Hate comes out of the closet

[solicitr]

The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was "raising money" for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a "mentor" to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to "one of the world's richest men," Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama's education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

"I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him," Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. "The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas."

[solicitr]

a wartime president is always going to be criticized for taking steps - some of which were considered temporary - to win the war.

So by your rule you should have no problems with George W. Bush.

[Primula Baggins]

Link

This is another one of those articles where the absence of a smoking gun is taken as proof of a coverup.

[solicitr]

"Lack of a smoking gun?" I would think that Sutton's statement is gun enough.

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

So by your rule you should have no problems with George W. Bush.

I do not have any rule. All I was doing was taking your characteriztion of President Wilson and asking you what qualified him to be a "crypto-fascist". Then you gave me a list of things and I explained how each of them was a special wartime measure that was only temporary - despite your claim that it was not and Wilson had nothing to do with their repeal which your own links clearly document that he did.

George W. Bush was and is not part of the issue.

[Primula Baggins]

It's he-said, she-said. <shrug> No evidence, no corroboration—and no crime, either, even if it were true.

[solicitr]

No, not a crime. Just another in the rather lengthy list of Obama associates with radical beliefs. Doesn't that give you any pause?

Put it this way, Ms. Primula: if a Republican candidate came along who throughout his formative years was surrounded by, mentored by, "dearest personal friends" with folks like George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke and Timothy McVeigh- would you give him a pass? Accept his claim to be a moderate at face value? Dismiss it all out of hand as 'guilt by association?'

[sauronsfinger]

Soicitr
I am a bit confused here with your line of arguement. Do you somehow feel that this Obama associates and Harvard thing is going to be a major issue in the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential election? Because it seems that we have already heard all this during the curent elections season. The people who think this is important took their best shot with the allegations and the people of America rendered their decision.

What is the point of this discussion at this time since the verdict has already been rendered by the one jury that counts?

[Primula Baggins]

Name, please, the radicals you mean who were Obama's "dearest personal friends" and mentors. It would be helpful if you could show some reason we should believe they have any current influence on Obama's thinking—appointments to his staff, say.

As it happens, holding radical beliefs is not a crime; knowing someone who holds them is not a crime; having known someone, decades ago, who held them is not even news.

If you can't show any reason to believe Obama shares these beliefs now and intends to act on them—that he is some kind of radical mole—you're just presenting innuendo as if it were fact.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But, with the exception of Rev. Wright, there is no credible evidence (in my opinion) that any of these people were close to Obama (or, more importantly, that he was close to them). And Wright's influence on Obama, at least as manifested in Obama's writings and actions, was to convert him to active Christianity, to promote hope, and self-help in the African-American community. None of these things are remotely radical. Most importantly, Obama has never manifested a radical agenda of any kind; he is very much within the mainstream of America (even if he is more liberal than you and some people may like).

Edit: Cross posted with sf and Prim.

[solicitr]

Of course it's water under the bridge now. But I seriously dispute that Obama's long affiliations (and in several case close partnerships) with characters like Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Frank Marshall Davis, Mike Klonsky and (yes) Bill Ayers are just to be dismissed as 'innuendo.' Add in his cousin Raila Ondinga. A man is judged, and quite properly, by the company he keeps.

You haven't answered my question, Prim, and I'll extend it to Voronwë as well: if a GOP candidate had an extensive collection of friends on the radical Right, would you be so quick to dismiss it?

No radical agenda, Vor? You don't think his comments on the Constitution and 'redistributive justice' aren't a tad out of the mainstream? Have you read his Global Poverty Initiative?

[sauronsfinger]

from Solicitr

A man is judged, and quite properly, by the company he keeps.

But Solicitr, in this case all that was heard... and quite properly Barack Obama was judged..... by the American people. And he won his case quite handily.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You haven't answered my question, Prim, and I'll extend it to Voronwë as well: if a GOP candidate had an extensive collection of friends on the radical Right, would you be so quick to dismiss it?

