The Obama Passport Scandal

Or maybe just overly curious contract employees.

Bill Gertz:

Two State Department employees were fired recently and a third disciplined for improperly accessing electronic personal data on Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The officials, all contract workers, used their authorized computer network access to look up files within the department's consular affairs section, which processes and stores passport information, and read Mr. Obama's passport application and other records, in violation of department privacy rules, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was notified of the security breach yesterday, and responded by saying security measures used to monitor records of high-profile Americans worked properly in detecting the breaches.

Mr. McCormack said the officials did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.

"As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity," Mr. McCormack told The Washington Times.

The FBI is apparently investigating.

Comments

Three separate incidences over 3 months?
Sounds like a pattern, not mere "curiosity".

Posted by julie | March 20, 2008 9:00 PM

What is Condi doing she did not bother to call Barack Obama personally? Also did anyone notice that the undersecretary for this department work from 1993 to 2001 for the Clinton Administration? Someone needs to answer the basic question why did it take three months to inform the Obama Senate Office?

Posted by craig | March 20, 2008 9:04 PM

The incidents happened after the Iowa and Wisconsin wins, and when the Wright tapes exploded. Am I getting paranoid?

Posted by Judy | March 20, 2008 9:07 PM

Yes, Judy, but that's the way Obama supporters (of which i am) wants this to play. Let's make sure this plays as if Obama is victim of a right-wing conspiracy that meshes Wright and the passport and whatever else. Best way to make all this go away :)
Better yet, remembering people in articles of the last time it happened (in 1992 when Bush operatives were trying to prove something about Clinton and Vietnam) draws the parallels we want.

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 9:10 PM

Let me get this straight. Because this was done by contract employees who work for a company that is dependent on contracts from the current and presumably future Republican administrations, it is assumed that "the officials did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party." Give me a break.

Posted by Christopher | March 20, 2008 9:11 PM

What really amazes me is that one would assume that after the first breach, an email warning would have been circulated to all employees with access to records of this sort, warning everyone that such behavior would be grounds for immediate termination and subject to possible legal actions.

Posted by Belmont Fan | March 20, 2008 9:11 PM

What really amazes me is that one would assume that after the first breach, an email warning would have been circulated to all employees with access to records of this sort, warning everyone that such behavior would be grounds for immediate termination and subject to possible legal actions.

Posted by Belmont Fan | March 20, 2008 9:12 PM

Let me get this straight. Because this was done by contract employees who work for a company that is dependent on contracts from the current and presumably future Republican administrations, it is assumed that "the officials did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party." Give me a break.

Posted by Christopher | March 20, 2008 9:12 PM

Let me get this straight. Because this was done by contract employees who work for a company that is dependent on contracts from the current and presumably future Republican administrations, it is assumed that "the officials did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party." Give me a break.

Posted by Christopher | March 20, 2008 9:13 PM

Marc:

(1) Were each of the employees fired after the incident or recently?

(2) Why didn't anyone inform Sen. Obama his information had been improperly accessed after the first incident given the risks of indentity theft?

(3)Why are they not releasing the name of the contractor given the ties that contractor may have and the individuals may have?

(4) Did any of these three individuals work for the same contractor on the same subject and did they have connections with each other?

Three times seems like a pattern to me. Why wasn't an email sent reminding people of protocol after the first incident? Did they not realize until the last incident on the 14th of March? If so, could there have been other times his information was improperly accessed?

Posted by Rhoda | March 20, 2008 9:24 PM

There's really no reason to be suspicious. This merely sounds like a "third-rate burglary" of private passport information as an independent act based on "curiosity". Probably a coincidence that it was Barack Obama's files. No reason to distrust this administration's veracity. Probably just a mistake. You will love big brother.

Posted by third rate | March 20, 2008 9:38 PM

The same thing happened to Bill Clinton under Papa Bush's reign in 1992.

Posted by ben | March 20, 2008 9:42 PM

No reason for it or not. Team Obama should burn this story for what it is worth. Tie this to the right wing attach machine/FISA/privacy/Bush wiretapping and it can hit pay dirt.

Posted by SonnyL. | March 20, 2008 9:45 PM

So what?

