Bobo’s Mailbox
By 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 6, 2007 at 11:09 PM in Current Affairs
by
Larry C Johnson
David Brooks’ appearance tonight on the Jim Lehrer Newshour dashed all hope that the man would recover his integrity. As some may recall I sent Mr. Brooks a letter on Wednesday chiding him for intellectual dishonesty for insisting there was no harm and no issue with respect to the outing of CIA covert officer, Valerie Plame Wilson. Since Mr. Brooks lives just around the corner it was a snap to deliver the letter.
Well, here is what he said tonight on the Jim Lehrer Newshour:
But this — that crime was surrounded by a vast circus
of hypocrisy and partisan dishonesty, starting with the original case,
which was allegedly about outing a CIA agent, when it was never really
about that, because, once it turned out that was Richard Armitage,
nobody cared anymore, and then the hypocrisy over whether somebody
should go to jail for perjury, with Democrats saying one thing with
Clinton, another thing with Libby.So, there was just this vast
mountain of partisanship and dishonesty and shamelessness, which I
don’t think you can separate away from what Libby did. So, I thought he
deserved to be punished, but did not deserve the 30 months that was
sentenced.
What a disingenuous bastard! If Joe Wilson had simply parroted a John Kerry line about Iraq while the intelligence community stood firmly behind the President then one could make the case that Joe’s July 2003 op-ed was dishonest partisanship. But that did not happen. Just the opposite. Joe Wilson’s July 2003 op-ed saying Iraq did not try to buy uranium from Niger was validated a few days later by the CIA and the President’s own spokesman conceded the President should not have used the 16 words in the State of the Union address. Where is the goddamn partisanship? Joe Wilson, the CIA, and the President’s spokesman agree on the main point and you cry partisanship? What a putz!
So Bobo, I am taking off the gloves. Do the rest of you want to know what was in the paragraph I left out of the original letter?
Here you go. I concluded the letter with the following:
By the way, your mailbox is an embarrassment and neighborhood eyesore. While I think you are a complete putz when it comes to understanding the damage done to our nation’s security by the thoughtless outing of Valerie Plame, you are still a neighbor. Therefore, in the spirit of neighborliness, I’ll be happy to help you put up a new mailbox.
You think I exaggerate? Check out his mailbox:
The man has lived in a very nice house for more than a year and still is too cheap or too lazy to put up a decent mailbox. Maybe this is where Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge got the idea for using duct tape to keep one safe in the event of a terrorist attack. You tell me. Ordinary folk use screws or brackets to secure a mailbox to a post. Tape? Not so much.
My offer to help him put up a new one still stands. But he will not appreciate the things I have to say about his intellectually lazy and ethically challenged attack on the integrity of Joe and Valerie Wilson. There goes the neighborhood.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Mr Johnson - I find all of your rage, ramblings and quips about the incompetence of the would be terrorists in London and Glasgow, amazing for someone who claims to be a terrorism expert. Its not whether ther were amateurish that should concern all of us, it is what these acts say about the level of penetration of these terror groups in highly regarded professions like medicine. These persons intended, to kill hundreds of innocents.
Your acclaimed expertise, was not enough to figure out what Osama was planning for the west and the US, all during the 90’s. It amazes me how incompetent the CIA really is. As the family jewels reveal, the CIA was so incompetent they couldn’t kill someone who was 90 miles off our coast, so it may have been too much to expect the CIA to actually protect the nation from al-queda and its spawn.
FROM LARRY C JOHNSON:
Danny boy, you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity. If you want to know what I said about Osama I suggest you read the November 7, 2000 op-ed I co-authored with Milt Bearden. You’re just blowing smoke out of your ass and don’t know what your are writing about. Unloosen the belt from around your neck. More blood flow to your simple brain might help you think more clearly and actually help you achieve some independent thought. For now, you’re an idiot.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks never checks the contents of his mailbox? He doesn’t appear to be making much use of it.
Gnats & Camels, Bird Plumage, Projection, Displacement.
I just read the Corn gloss and commentary on the Brooks text.
The neocons must be having regular Two Minutes Hate sessions with Joe Wilson as their Immanuel Goldstein.
Brooks’ sensitivity to vanity expressed in intemperate language, “strutting little peacock,” etc., reveals a degree of disquiet.
His analyses are consistently wide of the mark. I suspect his REAL ornithological aggravation is the weight and stink of their Iraq albatross.
