“NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 22, 2010) — Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, is reportedly planning on leaving his position within 6-8 months and is described as being “fed up with the idealism of…Obama’s closest advisers.”
A source in Washington, DC which spoke to the London Telegraph reportedly said of Emanuel: “Nobody thinks it’s working but they can’t get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go but the consensus is he’ll go.”
Shortly after the presidential election, author Martin Sieff stated that Obama’s choice of Emanuel showed that he intended to run the White House with “skull-cracking political toughness.” Emanuel is described as having “learned about politics and policy on the streets of Chicago…”
Further, Sieff states:
Making Emanuel chief of staff—and putting the word out the day after his historic election victory—tells Washington that Obama is going to push through his political and policy agenda Chicago-style—not the San Francisco way. For Emanuel is going to be Obama’s Karl Rove and John Sununu, Sr. combined.
On November 6, 2008, The Politico had described Emanuel’s acceptance of the position of Chief of Staff as an indication that “Obama is eager to work with Congress, and plans a swift launch of an aggressive agenda that will focus on the economy, taxes, energy, education and health care.” The article does not appear to explain the connection between Emanuel and Obama’s agenda. Emanuel had reportedly stated originally that he did not want the job.
Emanuel, who is well-known for his post-election statement, “Never let a crisis go to waste,” is apparently undergoing his own crisis both within and outside the White House. John Harris, a co-defendant in the Rod Blagojevich corruption case as well as a former Army JAG officer, has testified that Emanuel called Harris to recommend Obama’s pick for his senate seat, Valerie Jarrett.
Jarrett and Emanuel have been subpoenaed to testify at the corruption trial of Rod Blagojevich, former Governor of Illinois, with Emanuel having been identified as a victim of extortion. A report states that Emanuel “had direct conversations with Blagojevich about Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate.”
A transcript of the first recording played in today’s proceedings in which Emanuel, Harris, Blagojevich and Obama are mentioned in regard to the vacant senate seat can be read here. A witness in the trial stated that the day he met Blagojevich at a fundraiser held by convicted felon Tony Rezko, he met one other person: Barack Obama.
In a taped telephone conversation played in court today, Blagojevich and Harris discuss “how Barack Obama is sending two representatives — union leaders Tom Balanoff and Andy Stern — to visit to talk about Valerie Jarrett.” Jarrett is presently a “senior advisor” to Obama but was reportedly Obama’s choice to fill his then-vacant Senate seat.
One of Blagojevich’s attorneys stated that Obama’s “image would improve” if he testified at the Blagojevich trial. Judge James Zagel declined to subpoena Obama to do so. Blagojevich has stated that Obama did not want it known that he wanted a black person to assume his former Senate seat.
Does this make Obama a black elitist racist?
An interactive pictorial display of the individuals involved in the Blagojevich proceedings can be found here.
A report from January of this year stated that a leading Washington, DC news source had said that Emanuel planned to run for Mayor of Chicago, IL in November.
The late Walter Cronkite reportedly played a large role in exposing the Watergate scandal in 1972. Who will be the one to expose Obama’s precise involvement in the Rod Blagojevich scandal? With the web of aforementioned characters, why are some maintaining that “there had been no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama”? How much evidence was needed before Nixon was questioned? How much more evidence do we need to determine the exact roles played by Emanuel, Obama, Jarrett, the union representatives, and John Harris? Isn’t it more a search for corrupt individuals, whomever they may be, than a soap opera?