Posted by Edster | March 20, 2008 9:47 PM

"This is a tempest in a teapot. Low-level operatives do this sort of thing all the time. Just because they're both now working for the Heritage Foundation as Senior Consultants is no reason to think this is politically motivated. And just because they both recently opened bank accounts in the Cayman Islands doesn't mean they didn't, for example, win a lottery or something. Move on folks, nothing to see here."

--G. Gordon Liddy

Posted by TrueBlue Hussein | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM

Which is worse:

A) If Condi knew
B) If Condi didn't know (as MSNBC is suggesting by saying her employee only found out today)

Posted by Karen | March 20, 2008 9:49 PM

Let me get this straight. The files were breached once a month for three months by three different people who were all just curious contractors? This is one of the most ludicrous explanations yet from this Administration. Nevermind that no one even notified Barack about the breach. It's official, our criminal government thinks we are all STUPID.

Posted by Ezzy | March 20, 2008 9:51 PM

Karen Tulmulty at Swampland was blogging the conference call in the replies to her post on this subject: they said a reporter tipped them off and the managers didn't kick this upstairs. Which begs the question; are the managers contractors and why weren't they fired too for failing to suppress this?

Also, the State Dept. wouldn't put money that it hasn't happened other times.

Posted by Rhoda | March 20, 2008 9:53 PM

Our country under W's admin = BANANA republic

Anyne in admin can do anything to common citizens and political opponents. They have no shame, no credibility.

How is it different than what happens in a country under dictatorship?

Posted by March | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM

I wonder why no media will report on Hillary’s 15 year membership with “The Fellowship”
Have you read about it yet?

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Posted by D. Williams | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM

This is obviously a huge cover-up imprudent curiosity?.. As Andrea Mitchell of NbC the three dates correspond with Obamas rise as significant player. I believe from the very top they were looking for dirt on Obama. As they did when Bill Clinton was a rising star during the first Bush administration. Since Bush basically elimanated most of our justice department(Gonzales etc etc) How will we find out the truth. Outrageous.

Posted by Jerry Robinson | March 20, 2008 9:58 PM

This is obviously a huge cover-up imprudent curiosity?.. As Andrea Mitchell of NbC the three dates correspond with Obamas rise as significant player. I believe from the very top they were looking for dirt on Obama. As they did when Bill Clinton was a rising star during the first Bush administration. Since Bush basically elimanated most of our justice department(Gonzales etc etc) How will we find out the truth. Outrageous.

Posted by Jerry Robinson | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM

This is obviously a huge cover-up imprudent curiosity?.. As Andrea Mitchell of NbC the three dates correspond with Obamas rise as significant player. I believe from the very top they were looking for dirt on Obama. As they did when Bill Clinton was a rising star during the first Bush administration. Since Bush basically elimanated most of our justice department(Gonzales etc etc) How will we find out the truth. Outrageous.

Posted by Jerry Robinson | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM

This is obviously a huge cover-up imprudent curiosity?.. As Andrea Mitchell of NbC the three dates correspond with Obamas rise as significant player. I believe from the very top they were looking for dirt on Obama. As they did when Bill Clinton was a rising star during the first Bush administration. Since Bush basically elimanated most of our justice department(Gonzales etc etc) How will we find out the truth. Outrageous.

Posted by Jerry Robinson | March 20, 2008 9:59 PM

Let us look at this:

It is perfectly fine to out an undercover CIA agent.

It is ok for govt to listen to telephonic conversations of Americans.

It is perfectly fine to fire US Attorneys who don't say "yes sir" to republican politicians.

It is perfectly fine for republican congressman to try to screw his male pages and then republican speaker puts it under wrap for months.

It is perfectly fine to lie and lead nation to a war.

It is perfectly fine to look into opposite party's presidential candidate's passport file not once but thrice.

Are we living in United States of America?

Posted by Candy | March 20, 2008 10:07 PM

Now Obama is going to make himself another victim of something. sob sob. He's such a whiner. He needs a dose of guts. No wonder we never hear anything REAL from him. Like, what about the economy, stupid? Commander in Chief? I don't think so.

