Unconventional thinking about the Middle East.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Obama’s Saudi Hook-Up (Updated)

So now we know who the Saudis may call in order to get to Barack Obama: an impish lil’ nut called Dr. Khalid al-Mansour. His original name used to be ‘Don Warden’ before converting to Islam. But the crazy thing is that he took a full Muslim name when he converted: Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour. What’s ridiculous about that is that Arabic Muslim names do not have the concept of middle names, so what Don effectively did was rename his father ‘Abdullah’ and his grandfather ‘Tariq’.

Did I mention that al-Mansour is an impish lil’ nut?

It seems that al-Mansour solicited recommendation letters and contacts to get Obama into Harvard Law School. He may even have raised money to pay for Obama’s tuition.

Now, I know what all of you are thinking: sure, I’d take anyone’s help to get into college, especially if they’re paying for it.

But Dr. al-Mansour isn’t just anyone: he is a radical ideologue with close ties to Saudi royalty. He is also blatantly anti-Jewish.

Sounds crazy that only now, three weeks from the election, we’re hearing about such characters in Obama’s past, right?

Why is this relevant?

Well, when we take al-Mansour and add him to Bill Ayers, and then take that sum total and add names such as Tony Rezko and Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the equation, it would seem that Obama’s early mentors were kooky, to say the least.

Obama has a very meager record by which to judge him, so we are reduced to scrounging around for what his deeply-held, maybe even secretly-held, views could be by studying who his early influences were.

I know something about the role of mentors in shaping one’s politics, and I must tell you—as objectively as possible even for a propagandist like me—this is dangerous ground.

The Rezko angle, for example, is especially compelling: I got to hear a thing or two about Rezko’s political views from a couple of Middle Eastern sources who have wined and dined him. Unfortunately, I can’t share any of it. But what I can say is this: Uh-oh.

How did Rezko even hear about Obama? Who put the two together in the first place when Obama was just about to finish up Law School and Rezko jumped in and offered him a job?

What is even more dangerous is that Obama is almost certainly going to get away with never having to explain these questionable relationships before the election. “Rev. Wright? Oh he’s just a pastor at my church.” “Ayers? Oh he’s just a guy in my neighborhood.” “Michelle? Oh she’s just some woman that I run into around the house.”

“Khalid? Oh he’s just a guy who helped get me into Harvard and paid my way through…”

Not going to happen.

And of course, we can’t check this latest stuff on Dr. al-Mansour out because Obama is keeping his college records sealed, and the ‘responsible’ media will not fetter him with any embarrassing questions at this late stage. The media, drunk on its own power in shaping this race, seems intent on not taking any chances to redeem its professionalism.

This video summarizes the issue well (thanks NG for letting me know about this story):

On the other hand, I think McCain would be a serious pain in the neck for the Saudis.

UPDATE (October 16, 2008):

I've been hearing some interesting follow-ups to my posts here on TG. There are three questions that stand-out:

1-Did Barack Obama accept any money towards tuition at Harvard Law School from Khalid al-Mansour? The implication here is that some of the money could have originated with the Saudis since al-Mansour, at the time, was already a paid advisor working on behalf of a couple of Saudi princes. [To their credit, the left-leaning Talking Points Memo called yesterday on the press to investigate the al-Mansour link, as a means of debunking such questions. I would like to know one way or the other: is it true or not. But more than that I would like the press to do its job and investigate.]

2-Did Obama make the acquaintance of Bill Ayers much earlier than previously reported, when the former was still an undergrad at Columbia University in the early 1980s? This would be another episode where Obama would have not been completely forthright about his past associations. Did al-Mansour and Ayers know each other? Did Ayers or his wife sever their relationship to the Weather Underground prior to the mid-1980s? If they didn't, and it gets revealed that Obama had met them during this period, then it would mean that Obama knew Ayers when the latter was still an active enabler of terrorism.

3-The area in eastern Kenya that Obama visited in 2006 was Wajir, a mostly Somali-speaking enclave. Did he specifically choose to visit this area because it was his ancestral home? And if so does that reveal anything about any ethnically Arab lineage that he may have?