If they were as tenuous as the things that I have seen about Obama, yes I would. I would judge the person on their actions, their statements, and their record.

[solicitr]

Therefore, SF, a Big Mac with fries must be the finest meal there is.

The American people, going by past performance, may have the power to choose the Chief Executive but it's certainly clear that they often don't have the judgment. Jimmy Carter, anyone?

Carter was elected because he wasn't Nixon (or his successor). Obama was elected because he wasn't Bush (or his successor). Do you seriously believe that if there were a popular Republican president and a booming economy, Obama would have fared any better than Mondale or Dukakis?

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr - you are misreading my point ....

these allegations about associates have already been aired... they have been judged... they have been decided by the American people who are the final judges on these matters.

Does that mean they are incapable of any error? None of us are. But its done. Its over. Its finished.

Therefore, SF, a Big Mac with fries must be the finest meal there is.

I am sorry but I do not know what that means in this context.

[solicitr]

If they were as tenuous as the things that I have seen about Obama, yes I would. I would judge the person on their actions, their statements, and their record.

Unfortunately, Voronwë, Obama has no record and no actions to date. And you would really accept a politician's statements at face value? Especially one with Obama's penchant for flip-flops?

I would suggest gently, Vor, that you dismiss Obama's associations as tenuousand the evidence therfore as non-credible in part because you don't wish to believe otherwise (a very human tendency)- and in part because your sources of information are generally to the left of center. Of course HuffPo and Daily Kaos are going to print nothing but rebuttals.

This is indead rather an expired equine, and I don't see any point in birching it any farther. Suffice it to say that Obama's *documented* professional and financial partnerships with Ayres and Klonsky are sufficient unto myself to raise considerable doubts about how moderate Mr 'redistributive justice' really is.

[Primula Baggins]

There is no indication that Barack Obama and Michael Pfleger have ever even met.

Rashid Khalidi is a respectable, American-born scholar. He has no PLO affiliations, if that's what you mean to hint at.

Frank Marshall Davis has been dead for twenty-one years.

Michael Klonsky got some grant money from the Annenberg Challenge project, along with a lot of other people. There is no other link between him and Obama.

Bill Ayers has been dealt with in this forum, in detail, to everyone's satisfaction but yours.

As for Raila Odinga (not "Ondinga"), there is no evidence that he is related to Obama in any way, and they have never even met. Please don't bring up the faked emails, or I'll have to post them.


Please stop this.

[solicitr]

Suronsfinger, are you suggesting that truth is determined by plebiscite?

If you were to say that "the electorate didn't believe it, or didn't care", then of course you would be right. But I read your declaration as stating that the vote rendered the allegations untrue- by which standard, of course, Nixon was not a crook.

I would suggest that the reason Obama's circle of friends gained no traction, as the politicos say, is because the gill-breathing media wouldn't touch the story with a barge pole. Sad to say, the Fourth Estate invested more resources investigating poor Joe Wurzelbacher than they did Barack Obama.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

soli, I am less likely to get information from the Daily Kos than I am from the Drudge Report (which is to say, that every once in a while I check in on Drudge, but I never ever look at the Daily Kos, which I find to be both unacceptably partisan and horribly put together. I do occasionally look at the Huffington Post, but with a definite grain of salt.

Ultimately, Obama will be judged by his actions in the presidency, and all of this will become moot.

[solicitr]

Prim, I will drop this subject. There's no point in pursuing it. But the evidence is ample and extensive, and, to be honest, your assertions of 'fact' are simply not so, other than the date of Uncle Frank's death. If you want to believe that Obama has no ties to Klonsky, that he wasn't a close partner with Bill Ayres (who is repulsive not for his actions 40 years ago alone, but for his loathsome beliefs today), all I or anyone can do is lead you to water. Drinking is up to you.

But it is rather frustrating to deal with Creationists who numbingly chant 'no evidence in the fossil record, no evidence in the fossil record', no matter how extensive the evidence you bring to their attention. This is of the same savour.

EDIT: just reread your post. Are you sure you don't want to review your assertion regarding Michael Pfleger?