Posted by lhal | March 20, 2008 10:12 PM

It has the distinct wiff of racism. What do ya'all think? This is too close to the "Pastor Fiasco". It gives one pause.

Posted by linda | March 20, 2008 10:20 PM

"Now Obama is going to make himself another victim of something."

You must be a Bush supporter, since his dad is the one who did this to Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton and Obama supporters can both unite around this ridiculous breach of privacy.

Posted by Karen | March 20, 2008 10:23 PM

"It has the distinct wiff of racism. What do ya'all think? This is too close to the "Pastor Fiasco". It gives one pause."

Breaching privacy does not necessarily indicate racism. It can happen to anyone by anyone. Not sure what whiff you're talking about?

Posted by Briana | March 20, 2008 10:29 PM

As an Obama supporter, I don't like that his campaign immediately came out accusing, or insinuating, that GW had something to do with this. Let the details flesh out instead of knee-jerking to a very new story.

Maybe they know more than we do, but if it turns out that GW or Republican party members had nothing to do with this, or if that's what the public perceives, then it's going to backfire.

Posted by socctty | March 20, 2008 10:34 PM

...amending my comments, I think it's interesting that a contractor was invovled. This contracting shit has gotten out of control: key exhibit being KBR.

What could have happened here is that a registered Republican voter just got their hands on something without a need to know, and can leak it without having an ax fall on anyone's head. This is one reason why we can't contract everything out; it's harder to enforce ethical standards, because it's not as easy to indoctrinate a culture of ethics. Contractors just worry about the bottom line.

Posted by socctty | March 20, 2008 10:37 PM

Obama's campaign didn't saw that GW had anything to do with this. They are asking for an investigation. It's either incompetence or something more sinister.

I agree that they don't need to push it too hard, although there are political reasons to grab headlines like this.

Posted by Linda | March 20, 2008 10:38 PM

Sorry, I meant "say", not "saw".

Posted by Linda | March 20, 2008 10:39 PM

Looking at OBammBamm's passport file....

Hmmmm... How old was OBammBammm when he got his first passport?

Does that make these people pedofiles?

Posted by D | March 20, 2008 10:40 PM

Imprudent curiosity? Coincidence you say?...wrighhhttttttt!

Posted by HarryInHouston | March 20, 2008 10:42 PM

The Washington Times has now changed its story. Without admitting it ever said "yesterday," the article now claims Rice found out today!

The Moonie newspaper never tells us it changed its story.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NATION/541139809/1001

Posted by Mark Levine | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM

Hum, there appears to be another "Linda" posting here tonight.
Knock yourself out goof

Posted by linda | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM

Hum, there appears to be another "Linda" posting here tonight.
Knock yourself out goof

Posted by linda | March 20, 2008 10:49 PM

Linda -

They insinuated as much by dropping the "administration" phrase of the statement. I definitely wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that the GOP was involved, don't get me wrong. But I think Obama's campaign would have been best-served to wait for the details to develop more elaborately, while still perhaps openly denouncing the acts and keeping the issue alive.

Wait for the dirt to surface, don't just wantonly accuse the GOP or GOP politicians or officials of dirty politics, even though that's very likely the case. It only presents an opportunity for the O'Reilly's to label Obama with that "whiny reactionary liberal" label.

Posted by socctty | March 20, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm wondering about the principle of "respondiat superior" where the boss is responsible for the acts of the employee if he knew, or should have know, that something was going on. Where does this leave Condi? After one occasion, she should have know, and certainly long before 3 occasions.

Posted by JOAN | March 20, 2008 11:00 PM

How can anyone draw an intelligent conclusion that these people were just innocent curiosity seekers, without any political motives, this soon, when there has been no investigation.

It seems to be a very quick rush to exonerate these people. And it seems that there was no investigation yet because this was not passed along to the proper superiors.

Posted by cm | March 20, 2008 11:05 PM

I kind of doubt the importance of these dates, as Kremer and Olbermann are banging on. Pollsters know how these elections are going to turn out, within a margin of error at least. You would think that they would look into his passport information before an election, not after, so that they could float any odd information through the media cycle right before an election. Maybe there's something I'm overlooking.

