By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on October 19, 2005 at 2:01 PM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C. Johnson
The smears keep on coming. The airwaves have been filled with folks like like Joe DiGenova, his wacky wife, Victoria Toensing, and Andrea Mitchell insisting that, “Joe Wilson lied” about who sent him to Niger and what he discovered. Well, let’s play he said, she said and pinpoint the real liar.
Andrea Mitchell, a woman genuinely confused by facts, said the following on Tuesday’s edition of Hardball:
MITCHELL: I don`t know that to be the case, but what I think people need to focus on, is the overall background of what was going on back then. This was a fight — an internal fight — between the CIA and Dick Cheney. . . .And in that context, when Joe Wilson went on television with us and in interviews and said he had been dispatched by the vice president, you could understand why Dick Cheney and his people probably said no, we didn`t send him. We had nothing to do with that, because, you know, whether Wilson was told or was simply inflating his own importance, he led people to believe, he said publicly, that he had been dispatched by the vice president.
Gee Andrea, don’t you know how to read? Here is what Joe Wilson wrote on July 6, 2003:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.
Got it! He did not write that Cheney sent him. Joe Wilson isn’t lying, Andrea Mitchell is. Moreover, when Wilson appeared on Meet the Press on July 6, 2003 with Andrea, he did not say what she claims he did. Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript:
MS. MITCHELL: But, in fact, many officials, including the president, the vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, were referring to the Niger issue as though it were fact, as though it were true and they were told by the CIA, this information was passed on in the national intelligence estimate, I’ve been told, with a caveat from the State Department that it was highly dubious based on your trip but that that caveat was buried in a footnote, in the appendix. So was the White House misled? Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn’t true?
AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.
Shocking! Joe Wilson consistently said that the request originated with the Vice President and was passed to the CIA. Don’t stop there, that is also what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported in July 2004.
Several in the media also keep repeating as fact that Joe Wilson got it wrong on whether or not Iraq was buying uranium in Niger. Here is what Joe wrote in July 2003:
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger’s uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there’s simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
Guess what? That turned out to be true as well. Joe had his facts right, it was Bush and Cheney who were ignoring the truth. What we now know for certain is that the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, consistently shared Joe’s judgment that the reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium were not reliable. On at least two occasions in the Fall of 2002, CIA personnel specifically informed Senators and the White House that the reports about Iraq buying uranium were wrong. We now know that the only intelligence on this matter came from one source, Italian intelligence, which provided three separate reports.
Finally, several media hacks go after Joe claiming that the White House had to know about the results of his investigation. Here’s what Joe said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
Andrea Mitchell on the October 13 edition of Hardball spreads further misinformation by insisting that Vice President Cheney was out of the loop:
MITCHELL: He did not necessarily know that any trip was even under way at the early stages of that trip.
MATTHEWS: Sure, but they…
MITCHELL: That`s what they were trying to clear up. That`s why they jumped up. And that was probably the original motivation.
MATTHEWS: Right. But is the vice president, Jim, still left with the explanation that he or someone has to give — if a trip was undertaken to Central Africa to answer an inquiry raised by him, why didn`t they report back to him that there was no deal there involving uranium? And, therefore, why didn`t he tell the president before he gave his State of the Union address?
Wrong again Andrea! (How can someone get so much so wrong and still be considered a serious journalist?) According to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report, Vice President Cheney asked his CIA briefer for an update on the Niger issue he had asked about in early February (which triggered Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger). As a result of Cheney’s request in early March, two CIA officers debriefed Ambassador Wilson on the results of his trip, wrote up the report, and disseminated the report on 8 March (p. 42 of the Senate report). Now, we’re asked to believe that the CIA briefer never got back to Cheney? If you believe that call me, I have a bridge in Baghdad to sell you.
So boys and girls, what have we learned? Well if there is a liar it is not Joe Wilson. He told the truth. It is people like Andrea Mitchell, Joseph DiGenova, Victoria Toensing who are having trouble with the truth of the matter.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Andrea Mitchell is one of those characters whom you can very easily read by simply looking at the eyes.
Never liked her for some reason since she has mean eyes. Well my intuition was proven right when I heard her talk about the first day the war in Iraq had started. She and hubbie Greenspan (Also see Greenspan’s Fraud : How Two Decades of His Policies Have Undermined the Global Economy — by Ravi Batra ) were with Mr. and Mrs. Cheney.
She could see in her husband that something significant had happened on that dinner party in March 2003. She kept asking her hubby what why he looked so surprised.
Allegedly hubby didn’t divulge what Cheney had whispered in his ear that night.
