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 July 10, 2006 at 4:07 PM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C Johnson
Former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer hit the hypocrisy trail last week with his attack op-ed on the credibility of Richard Clarke and the FBI. According to Scheuer:
Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke — the
former "terrorism czar" — and a senior FBI officer, the late John
O’Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC’s
fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke’s stories and
claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission’s dream
come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the
feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be
disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O’Neill — in my view, two principal
authors of September 11 — will be beatified.
Mr. Clarke’s book, on the basis of my involvement to varying
degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and
cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is
correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to
the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching,
if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good
to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s secluded moment praying on her
knees.
Scheuer, in case you forgot, authored Through Our Enemies Eyes as Anonymous. He later acquired a measure of fame and condemnation for his subsequent book, published in 2004, that was very critical of George Bush. Maybe Scheuer is trying to get back into the good graces of the Bush crowd or is miffed that Hollywood didn’t recognize his genuis.
I personally think Scheuer is completely full of shit. To characterize Clarke and O’Neill as the "principal authors of 9-11" is idiotic and wrongheaded. No U.S. person or official was the author of 9-11. Khalid Sheik Mohammed enjoys that distinction. An FBI buddy, who worked at the Counter Terrorism Center with Scheuer has some great details on Scheuer’s tenure at CTC.
In an article dated July 5th, 2006, authored by Mike Scheuer, he once again took the opportunity to criticize the FBI and its personnel. This theme has been repeated by him in his books, articles and interviews aired on television. Also, as usual, Mr. Scheuer paints himself and the members of his former bin Laden Unit, in the best light. To my knowledge, no one from the FBI has challenged Mr. Scheuer’s views. I worked in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (CTC) with Mr. Scheuer, so I speak from experience.
CTC was comprised of exceptional, collegial, talented, and dedicated men and women from many disciplines within the Agency. It also had in its ranks equally talented men and women representing other Agencies within the federal government. All with one purpose; “to prevent disrupt and defeat” terrorism. My comments below are not directed at CTC; just Mr. Scheuer and a handful of individuals who served in his Unit.
In my view, Mr. Scheuer was the single most important obstacle to the CIA and FBI working together against al Qaeda. He did not believe in sharing information and working with the FBI. He more than once told me that the FBI had no business working terrorism matters overseas; that was CIA’s territory. Even more important than Mr. Scheuer not being a collegial partner, he negatively influenced several of his subordinates which polluted the atmosphere in his Unit among those subordinates against the FBI. If he was not actively opposing the FBI, he merely did not support their mission. This opinion is shared by every FBI Agent that ever served in his Unit.
Mike was and is an extremely intelligent and talented individual. He was a CIA treasure in the fight against terrorism. However, he failed to understand the concept that although intelligence and law enforcement come from different cultures, America was best served by the CIA and FBI working together against terrorist targets. A CIA disruption of a terrorist plot overseas is a tremendous success, however it can be even a bigger success if the terrorist plotters are prosecuted and put behind bars. Putting them behind bars requires more coordination; more working with the FBI; and, administratively a much more difficult operation. In the end, Mr. Scheuer’s intransigence outweighed his value.
It could be said that Mike Scheuer and John O’ Neill were viewed as the faces of the CIA and FBI in their respective agency’s efforts against bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorists. Of course, so many others in each organization contributed much to the fight and arguably played equal or more significant roles. Mr. Scheuer’s quote in his article, “Mr. O’Neill was interested only in furthering his career and disguising the rank incompetence of senior FBI leaders”, is not only an inaccurate assessment; it is, petty and juvenile. Mr. Scheuer’s jealousy of John O’Neill is apparent and reprehensible. It further demonstrates that Mike viewed counterterrorism efforts as a contest rather than a coordinated cooperative effort.
Mr. Scheuer further states in his article, “Mr. Clarke’s claim that ‘the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI’ several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system.” Mr. Scheuer is accurate in his criticism of the FBI computer system; however he is disingenuous in using that as the reason for the FBI not obtaining the information referred to in a timely fashion.