Obama's campaign has proven that these pollsters know the outcomes of these elections fairly accurately, well ahead of time. If anything, it lends credence to the "curiosity" excuse - regular people would be curious about this guy with a funny name that's winning all these states right after big primary days.

I highly doubt that it's just innocent curiosity, though... it's just that floating this idea of a correlation between the dates and recent political events isn't leading anywhere except to wondering, emptily, out-loud.

Posted by socctty | March 20, 2008 11:24 PM

Isn't the standard protocol (rule of law one might say) for breaches of the Privacy Act to have an investigation by the Inspector General? It sounds like there was no such investigation, yet they're certain in wasn't political.

It could be 527-level political activity. But anyway, it seems this is a key problem with the privatization of our government--privatization means no accountability, and the motivations of these people can't be determined.

It's too early to rush to judgment on conspiracy theories, but it also seems way to early to assume it is NOT politically motivated, as the State Department officials are doing. I mean, how can they be so sure if there was no investigation?

Did I hear right on MSNBC that the Inspector General for that office was dismissed on bribery charges just a few months ago? Isn't all this a bit wierd? Why would we trust that office? They never investigated anything, and they're taking bribes?

Posted by Vaughan | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM

According to Olbermann, one of the people in charge of the office involved was someone that Clinton had named an ambassador...in other words, this may be the work of Clinton people. Do not count it out.

Remember, so far McCain has acted far more honorably towards Obama than has Hillary. Hillary is a sick, disgusting figure in American politics, who is trying to kill off both the Democratic party and its most inspiring candidate of a generation.

Obama is so clearly the way to go, and Hillary is on a suicide mission. It's time for the superdelegates to shut her down.

Posted by cm | March 20, 2008 11:31 PM

CM:

I saw the same report. At this point, I'd suggest chalking that up to a coincidence until there is more meat on the bone.

Posted by Keith | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM

Vaughn:

If you will recall, the State Department's Inspector General had to resign in December in connection with the Blackwater incident.

Posted by Keith | March 20, 2008 11:42 PM

Vaughan -

I work for DoD, and for us, typically a (singular, at least) Privacy Act violation would probably just be investigated at the unit Security Manager level. A report would probably be made, and if anything suspicious came up, I'm sure other organizations would be brought in.

But I can't imagine that three such incidents involving a US Senator running for President wouldn't attract the immediate attention of a responsible party who would then immediately notify someone of significantly higher authority, such as an IG. There is either a cover-up here, complacency, or ineptitude. Things weren't carried out the way they should have been.

I think you're dead-on about the 527 business, and your privatization comment echoed mine. I'm pretty sick of this contractor crap. There are just some things that you cannot afford to contract out - such as essential supply chain operations in the military, or something like this.

I've got a leery eye aimed at the Clintons as well...

Posted by socctty | March 20, 2008 11:43 PM

Even if the Clintons are tied to this somehow, the MSM will not give it the airplay that the Pastor Wright video got, and it won't have the same visceral impact that an angry black preacher does.

But, if there are Clinton fingerprints on this passport thing, it sure ought to influence the thinking of the superdelegates...

Posted by baronessa | March 20, 2008 11:52 PM

undoubtedly obama's passport bears the stamps of the following countries: iran, north korea, libya, syria, pakistan, sudan, yemen.

Posted by marcus welby | March 21, 2008 12:06 AM

Alright everyone you are all overreacting. When someone has access to private information curiosity sometimes gets the better of them. When they do that they get fired, correctly, but the fact that this was reported by the very people you are claiming are creating some sort of conspiracy to screw over Senator Obama proves to me this really isn't anything more than curiosity. At the least Secretary Rice is doing her job, as are the people monitoring this information.

Posted by Daniel | March 21, 2008 12:21 AM

Let's take the "best" case scenario. It was just three lunkheads with nothing better to do with their time. . . Look at it that way and the affair is just one more piece of evidence that great national security government of GWB can't even secure its own State Dept and has crippled the govt's ability to run anything.

that's the "best" case scenario. Time will tell how much worse than that it was. Could it have been the Clintons, out to do some charcater assasination? Just because they did it to all of Bills sex partners shouldn't mean that they'd do it to anyone else, right? Could it have been the Bushies? Just because they politicized the US Attorneys and fired a bunch of them for not sufficiently prosecuting Democrats on trumped up charges is no reason to think they'd do something like this. Or try to interfere in an election.....

