Retired Admiral Verses Chicago Political Operative - Who is Telling the Truth?
Breaking News - 5/28/2010: Greg Sargent, The Washington Post just released that "Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives . . . But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement."
If Sestak concurs with events as to be reported, it will illustrate 1) that a former Admiral may have been pressured by a former Commander-in-Chief, 2) Bill Clinton was willing to speak on behalf of and support the administration that defeated his wife, Hillary, as president and 3) Democrats are a strange breed but they know Bill Clinton is the master of double speak. It is interesting that the White House may claim they were not involved, Based on historical precedence, if the current President, Cabinet Secretary, or Senior White House staff member asks for another person to speak on their behalf to another person or country representative, it is indeed a message from the White House or the US Government. Using a former President, would indeed reflect that the White House intended for Sestak to step aside and that he would be rewarded accordingly.
Sestak has not resigned his military commission. He took an oath as a military officer, let's see if he still believes in the sanctity of that Oath. If Sestak was not telling the truth or if he now bows to political pressure form the White House in reshaping the events of the offer, then Sestak should not be a U.S. Senator.
----------------
What are we to believe when we have two extreme liberal democrats talking about an event where a crime may have been committed and both are telling different stories? And, who do you believe?
One person is a retired 2-Star U.S. Navy Rear Admiral (upper half) after holding for a short period the rank of a 3-star Vice Admiral. A man with over 30 years service and the highest ranking former military officer currently serving in Congress. A person who commanded USS George Washington aircraft carrier battle group in Afghanistan and Iraq. He served as Director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and, following the September 11 attacks, was selected to serve as the first Director of "Deep Blue," the Navy's anti-terrorism unit. This man was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree in American political systems. Between tours at sea, he earned a Master of Public Administration and a Ph.D. in political economy and government from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The other person is an experienced political operative who was part of the Chicago political machine. He attended the University of Chicago majoring in political science. After graduating he worked as City Hall Bureau Chief and a political columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is a longtime strategist for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and styles himself a "specialist in urban politics." In 2002, he was retained by the Liberal Party of Ontario Canada to help Dalton McGuinty and his party to be elected into government. In 2004, he worked for John Edwards' presidential campaign. In 2006, he consulted for several campaigns, including for Eliot Spitzer in New York's gubernatorial election and for Deval Patrick in Massachusetts's gubernatorial election. He also served in 2006 as the chief political adviser for Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel. He also served as the chief strategist and media advisor for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. On November 20, 2008, Barack Obama named him as a Senior Advisor to his administration.
The first man is Pennsylvania U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak and the second man is Presidential Senior Advisor David Axelrod. Sestak says that he was offered a position in the Obama Administration if he would withdraw from the Democratic Senate primary as a candidate against Sen. Arlene Specter. If true, by law this would constitute an attempted bribe. Admiral Sestak is either telling the truth or he is lying.
Enter David Axelrod who tells CNN’s John King that there is “no evidence” that the bribe attempt ever happened. Axelrod acknowledged that if such an offer had been made that it would have been “a serious breach of the law.
So who do you believe is speaking the truth? Is it Sestak, who appears to have not hid that he had been offered a at least a promise of a position not to run for elections. Or, is it Axelrod the Chicago political activist? Heck, both may be are telling the truth. Maybe Axelrod is playing the shill having been offered no or little info and is parroting the response fed to him. If so, who provided the comment being parroted? Do we have a conspiracy going on in the White House? If a bribe was offered, who made it and by what authority? If the position was Secretary of Navy or another significant post, how could the position have been offered without knowledge of the President Obama? Was another presidential adviser responsible; maybe White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel or senior adviser and assistant to the president Valerie Bowman Jarrett? If no position was offered, then the Admiral is lying and needs to withdraw from office.
Who will be the scapegoat to protect President Obama? Heck, maybe they can blame the presidential teleprompter! It is time for a Congressional investigation and for a Special Prosecutor to be appointed to determine the facts on whether a position was offered to Sestak and if it was, who offered the position and by what authority. Let's cut the distraction and get to the facts.
Tags: Joe Sestak, David Axelrod, bribery, interfering with election process, Obama administration, Barack Obama To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
If Sestak concurs with events as to be reported, it will illustrate 1) that a former Admiral may have been pressured by a former Commander-in-Chief, 2) Bill Clinton was willing to speak on behalf of and support the administration that defeated his wife, Hillary, as president and 3) Democrats are a strange breed but they know Bill Clinton is the master of double speak. It is interesting that the White House may claim they were not involved, Based on historical precedence, if the current President, Cabinet Secretary, or Senior White House staff member asks for another person to speak on their behalf to another person or country representative, it is indeed a message from the White House or the US Government. Using a former President, would indeed reflect that the White House intended for Sestak to step aside and that he would be rewarded accordingly.
Sestak has not resigned his military commission. He took an oath as a military officer, let's see if he still believes in the sanctity of that Oath. If Sestak was not telling the truth or if he now bows to political pressure form the White House in reshaping the events of the offer, then Sestak should not be a U.S. Senator.
----------------
What are we to believe when we have two extreme liberal democrats talking about an event where a crime may have been committed and both are telling different stories? And, who do you believe?