By January 2000, Mr. Scheuer had been relieved of command of the bin Laden Unit. According to unclassified documents, early in January 2000, the CIA was aware that Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the future 9/11 hijackers, was an al Qaeda operative; met with other operatives in Malaysia; and had a multiple entry US visa. By March 2000, they were also aware that Nawaf al-Hazmi, another future hijacker was at the same meeting and was in the US. However, as stated above, Mr. Scheuer’s legacy lived on with his closest analytical subordinates who continued Mr. Scheuer’s practice of non cooperation with the FBI. When an FBI Agent assigned to the Unit, learned of the meeting in Malaysia, and that one of the participants held a multiple entry US visa, he drafted a communication from the CIA to the FBI. This communication was not released, being withheld by one of Mr. Scheuer’s former subordinates; the Deputy Chief of the bin Laden Unit.
During June 2006, the US Department of Justice released a report from the Office of the Inspector General which stated in part, “In sum, the evidence shows that in January and March 2000, the CIA uncovered important intelligence information about Mihdhar and Hazmi…..Yet, we found that the CIA did not share significant pieces of this information with the FBI….” Further, “An FBI detailee at the CIA drafted a CIR (Central Intelligence Report) to share with the FBI, but the information was not released by the CIA to the FBI.”
Wouldn’t that be a stunner? Michael Scheuer’s minions refused to share the info that Al Qaeda operatives were in the United States? Looks like Scheuer’s quest for hero status has run aground.
UPDATE
Mr. Scheuer responded but asked that I not post his comments. I will summarize his remarks and provide the response I sent him:
Scheuer’s first response:
Scheuer suggests that my op-ed from the summer of 2001 showed that I didn’t understand terrorism and reiterated his claim that Clarke and O’Neill were not interested in protecting Americans through preemption.
AND, MY RESPONSE TO MIKEY:
Michael,
As is typical of your tenure at the CIA, you don’t do your research properly. I was the one who directed Jeff Gerth of the NY Times, way back in 1995, to look at this guy Bin Laden. His August 1995 story in the NY Times was the result of that. You can’t find one thing I have ever written where I said we should ignore Bin Laden. In fact, go back and read the November 7, 2000 op-ed that Milt Bearden and I wrote. We clearly identified Bin Laden as THE threat that the next President would have to confront. So shove that up your ass.
What most outsiders don’t know is that your initial assignment to CTC was not because you were such a "stellar" analyst. EUR was’t keen to keep you around because of your limitations. As you should recall, CTC was a dumping ground for analysts who couldn’t cut it in the front line units. You obviously brought those same mediocre talents you honed in EUR to the task of finding Bin Laden.
While I’m not a big fan of Richard Clarke or John O’Neill, you are way out of line writing that they were the "authors" of 9-11. Are you really that deluded or are you simply a vicious little prick? O’Neill is dead and can’t defend himself. I suspect Clarke considers you not worthy of a second thought. You are an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis.
You owe Clarke and the family of O’Neill an apology.
Always happy to chat with you.
Larry Johnson
SCHEUER’S WROTE BACK:
He said I was trying to paint Bin Laden as a media creation and that I was not interested, ever, in protecting America first.
MY RESPONSE:
Michael,
Let’s
start with intelligence officers I respect–Paul Pillar, Mel Goodman, Ray
McGovern, George Allen, Pat Lang, Dale Ackels, and George Laing. You know
what’s fascinating about that group–every one served in the military.
Unlike you, they actually put on a uniform and went to war zones to serve their
country. Every single one, like me, believe first and foremost in protecting America. The difference
between us and you is that we have an understanding of reality. In
your rich little fantasy world, it is only Mikey Scheuer who sees the
truth. But you need to come to grips with your own inadequacies and
personal failures. At the outset of your career at CIA you were not considered
qualified to be selected to the Career Trainee program. Only a select
group of folks were accepted into the CT program. Your mediocrity
continued after you switched to the Counter Terrorism Center. You made no
effort to learn Arabic and immerse yourself in the culture of the people you
were supposed to find, fix, and finish. Let’s face it, you’re the Salieri
of intelligence analysts.
Guys
I know and respect say that as a person, you’re a nice guy. Out of your
depth, but a nice guy. I am beginning to question that. Your rage
against Clarke and O’Neill is really puzzling. Unlike you, I’ve worked in
both policy and intelligence parts of government. I coordinated from the
State Department side the FBI investigation of Pan Am 103. I have also
spent the last 12 years working with U.S. military special
operations forces. What I have learned is that every organization thinks
they are the only ones who can get a job done but, in truth, we need an
integration of effort and the talents of all.