Maybe someone should look into, don't you think?

Posted by joe shmoe | March 21, 2008 12:27 AM

While we can't jump to conclusions I wish it looked more like bush.

Maura Hardy, the Clinton connection, was running the office when the first two breaches occurred. It stopped at her-she talked to them, found them just curious, they were fired, she did not report it higher. Then she left the department.

The 3rd breach occurs last week and in investigating that breach they learn of the first two for the first time.

If I were a republican I'd find it delightful. One candidate made to look like angry, racist, anti-American kind of guy and then this to foul the other.
Makes the really old guyt who has a big temper and a short memory look like the strongest candidate?

Let it not be what appearances suggest.

Posted by JoyN | March 21, 2008 12:35 AM

Wow. So many coincidences, so little investigation. None, actually.

But it's ok America--it's just a case of "imprudent curiosity". We know this because...well, we say that's what it is. It just took us a while to say it.

Maura Hardy? Simply running things. Retired after the first two unreported breaches? She was tired. New guy is a Clinton supporter? AGAIN with the coincidence. Those crazy politicians! It's so fun, playing with our little government, isn't it?

Will people get over being frightened of the swarthy black man with the funny name and get on with it? I'd love to hear about some issues again.

Posted by tastytone | March 21, 2008 2:10 AM

You don't need to look at his passport application to know what the man is. A LIAR and a HYPOCRITE. He has been shown as that in the public eye enough times, there is no need to dig any further.

That is who he is. A LIAR and HYPOCRITE. The man is nearly 50 years old. He isn't going to CHANGE. No matter how much he HOPES. His life is more than half over, and the formative part is well in the past already.

Posted by robert ethan | March 21, 2008 2:48 AM

"Alright everyone you are all overreacting....At the least Secretary Rice is doing her job, as are the people monitoring this information."

Did you actually read any of the coverage? Rice wasn't notified about it until today.

The folks reporting to Rice didn't do their job. Not sure how you can claim Rice is doing her job?

Posted by Linda R. | March 21, 2008 2:54 AM

This isn't that complicated:
1. Who hired the contractor?
2. Who handled the case in the State Dept. and buried it for three months?
3. Why won't they release the names of the three fired employees?
Just follow the money.
It's the Bush machine helping the Clinton machine: There should be a full investigation by the FBI, and the names of the three fired plumbers, er, "unnamed contract employees by an unnamed contractor" should be revealed.
It's not that complicated.
Or is it?

Posted by fougasseu | March 21, 2008 3:44 AM

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico just endorsed Obama. It's on the AP wire.

Maybe now those superdelegates will get moving and wrap this thing up sooner than later....

Posted by cosmo | March 21, 2008 4:06 AM

cosmo - Eh. Does Bill Richardson carry that much weight? I doubt it. It probably reflects more negatively on Hillary than it reflects positively on Obama.

He gave props to the Obama speech and then more or less indicated that he was doing this to get the process along and get Hillary out of the race.

I live in New Mexico, and at an Obama meeting in Las Cruces, I talked to a former local politician. She didn't have much good to say about Bill Richardson.

Posted by socctty | March 21, 2008 4:48 AM

Barack Obama FEAR SMEAR?

Barack Obama
STAND WITH
Ralph Nader
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
NOT
DNC Hillary Clinton
RNC John McCain

Eyes wide open
Testify

Posted by gravel kucinich paul nader | March 21, 2008 5:13 AM

Barack Obama FEAR SMEAR?

Barack Obama
STAND WITH
Ralph Nader
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
NOT
DNC Hillary Clinton
RNC John McCain

Eyes wide open
Testify

Posted by gravel kucinich paul nader | March 21, 2008 5:16 AM

It's a really good thing this nation doesn't have larger, more pressing problems like a faltering economy or war or something like that right now. At least we have time to FOCUS ON SUCH SECONDARY ISSUES LIKE A THIRD-RATE CLERK LOOKING AT A PASSPORT. I'm a former Democrat who left the Democratic Party because they could never focus on anything, but always took us off on a million, splintered issues. I've been a card-carrying Independent for many years. The Democratic Party used to be about FAIR TAXES AND WAGES, GOOD EDUCATION AND AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE, PERIOD. Now it's about one salacious, personal issue and attack after another. And the previous Rove-led Republicans were just as bad. At least McCain focuses on something relevant, whether you like his approach or not.