One person is a retired 2-Star U.S. Navy Rear Admiral (upper half) after holding for a short period the rank of a 3-star Vice Admiral. A man with over 30 years service and the highest ranking former military officer currently serving in Congress. A person who commanded USS George Washington aircraft carrier battle group in Afghanistan and Iraq. He served as Director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and, following the September 11 attacks, was selected to serve as the first Director of "Deep Blue," the Navy's anti-terrorism unit. This man was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree in American political systems. Between tours at sea, he earned a Master of Public Administration and a Ph.D. in political economy and government from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
The other person is an experienced political operative who was part of the Chicago political machine. He attended the University of Chicago majoring in political science. After graduating he worked as City Hall Bureau Chief and a political columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is a longtime strategist for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and styles himself a "specialist in urban politics." In 2002, he was retained by the Liberal Party of Ontario Canada to help Dalton McGuinty and his party to be elected into government. In 2004, he worked for John Edwards' presidential campaign. In 2006, he consulted for several campaigns, including for Eliot Spitzer in New York's gubernatorial election and for Deval Patrick in Massachusetts's gubernatorial election. He also served in 2006 as the chief political adviser for Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel. He also served as the chief strategist and media advisor for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. On November 20, 2008, Barack Obama named him as a Senior Advisor to his administration.
The first man is Pennsylvania U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak and the second man is Presidential Senior Advisor David Axelrod. Sestak says that he was offered a position in the Obama Administration if he would withdraw from the Democratic Senate primary as a candidate against Sen. Arlene Specter. If true, by law this would constitute an attempted bribe. Admiral Sestak is either telling the truth or he is lying.
Enter David Axelrod who tells CNN’s John King that there is “no evidence” that the bribe attempt ever happened. Axelrod acknowledged that if such an offer had been made that it would have been “a serious breach of the law.
So who do you believe is speaking the truth? Is it Sestak, who appears to have not hid that he had been offered a at least a promise of a position not to run for elections. Or, is it Axelrod the Chicago political activist? Heck, both may be are telling the truth. Maybe Axelrod is playing the shill having been offered no or little info and is parroting the response fed to him. If so, who provided the comment being parroted? Do we have a conspiracy going on in the White House? If a bribe was offered, who made it and by what authority? If the position was Secretary of Navy or another significant post, how could the position have been offered without knowledge of the President Obama? Was another presidential adviser responsible; maybe White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel or senior adviser and assistant to the president Valerie Bowman Jarrett? If no position was offered, then the Admiral is lying and needs to withdraw from office.
Who will be the scapegoat to protect President Obama? Heck, maybe they can blame the presidential teleprompter! It is time for a Congressional investigation and for a Special Prosecutor to be appointed to determine the facts on whether a position was offered to Sestak and if it was, who offered the position and by what authority. Let's cut the distraction and get to the facts.
Tags: Joe Sestak, David Axelrod, bribery, interfering with election process, Obama administration, Barack Obama To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 10:00 AM - Post Link
3 Comments:
If nothing else we need a scapegoat from the WH staff.
Never thought of comparing the backgrounds of the possible "Liars". Axelrod's vs. Stupak.
Possible excuse is it was a loose cannon that made the Chicago offer, Rahm ? After all, Illinois Politics has a History (and a current Court Trial) of selling/peddling Political Offices. THIS is not a NEW never before seen "Incident" in Illinois.
4Speed Right On.
It is time for the Chicago political mob to ante up with someone resigning (it won't be Obama) for screwing up mixing Chicago politics with Washington style politics. Wonder if Rod Blagojevich was indeed following the rules set by the Obama White House for quid pro quo.
Friends: So we're asked to believe that after stonewalling the public for months on the job offer the White House made to Joe Sestak, we're now told that it was only an offer for an unpaid commission position. Yeah, sure!!!! So let me see if I have this right. Former President Bill Clinton, who the news media has told us for years now is the greatest political mind in the Democrat Party, calls Congressman Joe Sestak on behest of President Obama [since Bill Clinton has no authority to offer anyone a federal job], saying "Hey Joe, have I got a GREAT DEAL for you. If you will drop out of the Senate race in Pennsylvania and give up being a United States Senator, the White House will put you on an unpaid advisory commission?". Who in their right mind believes this is what happened? Surely Bill Clinton is not so stupid as to think anyone would be interested in such a position rather than being a U. S. Senator???
Yet THIS is the White House claim and this is the story Sestak is telling. Is this what they seem to think we're so stupid as to believe? Yeah, sure. these people must truly think we're all stupid. Or maybe we are.
Let's see if anyone in the news media will confront the Obama Administration with the sheer goofiness of their story and the incredible lack of any common sense it makes that a Former President would offer anyone such a dumb proposal??? Lets see if the media, thus far simply a propaganda arm for the Obama Presidency, will buy into this and dismiss it and not cover it any more and move on, leaving the public stuck with the idea that somehow this 3rd grade level fabrication is, in fact, what happened. Even the Democrats aren't so stupid as to make such a meaningless offer to a retired Navy Admiral.
I also find it disturbing to see the news media keep dismissing this as "this is the way things are done all the time in Washington". Either there are laws against this and this is a violation at the highest level in our government and they either have to obey the same laws as the rest of us --- or if not, then yes, it will become the way things are done in Washington.
And if the President can violate our criminal statutes and the news media looks the other way, then soon the rest of government will begin to do the same. I just returned from Washington DC, working with the US SBA, even the folks up there don't believe this crap.
Get involved in these elections, if not this will become the norm.
Post a Comment
<< Home