the "Muslim Pakistan" and that his death shows that Islamic leaders are fighting with their troops.

The Western officials confirming his death said that Libi, born in the Libyan city of Tripoli and believed to be in his early 40s, was among the top half dozen al-Qaeda officials and was active as a battlefield commander in attacks against U.S. and NATO forces in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.

He is also believed to have taken part in planning recent attacks against Western-related targets in Pakistan.

Libi also was featured in videos released by the militants. Last spring, al-Sahab, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, identified Libi as a bearded man accusing Shiite Muslims of fighting alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, the Associated Press reported. He also appeared last November in a video with al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri.

Libi was the primary interlocutor between the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and al-Qaeda, which last November announced they had joined forces. But Western officials believe he has been at or near bin Laden's side since at least the late 1980s, when bin Laden and Pakistan-based Afghan mujaheddin fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

His death is seen as a major success for the U.S. military, which has been increasingly challenged in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region by both al-Qaeda and resurgent Taliban forces.

Washington Post correspondent Craig Whitlock contributed to this story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013101799.html?hpid=topnews




2513
3DHS / Hillary Clinton confronted on NBC posing with same "Slum Lord".
« on: January 25, 2008, 12:50:29 PM »
NBC confronts Hillary with "slum lord" photo
By Michael Roston and David Edwards
Friday January 25, 2008



On Friday morning's episode of the Today Show on NBC, host Matt Lauer discussed Monday
night's testy debate between presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack
Obama (D-IL). In particular, he focused on her allegation that Obama had represented Tony Rezko,
the indicted Chicago businessman whom she referred to as a "slum lord."

Lauer then presented Clinton with a photo of Rezko posing between Sen. Clinton as first l
ady and her husband during his presidency. He asked if she remembered meeting Rezko.

Clinton said she did not, and parried, "I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

The senator also argued that it wasn't unfair for her to bring up Rezko during the debate.

"I try not to attack first," Clinton said, "but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch."

Clinton then argued that the debate between the two candidates should focus on their position on important issues, and implied that she was the most viable candidate to defeat Senator John McCain if he was the Republican candidate.

"Let's focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the Republicans," she argued. "Senator McCain has said it would be fine with him if we were [in Iraq] 100 years. It's not fine with me."

Transcript via closed captions


:: It is perfectly legitimate to draw comparisons and contrasts. And I think both senator obama and I have made it clear that we do want to focus on what we each would do for our country. It has been obviously an incredibly intense campaign. I think it's cause for celebration that we have an african-american, a woman running for the highest position in our country, the toughest job in the world.

:: Right, but --

:: But I do want to make it clear that our campaigns have to stay focused on what, you know, the legitimate differences are, so we can give voters information that will enable them to make the right decision.

:: On monday night in south carolina, it didn't always stay focused on that, senator. I want to run a clip. This is where you were attacking senator obama in particular about his work connected to what was called the so-called slum lord in chicago, a guy named tony rezko. Take a look at the clip.

:: I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor rezko in his slum landlord business in inner city chicago.

:: That was monday night, senator. I know you don't have video, you can't see what i'm about to put up on the screen right now. But i'm going to put up a picture right now that we've received. This is a picture of you and your husband, bill clinton, posing with that same man, tony rezko. It's undated, i'm going to ro-tel you right now. We know it's him. We don't know when it was taken. We think it was during your husband's presidency. I'm curious, do you know anything about the picture? do you know when it was taken? do you remember meeting this man?

:: No, I don't. You know, I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. But of course, matt, you didn't show what preceded what I said, which was a direct attack, one of several that was leveled against me by senator obama.

:: I understand. It was a counter punch, I understand that.

:: It was a counter punch. I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself and I do have to counter punch. No, I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him. But I think with a we ought to be looking at is how we go forward talking about the issues. I do think, however, that this is a campaign, it's a contest. It's something that is very important to each of us running, to our supporters, to those who believe in us. And I took a lot of incoming fire for many, many months and I was happy to absorb it because obviously I felt that that was part of my responsibility.

:: I guess what i'm saying, though --

:: As it gets toward the end of the campaign, you've got to set the record straight as I tried to.