Posted by Leigh | March 21, 2008 6:58 AM

I think what the Obama campaign rightly had an issue with is why the Senator was not informed about these incidents for over 70 days in the case of the 1st breach.

What is even more interesting is that no one in the upper mgmt. of State knew until yesterday and only found out after being contacted by the press.

My question is why the State Dept. doesn't have programming in place to have a higher security clearance to view the personal information of persons of interest.

Like another poster here from the DoD, my partner works for the DoE and contractors do NOT have to take an "oath of office" like civil employees do.

Even IF this is just "snooping", to have 3 separate contract employees doing this at 3 separate times and NOT have anyone investigating these breaches, stretches belief to fantasy.

Posted by Dari | March 21, 2008 8:34 AM

Ask Michael Steele, ( a black man BTW...), what he thinks about people, (like Chucky Schumer perhaps?), snooping around his private files - like his credit report for example. Or Jack Ryan about 'SEALED' divorce papers containing UN-, (as in 'never'), unsubstantiated claims by a wife trying to gain custody in a divorce who could just as well claim her ex was from Mars and has no fear of punnishment for lying - because there IS NONE for doing that, (hence the reason the docs are 'SEALED'). And then let's consider snooping at FBI files of political opponents and using the 'everyone does it' excuse when caught. The NAMES of these contractors are being witheld by MSM and THAT means they are democrats. But we'll get the names via FOIA as easily as the Chicago Trubune got what it wanted by going to an ultra-lib, Jerry Brown appointed Los Angeles judge. ... and then go to newsmeat dot com and do a little 'snooping' of our own.

Posted by Mike M. | March 21, 2008 9:09 AM

I don't know why the name of the contractor should be withheld from the public. I do know that Stanley, Inc. of Arlington, VA, had been awarded the contract to produce passports for the State Dept. at one time.

Posted by A. Nonymous | March 21, 2008 10:10 AM

Can you say paranoid? Maybe there is something devious going on here and maybe there isn't. Why not wait until the facts are out before we burn the building?
As you conspiracy theorists should be aware, the investigation will be under the guidance of the democrats in Washington.

Posted by Stewart | March 21, 2008 11:10 AM

Leigh - I've been a card-carrying Independent for many years. The Democratic Party used to be about FAIR TAXES AND WAGES, GOOD EDUCATION AND AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE, PERIOD. Now it's about one salacious, personal issue and attack after another.

Agree. But the more I think about the passport business, the more I think most voters share the State Dpt clerk and contractor's "undue curiosity".

Meaning we SHOULD know what countries a candidate has visited and why they went. And who paid for it. Maybe to just get an idea of their priorities, focus and if there are any problems like 3 "vacations" to Yemen in the 90s. Or Kucinich visiting Cuba as a VIP, 6 times.

Or how little experience they have - like Obama only having 1 day in Europe ever, on a stopover. Or Huckabee never being out of the US except for a 4-day Cayman Islands vacation.

And that would also go for someone claiming that they were privy to all sorts of top-level meetings and party to all sorts of high decisions as the spouse of a major figure - now running for office. Hillary isn't the 1st, nor will she be the last nepotically connected US or foreign figure to claim "experience by proxy". I think it would be a good general rule that if another Hillary shows up, they are under obligations to show the records and proof they are what they say they are as an influential spouse from Day 1 of the campaign so voters can judge - rather than just "trust me, I'm ready to lead on Day 1".