And as she would have us believe it, she found out that Iraq was being bombed the next day. I heard this “personal note” in her own words when she was plugging her book on Tim “Easy Pass on the right wingers” Russert show.
She and her “biggest banker” hubby Alan G. are often in cahoots with The Cheneys. She often remarks favorably about Judith Miller. Friends, she makes no bones about it. It is public knowledge. Like most at NBC she is another “right Wing” mouthpiece. It is no coincidence that she pops up at Hardball to smear mud on the Wilsons.
Are we surprised that she was smearing Ambassador Wilson? Not me. I cringed at the scene described above and just changed the channel. These people are just like the extras in the “Night of The Living Dead”. Same intelligence, same denial that they “are” dead.
Thanks, Larry. I’ve been so pissed off at Andrea Mitchell’s repeated lies about Joe Wilson.
I posted your piece at BoomanTribune.com. For some reason, Trackback isn’t working for Typepad the least few days.
This is the most corrupt
government I’ve seen in
my lifetime. It seems none
of them can tell the truth.
Clinton scandals pale in
comparison to this bunch.
This is the most corrupt
government I’ve seen in
my lifetime. It seems none
of them can tell the truth.
Clinton scandals pale in
comparison to this bunch.
I am sure this is a stupid question, but what is the source of Cheney’s animosity toward the CIA?
As always a succinct explanation of the lies of our media. Trying to stem the tide of such a miasma of lies(I won’t call it misinformation as that sounds so benign)sometimes seems futile. But people like yourself and so many others are doing the hard work of trying to get the truth out to the public. While many people still simply don’t want to believe the ‘media’ would lie to us. As for Mitchell herself she’s proved a long time ago she doesn’t have a real clue as to how a real reporter investigates a story.
By any (pardon the term) conservative measure, Joe Wilson hasn’t, over the course of his career, been 100 percent consistent. In this case, however, he has been clear, concise and direct so as to prompt the backlash which, through its nearly treasonous outcome, has rendered his actions all the more patriotic by comparison, if not on their own merits.
EWK, though the CIA isn’t exactly the purest / cleanest institution, it has constantly been a bee in this Administration’s bonnet. From 9/11 to the War, the CIA has been constantly raising hackles with the White House. (A cursory examination should reveal just that.) It should come as no surprise that this Administration shift the blame of 9/11 failures to George Tenet, then follows up by awarding him the Medal of Freedom…after the War is a done deal, natch.
They aren’t having so much trouble “getting it”….
They aren’t simply confused….
They aren’t just repeating (innocently) misinformation.
It’s an actual design to communicate misinformation to their own crowd/base and keep it out there that Joe Wilson isn’t credible, isn’t being forthright….is a “Liberal” …is just a Democrat so of course anything he says is suspect.
George Lakoff has written some great stuff about how they cleverly work — ala George Orwell — to disguise the truth and “pretend” to be confused by deliberately repeating the opposite of what is true.
Look how successful Rove has been at this tactic. His whole career has been built on his talent for smears. Both elections for President were run on…*won*(??) this kind of very deliberate tactic. (Well, that and the phony machines, of course) and crony mis-(or non) counts of votes….ala Iraq the other day.
Corruption….rot. What a fine thing to build an administration on!
Bush ran daring to say he wanted to return “honor and integrity” to the White House. Uh huh.
Bush’s daddy’s name is on the CIA building and one of his famous quotes is (in effect) that the LOWEST thing that can be done is jeopardize CIA agents…..
He cited Wilson as being one of THE most honorable, brave men he knew ….
Maybe THAT’S what so rankles his little boy????
EWK:
There is one major lesson I learned in the military:
There is no such things as a stupid question . . .
To your question? Two words: “Cheney Dossier”
FYI: Joe Wilson went to Africa, not Iraq… To be specific, it was Niger.
The airwaves have been filled with folks like like Joe DiGenova, his wacky wife, Victoria Toensing, and Andrea Mitchell insisting that, “Joe Wilson lied” about who sent him to Iraq and what he discovered.
And, as if to help prove the points I made earlier…above here’s a must-read:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-rebuttal
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html
And, from BuzzFlash.com:
Evolving wisdom from the Hotline staff.
–
« Arnold The Ohioan | Main | The Hull Family Chronicles »
October 18, 2005
The F List
From today’s Hotline:
Here’s a list of folks who have either testified or have been interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe. Please send us omissions and additions and expansions. Anonymity is guaranteed. To repeat: the list below is of those who have been interviewed by officials in connection with the case. Inclusion does not necessarily indicate that the listed person has testified under oath.