There isn’t even a DOOR on the Brooks’ mailbox. I’ll bet Islamofascists steal his mail all the time. Also, Postal Service regulations call for your name to be on the box, as well as the house number. Maybe these were on the door? This looks like a job for the Homeowner’s Association.
I thought Mark Shields did an adequate job of rebutting Brooks’ lies. I kept expecting Brooks to say something like, “Well, it’s true that there’s been some puerile whining about Mr. Hitler supposedly starting a World War–all by himself, mind you–and some people with axes to grind have made the wild claim that he tried to exterminate the Jews for no rational reason that I can think of, BUT he built really, really great roads which were the envy of the world. And 100 years from now which achievement do YOU think this great leader will be remembered for?”
Come to think of it, Brooks really is dumb enough to set himself on fire.
David Brooks is enamoured of the Bushie elite. He regards the CIA as the enemy and a threat to the White House and facts as a form of insubordination.
He presents his opinions as if they were facts, for example: “nobody cared anymore”? Who is nobody, Mr. Brooks?
He points to Democratic hypocrisy by comparing what happened to Clinton with Libby. It’s a false comparison. Because Clinton was never convicted of a crime, nor a crime involving national security. The hypocrisy is with the Bushies, who feel they have the right to retry a case that’s already been decided and mete out their idea of justice without consulting their own DOJ. While many other people, convicted of the same crimes as Libby, receive no such consideration or benefit.
You’re too nice, Larry, offering to help him fix his mailbox and trying to reason with him.
It is not David Brooks’ belief that matters. Traditionally, courts defer to the Government’s assertions when invoking facts regrading the state’s overriding secrecy interests. In this instance, the CIA asserted that Plame was covert. That is the salient fact, not Brooks’ fantasies.
Oh Larry that’s so original. Being a tough guy with readers… I suppose you haven’t read the CIA Inspector general’s own report on CIA failures in the lead up to 9/11… I guess not because no one got a chance to read it as the CIA kept the criticism secret… about the only thing they know how to keep secret and you pining about Valerie Plame is such a diversion from the real issue that has bedevilled this nation for many years, i.e., the general incompetence of the CIA to get good actionable information for policy makers. If the CIA had good information about whether WMD was present in Iraq before the war, it sure as hell did not make it well known. George Tenet’s slam dunk. Instead they make excuses about budgets and manpower, like a bunch of crybabies. The real crime here is that the CIA felt sidelined and hurt so it lashed out to make this Plame matter a headline story. For you to insist that she was some sort of James Bond like character is laughable. Her two bit charlatan husband was Amb to Gabon for God’s sake when he got his plame assignment to go find out about the yellow cake in Niger… and ended up filing one of those typical “desk job” - cover your ass reports… its “unlikely” that Iraq bought yellow cake from Niger… That’s what we paid for!!!!!
FROM LARRY JOHNSON:
Let me see if I have this straight. You live in the UK but you “paid for the CIA”? When did you start paying taxes? Next, please show me the quote where I said the CIA was to be praised for its exemplary conduct in the lead up to the war in Iraq? It is on the record that the CIA repeatedly warned the Bush Administration not to use the Niger info and consistently said that there was no operational tie between Saddam and Osama. Are you drinking pints too early in the day?
The failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks falls predominatly on the FBI. They are the agency with the responsibility to prevent domestic acts of terrorism. Using the CIA for domestic spying is illegal. BTW, the IG report on the FBI has been released and it is pretty scathing. There are many mistakes across the board but the FBI was the lead agency mandated by law to protect this nation before 9/11.
Second and most obvious, the IG’s report has never been released to the public. Google the IG report and you see bills in Congress to force its release. Unless you are a staffer in Congress with high clearance or a Congressman, there is no way you read what is in that report unless Dan stands for Dan Burton.
Tom
Are you defending the CIA’s counter terrorism practices over the past 10 years? It is really indefensible. Missed opportunities, missed intelligence opportunities, you name it. Not enough Arabic speakers etc. Come on. While the FBI does have domestic law enforcement responsibilities and they were found wanting as well, no question, but al-queda didn’t plan this in the Denny’s over a burger deluxe, they planned it in Germany, Saudi and Afghanistan where they were training. The CIA knew of al-queda training camps in Afghanistan since the early 90’s, for God’s sake, even John Miller got an interview with Bin Laden…. And yet the CIA consistently did nothing to stop them in their tracks. Maybe people want to blame Jamie Gorelick for legalising the issue of strikes in Sudan or Afghanistan, but at the end of the day, the CIA let down the American people…
PseudoCyAnts,
You’re right. Except that jackasses like Brooks are given air time on the Lehrer Newshour, hired by the “liberal” NY Times to write unsupported political hit-jobs, etc. We have to speak out against them and expose them for the frauds that they are.