Posted by chris ford | March 21, 2008 10:45 PM

The date this was discovered occurred roughly three weeks ahead of Obama's famous discussion in San Francisco of how the poor, lower class, lower middle class small town Americans have been hung out to dry by other politicians, and left these small town Americans "bitter ... with antipathy for immigrants, trade agreements ... as they cling to their guns, and resentments, and religion, etc."
On April 10, 2008, Obama made these statements to a group of Ultra Liberal Elitists in San Francisco. Integrated into that same discussion were his comments that he was bored with his campaign against Hillary ... and, he disclosed, for the first time ever -- EVER -- that he had traveled to Pakistan for three weeks, in 1981, with several Pakistani friends.
In fact, Obama had three or four Pakistani friends, one of whom was Sidiqqi Jal, or "Sadik," as Obama called him. It is clear that when he left Occidental College, in CA, he knew one Pakistani named Chandoo, and another, named Hamid, and must have been referred to Sadik. Obama, in his own book, mentions coming to the edges of Harlem when he came to NYC, Columbia, and wound up rooming with "Sadik." Sadik was an illegal immigrant -- here on an overstayed student visa.
Sometime in 1981, Obama went to Pakistan with Hamid and Chandoo. They stayed with a man named Mian Mohammadian Soomro. Soomro had been called by someone he refuses to identify, because, "I think he lives somewhere in South America now, and I am not sure of his profile."
Chandoo, Sadik, and Hamid are all zipped lips about the trip to Pakistan, as is Soomro. Soomro, a well-connected banker, is in at least the same class -- upper, as Chandoo and Hamid. He was a well connected banker, and had had dealings with USAID and the Ford Foundation in Pakistan, both places where Stanley Ann Obama Soetero worked. Her first husband, Barack Obama, was in fact, a Muslim convert, and had dumped her and Barack to go to NYC. Allegations have been made that Obama tried, but failed, to get into New York City's New School Of Social Theory.
Google that and you will find that some of the actual Communist Party U.S.A. members who were suspected of spying for the Soviets, were, in fact, associated with the place. Read The VENONA Project decrypt summaries, and you'll know some of them WERE actual Soviet spies, working for GRU or KGB.
Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama met in a Russia language class, in their bachelor's degree days. In those days, it is clear that studying Russian was a sure way to get noticed by the C.I.A., and sometimes, even the F.B.I., but for very different reasons.
Ms. Dunham, believe it or not, worked for USAID and the Ford Foundation. I'd suggest googling them, and you will see that both were fronts for the C.I.A. In fact, it's likely they still are, particularly since both contract out much of their work. It is indisputable that Ms. Dunham Obama worked in Pakistan, and learned Urdu, in addition to Russian, and Indonesia dialects. One person suggested she was a real "fellow traveler," in her contacts in Indonesia.
While all that is background, and verifiable by googling these matters, nothing of any detail has YET emerged on Obama's Pakistan trip. He admits to going to Karachi, and spent 4 days with Soomro, et al, in Jacobabad, and then mentions Hyderabad (INDIA). There is, in fact, as much of a case to suspect he was in Hyderabad, PAKISTAN. It is also verifiable that Osama bin Laden, being funded already by the C.I.A., Egyptian, Saudi, and Pakistani Intelligence (I.S.I.), visited Hyderabad, in 1981. He apparently visited Afghan refugee camps there, and elsewhere in Pakistan.
Obama, as now, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party, has an OBLIGATION to give the green light to Soomro; Hamid; Chandoo; Sadik; and everyone else (the contact who called Soomro as well), and authorize them ALL to speak freely about this trip. It is amazing to know that the mainstream press, apparently including this author, hasn't seen there MAY BE A CONNECTION with the State Department intrusions, and his first time ever admission of the Pakistan trip.
It is possible that in his debriefing by State Department security, or, the F.B.I. (since he's been under Secret Service Protection and likely, F.B.I., assistance), that they learnred the intruders WERE, in HIS case, looking for any mention of a trip to Pakistan. It would have been unnecessary to say: if you don't disclose your Pakistan trip ... we will. Of course, they could not do so legally. But, let's face it, such a tidbit would be hard not to leak to the press. Although, that, too, does not seem to have happened, since the Press hasn't put this together.