Yet,
you blame Clarke and O’Neill for 9-11. In case you were asleep during
2001, Richard Clarke presented President Bush a detailed action plan of things
that needed to be done to go after Bin Laden. His plan reflected the
frustration he felt that the Clinton Administration had not done enough.
George Bush responded by demoting Clarke, by ignoring the August PDB, and by
failing to convene a meeting to address US counter terrorism policy until
September 10th. Clarke was trying to get something done and was
ignored. O’Neill had left the FBI and had started a job at the World Trade Center, where he died on
September 11th. Your disgusting attack on these men is cowardly.
And the next time I see you I will call you a coward to your face.
Your
tendency to embellish and fabricate is on display in your most
recent response to me. I don’t know where you are getting this nonsense
about "spiders, lawn mowers" etc. I would challenge you
to provide the reference and quote but won’t waste your time because I
have never said nor written such a thing. What I wrote in the summer
of 2001 is that nuclear proliferation is a greater threat than terrorism.
I still think that is true. I never said terrorism was not a threat or
should be ignored. It speaks volumes about your limited intellect that
you are reduced to repeating rightwing talking points rather than address the
substance of what I have said and written.
Finally,
as far as incompetence is concerned, take a good look in the mirror. The
face staring back at you is the quintessential picture of incompetence.
Larry
Johnson
THE FINAL EXCHANGE:
Scheuer accuses me of being a cowardly Democrat and sticks by his criticism of Clarke and O’Neill.
AND MY FINAL WORD:
Michael,
I know nothing of "moral
cowardice" since I’m still a registered Republican. But here again we see the
true Michael Scheuer on display–obsessed with red herrings, unable to see the
big picture, and prone to just making shit up. The fact that some of your
analysis on Iraq is accurate simply reflects the old saying about blind
squirrels finding nuts once in a while. My anger with Bush started when he
stood idly by while his underlings outed an undercover CIA officer, Valerie
Wilson, who was a member of my CT class. If you would pull your head out of
your ass for a second and look at the names of some of the folks on this intel
distribution list you would see Patrick Lang, Gary Berntsen, Milt Bearden, Jack
McCavitt, Jim Smith, Marc Sageman and Bill Wagner. All were field ops officers
who are not known as Democratic activists of any sort.
I have no trouble with
fair criticism and accurate analysis, but your shitty little piece in the
Washington Times is outrageous. When you claim that Richard Clarke and John
O’Neill are the "authors" of 9-11 you eliminate any credibilty you may have had
as an expert. If you were just some homeless guy sitting around in a dumpster
fondling himself your comment would deserve no attention whatsoever. However,
because of your experience you know better than to claim a lie as truth.
Unfortunately, this modus operandi is your signature. You are sloppy in your
writing and thinking. You are a parochial extremist with limited experience in
the real world. You spent so much time as a Government bureaucrat working in
only one institution that you have no real appreciation for working in an
interagency environment much less the real world. Your failure to get Bin Laden
is part of the reason that he was still around to help direct 9-11. Your screw
up, however, does not make you the author of 9-11. It just means you are not
very competent.
Now that you are bereft
of senior analysts to review your writing and tighten up your analysis, we’re
getting a great look at the factors that kept you from advancing in EUR and
inspired you to seek refuge in CTC. Your blanket accusation that Democrats are
segregationists, socialists, and cowards is, unfortunately, another sign of how
immature and childish your world view is. Just when I think you’ve said the
most stupid thing you could, you surpass yourself. Who would have thought that
you are completely incapable of accurately describing history. As I recall it
was Harry Truman, a Democrat from my hometown, who desegregated the military.
It was a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the Voting Rights Act. I
would also note that there are far more Democrats in Congress who have served in
the military than Republicans.
I am not respectfully
yours. I respect nothing about you. I pity you.
Larry Johnson
Who’s on First?
=========
The probably should have read “CTC was comprised of . . .” rather than “CTC was compromised of . . ..”
“He did not believe in sharing information and working with the FBI. He more than once told me that the FBI had no business working terrorism matters overseas; …”
I have two words for Michael Scheuer: Dan Coleman
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/104121/3571
The information not shared was needed here
http://www.orgnet.com/prevent.html
He also criticised Bush rather stridently, but still appears to be a person sent forth to minimize damage.