Dan,
You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. Do some reading.
Hey Leslie
You ought to do some reading… I mean outside of these blogs… in the real world where intelligent people question institutions like the CIA and don’t take the CIA line. Plame is a story because the CIA didn’t do its job and lashed out to take the heat off of their performance. That is a fact. If you ask me, Langley should be torn down and we should start again. The wingnut who recommended Wilson go to Niger should be fired for incompetence, oh I forgot, that was his wife according to the bi partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Fitzgerald prosecuted for the same reason Starr did, because he spent a lot of money on a high profile case, and at the end of the day, had he not indicted someone, anyone (why not Rove who had discrepancies in his account vs other witnesses?) then he would have been accused of covering up or worse, wasting taxpayer money.
Brooks has so many “ticks” when he speaks I have a hard time watching/listening to him. This squirminess and rapid blinking makes me think he is uncomfortable when delivering his lines. I’ve always thought there might actually be a conscience at war with itself. Or I could be wrong.
Jesus, Dan, you’re a regular shambling heap of misinformation, GOP talking points and pure bullshit.
“You ought to do some reading… I mean outside of these blogs… in the real world where intelligent people question institutions like the CIA and don’t take the CIA line.”
The CIA, like every human institution devised by man, has its flaws, but they did deliver a PDB memo to Bush on August 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden to Strike in United States.” A shame that Junior was busy on vacation and couldn’t be bother to read or respond to it. He might have been able to stop 9/11 from happening. One report I read claimed Bush said, “Okay, you’ve covered your ass,” when he received that memo. Interesting comment for a president to make in those circumstances.
“Plame is a story because the CIA didn’t do its job and lashed out to take the heat off of their performance. That is a fact.”
That is not a fact. Plame is a story because Bob Novak, at the behest of Karl Rove, leaked her identity in his column for the purpose of sending a message to Joe Wilson and other potential future whistleblowers that the White House would go after their families if they told the truth. Capeche, paisan?
“If you ask me, Langley should be torn down and we should start again. The wingnut who recommended Wilson go to Niger should be fired for incompetence, oh I forgot, that was his wife according to the bi partisan Senate Intelligence Committee.”
If you ask me, you should probably spend some time actually reading up on this matter before posting a comment. The ‘wingnut’ who sent Wilson should be fired for incompetence? Why, because Wilson found out that the Iraq/Niger uranium story was a fraud, an analysis that was confirmed later? Seems to me the ‘wingnut’ picked a good person for the mission — Wilson provided accurate intelligence.
And as to Valerie Plame, she suggested her husband because he had once worked in Niger and had intimate knowledge of the culture, the country and the major players there. Should they instead have picked an incompetent boob without a clue, as Bush has in Iraq?
BTW, the Senate Intel Committee was hardly bipartisan; that finding was made by the Republican majority of the SIC, headed by Bush lapdog Sen. Pat Roberts.
“Fitzgerald prosecuted for the same reason Starr did, because he spent a lot of money on a high profile case, and at the end of the day, had he not indicted someone, anyone (why not Rove who had discrepancies in his account vs other witnesses?) then he would have been accused of covering up or worse, wasting taxpayer money.”
You must lead an interesting life if you don’t know the difference between a blowjob that didn’t affect national security and exposing a covert CIA asset who worked in the area of nuclear nonproliferation, a pretty important field in this age. Not only did Rove, Novak, etc. ruin Plame’s career, they also destroyed her overseas networks of contacts and the effectiveness of Brewster Jennings, her CIA front company. That used to be known as treason before the Little King was installed in office by the Supreme Court.
The Bush Republicans are lucky Fitzgerald went so easy on them.
Dan,
In our US, the CIA and FBI are tools of policy, wielded by the head policy-maker, nominally, the president.
Blaming the FBI for failures leads right to the top, the top policy maker, the deciderer.