Having worked in a function of the government where I had access to records, I can easily say that there is more data in such records than one might think, if one is astute. For instance, if someone had been ASKED to peek at the records of the three candidates, and had reported what they'd seen, photographed, or xeroxed, then it might be possible to know ... "did you know that Obama went to Pakistan in 1981?" Or, more suspiciously,
"when you look at Obama's records, see if he listed a trip to PAKISTAN, in 1981!" If I'm right, his records were viewed TWICE.
Once ... "yes, he listed a trip to Pakistan ..." or, "No, he didn't," and twice -- make sure you know what you're talking about. Don't copy it, because the computer system will register you did that. Write it all down, or memorize it. We need to be SURE!"
And, when FBI interviews peekers ... "what the hell were you looking for?" Being inexperienced, it could have emerged that the peekers WERE, in his case, LOOKING for a trip to Pakistan. As such, Obama breaks silence for the first time, to get out ahead of damage.
Except, on the Web, there IS no damage. NO ONE has really brought this up. NO ONE! And, that could easily be THE bomb waiting to go off, now that the Democrats have climbed completely out onto a very dry limb. NOW, or even AFTER the convention, will be when this emerges.
One or more posters on the Internet have suggested that in 1981, with Pakistan under Zia al-Haq's repressive regime, there weren't many reasons to go to these cities in Pakistan.
Reason 1 was: to connect with the jihad and mujahadeen of young muslim men from all over the world, volunteering to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan;
Reason 2 was: to enhance and deepen one's Islamic education by studying in a specialty wahabbist school in Pakistan;
Reason 3: to buy hash, opium, marijuana, or heroin.
We KNOW Obama used drugs, albeit, never mentions Hash or Opium or Heroin. As someone who was in Vietnam in 1966, I KNEW men who took several POUNDS of heroin home with them when they left. They KNEW they'd make damned good money with a pound of two of Vietnamese, Lao or Burmese heroin.
The least of Obama's worries would be if he was shipping drugs home.
The worst of his worries would be reasons 1 or 2. Or, some combination of both. He WAS also headed to Pakistan, where, again, he wanted to learn more about his father and grandfather's origins. I would suggest that the American people have A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF THIS TRIP. The truth, we're told, can "set us free." The fact is, the truth will either put all of this chatter aside, and end it, or, reveal that Obama has a gargantuan secret, and that as such, he is, in fact, a security risk.
Having worked around Top Secret/SCI material, I can say this: NO ONE who hid this stuff would EVER get a clearance automatically, In all likelihood, if there was ANY obfuscation of the facts AFTER being confronted, they'd NEVER get such a clearance. Why is that important?
Isn't it incredible to think that we'd have a senator with less than three years experience in the government, elected as President, unable to get any security clearance above SECRET????
Does everyone know that neither Roosevelt, nor Truman, most likely Eisenhower, nor Kennedy, nor Johnson, nor Nixon, nor Ford, nor Carter, nor Reagan -- EVER knew the details of the VENONA PROJECT? And does it not seem odd that they didn't?
In all likelihood, they simply were never CLEARED to know the details. Code breaking is THE most secret secret there is. And so, if they didn't know about VENONA, isn't that a liability?
Because HAD THEY KNOWN ABOUT VENONA, they might have put a stop to Joseph McCarthy's generalized accusations about "communists in the government." ONLY SINCE VENONA HAS BEEN DECLASSIFIED have we learned just how many communists in the U.S. Party, WERE spies. Not just "fellow travelers." And some of THEM, had associations with the New York School, New School of Social Research. That was, again, where Obama, Sr., wanted to attend school.
These confluences tell me that the Clintons have an inkling this shoe may drop. Hence, her hedging. And, in all likelihood, if the Democrat National Committee was wise, they'd force Obama to disclose this. And, if Senator Clinton does become his Vice President, I hope she forces him to do so, as a precondition for her joining the ticket. If he refuses, then I think every Obama supporter has serious reason to worry. Because in addition to a suggested "Michelle Obama anti-white rant caught on videotape" and in the possession of Swift Boaters, this Pakistan trip could be the deal BREAKER.
This is a serious problem. People should demand that Senator Obama disclose this, and do it right away. I will urge Senator Clinton to demand it of him, if she does become his running mate. The party may be over, but the nomination might not be, if there are legs to this story.
In fact, there already ARE legs to it, since it's very clearly, out here, on the Net. More and more disclosed, every day.

Posted by Jerry | June 4, 2008 12:42 PM