* Bush: Early Summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
* Cheney: Early summer, 2004 (did not testify under oath)
* Ex-Dep. Sec/State Richard Armitage
* WH Assist. To. Pres. Dan Bartlett
* Ex-WH press aide Claire Buchan: Feb. 6, 2004
* WH COS Andy Card
* Time’s Matt Cooper: July 13, 2005
* Ex-WH press. sec. Ari Fleischer (at least twice)
* A.G. Alberto Gonzales: June 18, 2004
* Ex-DOS BIR dir. Carl Ford
* NSA Stephen Hadley
* Ex-CIA comm. dir. Bill Harlow
* Assis. Sec. of Commerce/Ex-Rove assist. Izzy Hernandez
* Assist. Sec. of State Karen Hughes
* Ex-Sec/State counterproliferation offic. Bob Joseph
* Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler
* Ex junior WH press aide Adam Levine: Feb. 6, 2004
* Cheney CoS Irving L. “Scooter” Libby (twice)
* Ex-Cheney adviser Mary Matalin: Late January, 2004
* Current WH Press Sec. Scott McClellan: Feb, 6, 2004
* Ex-CIA dep. dir. John McLaughlin
* Cheney aide Cathie Martin
* New York Times ‘ Judy Miller (twice)
* CIA comm. dir. Jennifer Millerwise (did not go before grand jury)
* Columnist Bob Novak
* Ex-Sec/State Colin Powell: July 16, 2004
* Ex-Abramoff assist./Rove assist. Susan Ralston
* WH DCoS Karl Rove (4 times)
* NBC News’ Tim Russert
* Stranger who stopped Novak in the street
* Ex-CIA dir. George Tenet
* Sen. Adviser to Sec/State Jim Wilkinson (has said he did not testify)
* Ex-Amb. Joseph Wilson
On the witness list at one point but never called to tesify:
* New York Times’ Nick Kristoff
“Cooperated” with Fitzgerald:
* Sec/State Condoleezza Rice
Others believed to have testified:
* John Hannah, David Wurmser (senior members of Cheney’s staff) (Hotline sources)
Other journalists mentioned in press acounts as having initially sparked Fitzgerald’s interest:
* Time’s Massimo Calabresi
* Time’s Mike Duffy
* Time’s James Carney
* NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
* NYTer David Sanger
* Newsday’s Timothy M. Phelps
* Newsday’s Knut Royce
* Newsweek’s Evan Thomas
* Ex-Postie Mike Allen
* NBC’s Campbell Brown
* WSJ ed. page. editor Paul Gigot / reporter Greg Hitt
* Ex-celeb. James Guckert/Jeff Gannon
Do you ever notice that those mentioned in this article as spreading the “lies” about Wilson never have any transcripts/videos/quotations of substance to refer to…they JUST TALK CRAP!!!???
” (A cursory examination should reveal just that.)”
Micheal Beckner, thank you for attempting to answer my question. However, cursory examinations do not yield precise answers.
Cheney’s et al disregarded and disparaged CIA terrorist alerts prior to 911, as a “cursory examination ” of the contemporaneous news reporting reveals, and then disregarded and disparaged CIA failures to find a clear terrorist/Iraq linkage prior to war; i.e. he opposed the CIA whenever they were correct.
His motive for consistently maintaining such a position is the real story, I believe.
Here we go:
“Niger Forgery Mystery Solved?; The Fitzgerald/Plame Investigation Goes in New Direction,” by Justin Raimondo, here:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
Ledeen should swing.
Yes, I was surprised when I watched Hardball last night that Andrea Mitchell dished out the canard about Wilson stating he was sent to Niger by Cheney considering that all the information about what Wilson wrote and said on talk shows is available. And then she states something to the effect that journalism is now tainted.
What is obvious for some time is that “journalists” like Andrea Mitchell and Judy Miller are propagandists for the Cheney-Rove administration. And as Pat Buchanan stated on the same show is what is amazing is that this neocon cabal even managed to make the NY Times the so called “liberal mouthpiece” an active propaganda organ.
No mater what happens with Traitorgate, we will have to live with the fact that the corporate media will continue to be the propaganda arm of the neocons and Cheney and Rove even if they are indicted will have enormous influence over the media with cabal members like Mitchell, Miller, Hume, etc doing the shilling.
The So-called “Lies” of Joe Wilson
Larry, we all have watched Chirs and Andrea Mitchell continuing to stick it to Amb Wilison. Has anybody asked about investigating if they are being paid by Bush, GOP, or GOP funders for misleading public opinion and support Bush administration?