He has no grasp of Congressional oversight’s role in the Clinton years either. The republican Congress blocked actions, and could stall all activity at the time via procedure that was discontinued when Bush bait and switched the lower body. They used procedure as a minorty and votes as a majority and procedure again to scream ‘wag the dog’ on a topic that had nothing to do with the impeachment effort.
His CSpan presentation had other damning items of note, at the time I wasn’t able to access the comp…
Will have to review it at a later time…
With the themed title Larry lists, I was thinking maybe Scheuer shouldn’t throw stones. He might damage the neighbor’s dude ranch… or interrupt a good hand of poker.
Gee whiz, Larry, I remember reading about some of this a long time ago. I remember reading about John O’Neill and what a tough time he had with the FBI and them not believing in him and in do this, he left out of frustration. They tried to frame him as well. I really believe he was on to something over in the ME. I think this WH had him shut up.
Every time I see Scheuer on TV, I think to myself, “That’s one cold bastard.”
Scheuer’s op-ed is low.
Larry,
What are your thoughts about the closing of the CIA’s Alec Station?
It seems to old familiar CIA-FBI turf war.
I was thinking Mr. Scheuer also cover up his own fault like any other bureaucrats.
But I have respect for his Islamic militant/afghanistan view.
What’s it all about, Alfie?
================
Maybe in the firefight Clarke or Scheuer will tell us what Berger really stole.
Mark my words: what he took is still important for national security. Why else take it?
======================
Please don’t bother to mark my words, follow the reasoning instead. Even if he stole it only to prevent historic embarassment, isn’t it important that those who were embarassing, and dangerous, be exposed? After all, they still seem to be around.
========================
I see Kim is still play the dumbass Bitch role. Once she gets a Red Herring she just can’t stop playing with it.
Perhaps Kim is in the 23% of Americans and, if so, there’s not much we can do for her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/11/14644/6686
Title: “23% of Us are Fucked!”
– VERY good read!
Hokly Cheboygan! And all along I was under the impression that security/intel was non partisan. Thanks Larry, for all the great work you’ve done and all that you continue to do.
If I had not seen the Frontline on John O’Niell I would have never known who he was.It pisses me of to think that a man like O’Niell died on 9/11 without the American people knowing who he was.
Richard Clark is the only, I repeat, only member of the government to admit to the American people that he failed and asked their forgiveness. True character.
What has Scheuer done other than get on a lot of talk shows and make himself look good?
FROM LARRY JOHNSON”:
AMEN!!!!!
Now posted at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/11/171021/134
Yo Tom. Your reasoning that it was Armitage makes no since at all. He is not in the lineage down from Dubya to Rove and Libby.
I remember a time where I could trust what I read. A time when NASA released positive and outstanding footage of man walking on the moon. It was something I could trust. A grand organisation with “undeniable credibility” from its presige alone. But then something happened, and it did not just happen to me. It happened to everyone I new, you know, kind of instantaneous. It started with questions and then a bit of research and then a detailed look at the evidence and suddenly the World changed. But not everyone in the World. I mean let’s face it Buzz has learnt to lie so well by now that he now believes his dream. And the perks….beats being dead!!!
And that’s why saddly, 911 “Americas attack on its people” (Be it by brainwashed Arab henchmen)is so understandable. I am glad, as I was unaware Larry, getting most of my information about you and where stand from here that you have not “laid the blame” at Bush’s door. But my concern is, and virtually nothing has been done on this, and it is something that must be done. The light really needs to be shone on who was involved….shone brightly. And no-one, really no-one has had the guts to pick up the torch. Let alone point it in the direction of 911. The way things are going everyone will be dead and buried before any of the real culprits are even suggested.
But I have a question for you, which as usual will appear exceptionally devious. Mainly because it is an exceptionally devious question.
Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden was alive on 11th September 2001?
It makes all sorts of since only Armitage’s name fit in the redacted space on the documents for the judge. Ask anyone.
====================
and as a further, “yo, Tom” - what about cheney’s handwritten notes on Wilson’s NYT op-ed piece?
Another member of the 23%…
What you make out as conspiracy aborning is simply brilliant executive analysis.
==================
Now please explain to me why posting that last missal brought up OT’s otherwise deleted entry on 7/12.
========================
Nice…