UPDATE (October 17, 2008):

This story in Politico goes a long way towards disputing the Khalid al-Mansour angle, although it does leave some aspects unaddressed. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen this story when I first posted my message. Even so, there's still some unease here: Why hasn't Obama come out on the record to dispute this story? He had a spokesman do it, and even then with the caveat "to the best of our knowledge." I mean, they could easily paint this as a right-wing smear, and it would work to Obama's advantage. Why hasn't anyone been able to contact Sutton? Why didn't al-Mansour clarify some of these issues when Timmerman first contacted him? "Out of respect for Sutton" isn't really that convincing of an excuse to allow something like this hang out there. Is it?

At any rate, I appreciate the fact that the Politico reporter tried to get to the bottom of all of this, but even so, I have this nagging feeling that there's more there.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try, Nibras. But no Cigar. It is so pathetic that McCain's supporters are so desperate, unable to challenge Obama on his campaign platform, are reduced to going back to his school days to dig out something they are unable to substantiate. The American people are smart enough to know that such republican tactics, successfully employed in 2004, will not convince them this time. In fact, even if such accusations against Obama were true, which they are not, the republicans have lost credibility to the point that people will not trust anything they say. It is simply too late now, Nibras. Obama is going to be the next president, and there is nothing you or your masters can do about it. Granted that Obama is not perfect, and there is a lot that can be held against him, but his faults are nothing compared to what the republicans have done to the country in the past eight years.
Nibras, when your own elected Prime Minister Maliki says Obama has got it right on Iraq, you probably need to pause and think. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Obama is going to win this election simply because he convinced enough people that he is better for the job. If you think people are stupid, you should not be writing blogs trying to convince them not to be stupid. For stupid people will not understand.

10:08 PM, October 14, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Hi anonymous,

1-I'm not a Republican.

2-Maliki never said that "Obama has got it right on Iraq". BTW: Maliki keeps telling his Iraqi visitors that he thinks it is wonderful that America is electing a Muslim...

3-I don't think people are stupid. But I do think that the "responsible" media has taken its bias to a whole new level. And such unfairness always comes with a price-tag.

4-For Obama to be president, as you predict with certainty, the American people will have to vote him in first. Let's see what happens on election day before you begin uncorking the champagne.



6:26 AM, October 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you hate the Saudis so much?

8:52 AM, October 15, 2008

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

Hi "crude analysis",

Welcome back. The Saudis used to be beat me up and steal my lunch money.

But if you want a less glib answer, kindly refer to the four years worth of writing I've done about the Saudis that addresses the reasons why I think they are an unreliable partner for the United States in the Middle East.



9:10 AM, October 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Fair enough. A glib question warrants a glib response. I'll check out some of your past writings on Saudi.

I've been around...just observing and letting it all soak in....

Best Regards,
Crude Analysis

9:17 AM, October 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing the US press enjoys more than building people up is tearing them back down. If Obama is elected he will have a honeymoon period with the press but then they will begin to tear him down.

I would not worry too much about Obama. He will have a short window of opportunity to wreak havoc but will be brought back down to earth and bogged down by politics just like every President before him.

While I believe Obama is a closet socialist I don't think that will be a problem. Ironically, President Bush has just nationalized the US banking system. (At least for the time being.) What can Obama do next to that? I believe Obama's political capitol will be spent cleaning up the banking crisis and dealing with the recession it will inevitably cause here in the USA.

But, as you said, he hasn't been elected yet. Anonymous gives a very clear picture of a US citizen that would not be voting for McCain under any circumstances. An interesting opinion, and widely held, whether you agree with it or not. It is the people who aren't as "convinced" as anonymous that will decide this election.

I think the US role in Iraq will proceed roughly the same regardless of who becomes president. Speaking from a completely US-centric point of view, it would be foolish to "pull defeat out of the jaws of victory" at this point.

Obama says that he will bring the soldiers home and he will, slowly, over the course of four years, as the Iraqi army becomes more and more able to handle the situation itself. Will he bring them all home? Probably not (unless they are thrown out by the Iraqi government).

As long as Americans are not watching them being killed on TV every night, we will no longer demand that they be brought home so quickly.

People like "anonymous" will still want to completely withdraw from Iraq and "end Bush's war for oil" but since their hero Obama will be the one saying they should pull out slowly they will not press him too herd about it.

11:46 AM, October 15, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saudis, especially the Sunni variety, are the backward scum of the planet.

11:59 PM, October 15, 2008

Blogger Brian H said...