What is the dates when each of those repeating Cheney’s lie that, “Wilson was not sent by me to Africa!”?
Who put this lie out first? Then when was it picked up and used by each of these clowns for the administration spin (lie-machine) machine?
Do we have another part of the White House Iraq Group conspiracy and just have not put 2 and 2 together yet?
I don’t know what’s more pathetic, the sexagenarian Mitchell trying to look like Jennifer Aniston, or the fact that she expects us to believe she’s an unbiased reporter. It’s time for her and Alan to retire to Boca.
Larry: do you think there’s ill will between Cheney and Wilson from GWI?
What pisses me off is that these media bigheads like Andrea Mitchell pal around with top administration officials. What’s even worse is that these media bigheads don’t ever disclose their close relationships with the administration officials when they report about controversy regarding said official. It’s utter and absolute bullshit.
These media bigheads are so fucking enamored with hanging out with the big boys and girls that they no longer do their fucking jobs.
New Story on New York Daily:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/357082p-304302c.html
“Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics ”
“People in the Iraq group then got very frustrated. It was a side show,” said a source familiar with WHIG.
Besides Rove and Libby, the group included senior White House aides Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley. WHIG also was doing more than just public relations, said a second former intel officer.
“They were funneling information to [New York Times reporter] Judy Miller. Judy was a charter member,” the source said.
Was Andrea and Chris members as well? As I asked above.
Love your blog, Larry. It’s nice to see someone who actually documents the bullsh*t spread by these traitors in the media!
whatever happened to objective reporting and fairness in media? there is so much crap spin on tv that it makes me want to break out the boots and a shovel.
these hacks all profess to be patriots but looking thru the spin the real american patriot is JOE WILSON!
Thanks for this blog, Larry. I saw Mitchell on Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago and I was aghast at the hideous shilling she was been for the Bush administration.
Maher gave her every opportunity to get loose but she refused to budge from all but the most gentle remonstrations.
in your post you write:
“… On at least two occasions in the Fall of 2002, CIA personnel specifically informed Senators and the White House that the reports about Iraq buying uranium were wrong…”
which senators were informed? all?
Andrea Mitchell - isn’t she married to somebody…? Somebody we all know and love…I just can’t think of it. Oh yeah, Alan Greenspan!!!! Wonder what assignments she gets due to her husbands inside work? I wonder why she made herself the story in Darfur while women are raped in front of their children, their boys are taken as fighters and their girls are taken as sex slaves and their fathers are murdered or hands are cut off. I wonder why she distracted everybody from that real story and placed herself in the middle of a distraction while Condi played the role of Uncle Tom (A TERM I CANNOT STAND, A TERM THAT I HAVE NEVER USED BEFORE BUT I ONLY IMAGINE IF I WERE AFRICAN OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN I WOULD BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NOT AN OUNCE OF INTEGRITY. AT LEAST POWELL HAS BEGUN TO FIND HIS SOUL AND ADMIT HIS DEALINGS AT THE UNITED NATIONS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SUCH A STELLAR MARK ON HIS CAREER.)
Sooter apparently sat on the bar stools that look like saddles at Cheney’s fancy Jackson Hole pad, amazing that he managed not to get bucked off, after a few tequilas, but the eastern press, keeps referring to Cheney’s Wyoming ranch. When did bar stools that look like saddles elevate to a ranch.
Looks like all hat, no cattle, and Dick never was into sperm banks for any brama-ha-ha bulls or the rodeo.
He sure spun all those Times reporters, or his opeatives, did a go round. Mr MX promoter to sink in a few billions, about time the Berln Wall came down, how bright was that. ?
Nice, are you trying to say that before the “war” Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium? (even Joe ’s report shows the coming and going of officials of the Iraq government meting with producers and suppliers of uranium) but the most important thing is…….
Joe him self IS the leak. The article that “reviles” the identity of a CIA agent is the direct result of an interview with Joe Wilson him self. It is less than significant to ask reporters month after the event has become common knowledge what they knew, who they knew it from, and exactly when they knew it. This has no substance, the only hard facts that are value are reporters that reported at the time. And only then if there report reviled something not reiterated from another news report. The wrap up : Joe is a man with ego problems and a need for self importance, Joe was not in the frame of mind to care about his wifes identity when he started courting cameras. And his actions antics and activity have the consequences that we now see. This case will not “win”, but the intent is not to win any meaningfully court case, it is an attempt to manipulate the election. This goal (along with the willfully participation of large portions of the news media) may bear fruit.
Time will tell.
Joe has contradicted himself so many times you can only conclude he can’t keep up with his lies.