:: Right. But does it make sense to use someone like this, tony rezko, against senator obama, when there's really no such thing as political purt anymore? I know you stand at events and stood as first lady along with your president and they fired 200 people by you a night --

:: A thousand people.

:: This man, he made a contribution to the dnc back in march of 2000. If there's no such thing as being able to fully vette who you come in contact with, is it appropriate to make this attack on your opponent?

:: I think you have to look at the facts. There's a big difference standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don't know and haven't seen since and having a relationship that the newspapers in chic chicago have been exploring. Let's focus on what we want to do for the country and most importantly focus on the great difference between us and the republicans. I think you saw that again in their debate. They're sticking with the failed policies of president bush, more in iraq. Senator mccain has said it would be fine with him if we were there 100 years. It's not fine with me. Yes --


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_confronts_Hillary_with_slum_lord_0125.html

2514
3DHS / Liberal Talk Show Host: "Bill Clinton is lying" (about Obama)
« on: January 24, 2008, 09:37:04 AM »

Liberal Talk Show Host: "Bill Clinton is lying"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o



2515
3DHS / More Dem Party Meltdown: Obama complains to Nevada
« on: January 23, 2008, 10:45:46 PM »


Obama Camp Complains to Nevada Dems

Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008
By AP/JIM KUHNHENN (WASHINGTON)

Barack Obama's presidential campaign complained in a letter to the Nevada Democratic Party Wednesday
that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton benefited from numerous violations of party rules during the state's
caucuses on Saturday. 

Clinton won the caucuses' popular vote by a margin of 51 percent to 45 percent. Under complicated delegate
allocation rules, however, Obama could receive 13 delegates to Clinton's 12.

The letter to Nevada Democratic Chairwoman Jill Derby from Obama lawyer Robert Bauer lists instances of early
door closings, obstruction of voters, and improper handling of voter preference cards. Obama aides said the
campaign has received more than 1,600 complaints, including 300 that came in to a hotline at the time of the caucuses.

Bauer said the campaign is not challenging the outcome of the caucuses at the precinct level, but he asked Derby
to conduct an inquiry into the Clinton campaign tactics during the caucuses
. The campaign offered to provide the
names and contact information of the individuals making the complaints as well as unedited copies of their accounts.

The Clinton campaign has also complained about behavior at the caucuses. On Sunday, Clinton senior adviser Dave
Barnhart said he witnessed an enormous "gantlet" of Obama supporters at the Mirage casino-hotel caucus site who
tried to intimidate Clinton backers.

Attached to the Obama complaint was an instruction sheet that Bauer's letter attributed to the Clinton campaign.
The sheet offers guidance on how to persuade caucus goers to caucus for Clinton.

One line states: "It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

"This certainly suggests that, for the Clinton campaign, the operative standard was, simply and only, what it could
get away with," Bauer wrote.

The letter complained that the Clinton camp distributed a caucus guide to supporters that said caucus site doors
would close at 11:30 a.m. The party's rules stated that caucuses would be called to order at 11:30 a.m. but said
attendees had to be signed in by noon.

Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Nevada Democratic Party had an immediate response to the Obama
campaign letter.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706262,00.html?xid=rss-politics


2516
3DHS / 2008 Democrat Presidential Candidate John Edwards
« on: January 23, 2008, 06:54:51 PM »

2517
3DHS / No Bob Dole Re-treads
« on: January 22, 2008, 01:37:57 PM »
Much of the network media are "pushing" candidates they think the
Democrats could beat easier. You wouldn't know it, but Mitt is winning.




2518
3DHS / Israel Serves Notice:
« on: January 22, 2008, 01:01:55 AM »
DEBKAfile Exclusive:

The successful test-firing of an Israeli long-range nuclear-capable missile Thursday timed for Russian naval exercise

January 19, 2008, 10:35 AM (GMT+02:00)

It was coordinated with the US Missile Defense Program.

Israeli and US defense officials tied up the last ends during PresidentPresident GeorgeGeorge. W. Bush?s visit last week. The successful test of a propulsion system for the dual-stage missile from the Palmahim base Thursday, Jan. 17, was a breakthrough. Western military experts report the new system can propel the missile to any point on earth ? an intercontinental capability owned only by the US, Russia, China and France, with important applications for Israel?s military and civilian satellite programs as well.