You are WAY too sanguine.

Many pass very lightly over the mandating of stupid credit decisions by Freddy and Fannie for strictly political purposes. There was/is more than greed behind that. I invite all to search "Cloward-Piven". Or read this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html .

The current Economist headlines "Capitalism at Bay". At bay, indeed; and not by anonymous forces of human vagary.

'... Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

/Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely./ '

There is more going on than financial recklessness and malfeasance. There are EXPLICIT political root causes.

1:03 AM, October 17, 2008

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the Mezziyah's record, Al-Saud will have no problem reaching out to him. Why? Because what little there is in that record shows a great desire to acquire and reward his supporters with money, preferably from the taxpayers or misguided foundations. In fact making the Fannie/Freddie slush fund #2 in less than 3 years when it took Chris Dodd 30 years to get to #1 recipient shows real talent. And that, along with Chicago mobbing-up of our National elections will be his chief legacies.


I have a question here: why is it that the USA's foreign and hostile creditors cut off our credit just prior to our elections? Could it be they didn't like McCain's rising poll numbers, and decided to cut him off at the knees (using our Chicken Little Administration)?

4:40 PM, October 17, 2008

Blogger NMG said...


Even if there is an explananation for the relationship, we still deserve to hear it considering everything else. The non-denial denial by Mansour, Obama's campaign saying Sutton misspoke, and Sutton not being able to be reached for comment -- in addition to Obama not releasing his Harvard files, and his history of downplaying past associations -- all leads one to want to know more.

1:05 PM, October 18, 2008

Blogger Brian H said...

"all leads one to want to know more." Actually, it leads one to recognize shine and double-talk when one hears it.

6:04 AM, October 19, 2008

Blogger Thunderheart said...


Like you, I'm not a Republican, I'm actually a lifelong Democrat, but on the basis of his highly questionable ideas I cannot vote for Senator Obama. On the basis of his moderate record and also the fact that he is far more likely to finish off our jihadist enemies, I am voting for Senator McCain.

Now that I've gotten my personal biases out of the way, this is relevant on the al-Mansour story:

In a March 2008 TV interview, former Malcom X lawyer and Harlem burough president Percy Sutton named Khalid al-Mansour as the manchurian puppetmaster behind Barack Hussein Obama. He told of how al-Mansour was raising money for the education of Barack Obama, and asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation to Harvard University on Obama’s behalf. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug&eurl=http://townhall.com/blog Politico blogger and Obama supporter Ben Smith immediately sought, received and printed a “ family retraction” of Sutton’s TV statements on the Politico blog. Newspapers across the country ready to run with the story of a manchurian candidate groomed by Saudi Royal family deal maker al-Mansour stopped dead in their tracks, biting on the Sutton retraction effectively manufactured by Smith in a rush to defend his candidate, Barack Obama. However, Ben Smith had been misled as the alleged Sutton retraction, issued by former Hillary Clinton Harlem campaign chief Kevin Wardally, turned out to be fake. When questioned about the retraction by Newsmax investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, official Sutton family representatives answered, “that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.” ”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone. When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.” Wardally refused to retract his false retraction, stating to Newsmax that, “he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who is in our office almost every week.”

All the above can be found on Politico's website.

Stripped down to its essence, "Sutton family spokesman" Kevin Wardally was retained not by Percy Sutton, but by one of his nephews. So I'd regard anything out of Mr. Wardally's mouth as not reflecting Percy Sutton's sentiments, until Percy Sutton himself says otherwise.

11:17 AM, October 21, 2008

Blogger Dsquared said...

While the others nvbghaga hold small Oakley Frogskins are safer, for they are not so easy to fall over. However, the fact is Oakley Frogskin that the sizes of Cheap Oakley Sunglasses frame should be determined by each specific condition, because the pupil of both Oakley Jawbone should be kept in line with the optical center, so that their vision can be corrected to the most extent. Vision Oakley Jawbones of too big frame would lead to blur vision, dizziness and eye ache, while Oakley sunglasses of too small frame would affect the normal development of facial forms.

1:26 AM, August 10, 2011

Anonymous viagra online said...

I think you are the great blogger.What a great article have you written.I really enjoyed reading your post.the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.

10:54 AM, December 16, 2011


Post a Comment

<< Home