The test?s context was as much the huge Russian naval maneuver launched in the Mediterranean Tuesday, Jan. 16, as missile and potential nuclear threats from Iran. Eleven vessels were drawn for the war game from two Russian fleets, Atlantic Northwest and BlackBlack SeaSea. It is led by the AdmiralAdmiral KuznetsovKuznetsov air carrier with 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters on board and the Moskva missile cruiser.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBKAfile:
New Israeli polar satellite launched from Indian space center begins transmitting

January 21, 2008, 10:38 PM (GMT+02:00)
 
Indian space center successfully boosts Israeli Tecsar into orbit
 
DEBKAfile?s military sources: The 300-kilogram Tecsar is the most advanced of Israel?s satellites. It is the first to be equipped with Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) that allows its camera to take high-resolution pictures of small targets in cloudy or foggy weather at any point on earth.

It was launched from India because the Sriharikota space station in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh is positioned for boosting a satellite into polar orbit. Our military sources report that with Tecsar aloft, Israel will have complementary access for tracking Iranian?s nuclear and military activities that provided by its Ofek spy series..

The satellite, developed by Israeli Aerospace Industries, was launched by India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle Monday, Jan. 21, at 05:45 Israeli time. It has signaled its smooth entry into orbit around the globe. First images will be beamed down to earth in two weeks.

This was India?s second commercial mission on behalf of a foreign country and was acclaimed in New Delhi as an ?important milestone? for India?s space program.





2519
3DHS / Bill Clinton Falls Asleep During MLK Presentation
« on: January 21, 2008, 09:14:00 PM »


BILL HAS A 'DREAM'
EX PREZ NODS OFF DURING MLK AWARD PRESENTATION
Post Staff Report



January 21, 2008 -- Bill Clinton showed yesterday why he made it into the book "The Art of Napping."

During an appearance at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem, the former president was caught nodding off.

Clinton was there during a service to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while his wife was nearby at Abyssinian Baptist Church,
where she was endorsed by its minister, Rev. Calvin Butts.

Clinton has had napping episodes before. Among others, he nodded off at a Mets game and at Ronald Reagan's funeral.

When he was president, he told Dan Rather, "If I can take a nap, even 15 or 20 minutes in the middle of the day,
it is really invigorating to me. On the days when I'm a little short of sleep, I try to work it out so that I can sneak
off and just lie down for 15 minutes, a half an hour, and it really makes all the difference in the world."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212008/news/regionalnews/bill_has_a_dream_474243.htm



2520
3DHS / Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: "Pipe Down"
« on: January 21, 2008, 12:07:48 PM »


POLITICS

Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down

Footing the Bill: Is the former president hurting his wife's campaign?
By Jonathan Alter | NEWSWEEK
Jan 28, 2008 Issue



Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton, Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.

On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama?even if some of those doubts are distortions. But there's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."

During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice,"
as aides tried to end the interview. Then, in New Hampshire, he argued angrily that the story of Obama's principled position on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," a charge few reporters bought. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking African-American in Congress and officially neutral, found Clinton's tone insulting and said so publicly.

When the former president called Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat gave Clinton an earful, telling him that he bore some blame for the injection of race into the contest. In any event, both Hillary and Obama made peace on the race issue at the Las Vegas debate. The Clinton camp now fears that Kennedy is leaning toward Obama, according to the Clinton source, though Kennedy's office says he is making no endorsement "at this time."

Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off script. Obama officials say this itself should be a campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama adviser, argues that "recent events raise the question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill, whether Hillary's White House could."

There is little precedent for a former president's engaging in intra-party attacks. In 1960, Harry Truman criticized the idea of a Roman Catholic president and tried briefly to stop John F. Kennedy's nomination. "I urge you to be patient," he told JFK publicly. But in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son's GOP primary opponent, John McCain.

Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary. "History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy, not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary.

? 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

Pages: 1 ... 166 167 [168] 169 170 ... 178