About your first comment about the “penetration” of Al Queda in the health profession.
Nearly every intelligent person on the planet sees what is happening with the US in the ME and are properly disgusted with the Cheney administration. In any such a group, a few, the 5%s, if you will, will act.
It is not the “penetration” you should worry about. It should be that more and more people question the US policy in the ME, which will tend to include more and more people willing to act.
The US has their own set of terrorists, KKK, drunk red-necks as well as clinic bombers and killers. That fact is the US does not properly label them as terrorists so as to not defame the global US persona that we do not engage in violence, domestically or otherwise. When those become disgusted with the Cheney administration, then you will see fireworks.
BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK IN US read the President’s PDB. And he and his crack crew of ever vigilant tough guys did what? Did they immediately spring into action and call the heads of their 14 intelligence agencies together, and demand the implementation of a preventative course of action, worthy of agencies with a combined budget of $40 Bn. and so many black tinted windowed SUVs they have lost track? Well, not exactly. According to the 9/11 Report not a single thing to inconvenience the hijackers in any way was done, by anyone! The current administration who the FBI and CIA answer to, by their dereliction of duty, allowed the hijackers to get away with murder on that day, and they have been getting away with it every day since.
Brooks may wear loafers instead of Bill Safire’s hardened wingtips or Rove’s hobnailed boots, but he kicks the Constitution and the truth just as hard. He is the designated apologist for the Right, the nerdy-suave “intellectual” who assures them that the noises they hear are all hysteria.
The idea that his positions are principled may be true, but as a committed disciple of Karl, that doesn’t tell us much about what those principles are. Clearly, they start with an unprincipled support for the power behind the Bush administration, no matter what other principles he has to bend or break.
To: IntelVet
Agreed. Do the activities described in the slide show at: http://www.freedomfchs.com/unwarranted_surveillance.pdf look like state sponsored terrorims to you?
Oooh how we coo, lefty or righty we hate each others stance…The Righties detested Clinton and did all they could to bring him down while the lefties have done all they could to turn Bush into the turd he is, though I believe he has helped the situation immensly.
Now lets straighten up and give the next one a better chance to lead us all or I fear our strong words will escalate to a much higher extent. Which will put us all at each others throats literally.
BTW the Plame leak snafu was the worst example of political bickering this country has ever seen and Scooter should have done the time.
Dan,
It is surprising to me you show up here and display your ignorance of the facts and evidence now available. It DOES show that you have not read….in any depth…and with obvious bias….what the available facts and information show.
You conveniently forget the NEO-CON agenda — well in place….long before Bush and the Supreme Court stole the presidency in 2000. You obviously have not read The Project for a New American Century, for example, calling for “a new Perle…uh….Pearl Harbor.” The attacks on 9/11 were that new Pearl Harbor. Do you really….REALLY believe that Bush and Cheney — completely apart from any CIA role — were ON THE JOB and alert to …and/or concerned about protecting us from…any terrorist plot planned for 9/11? If you believe that, then you haven’t heard about, or read, any Richard Clarke….and you ought to. They “couldn’t IMAGINE” such a thing might happen! Yeah, right! Is it possible….possible…..THEY deliberately ….did not WANT to know??? ( Bush wanted to be a “war president”…look what it has done for him and Cheney and their…ever richer families…you know.)
Now then, wrt the lead up to the War on Iraq — planned in the 1990s or before by the Neo-cons….the fact is the CIA DID try — forget Tenet’s sychophantic role as enabler — many, many times to present the facts.
You seem to be ignorant of DOUGLAS FEITH and his OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS, created to SUPPLANT the CIA evidence with ITS OWN FABRICATED (so-called) FACTS. You don’t know about Chalabi….Curveball, etc?
You really OUGHT TO find out about all this because they are DOING IT AGAIN….in the lead up to their WAR ON IRAN….as you’ll soon see.
And, you don’t KNOW ABOUT the WHIG??? The White House Iraq Group??? Excerpt:
“On September 12, President Bush spoke before the United Nations General Assembly, saying ‘Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.’
This propaganda campaign – highlighting “aluminum tubes” which were allegedly “only suited for nuclear weapons programs” – was orchestrated by THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP, which had been created in August 2002 to “market” the (bogus) nuke threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
WHIG was founded by Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, and operated out of THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE.
WHIG was not only responsible for selling the Iraq war – using the ’slam dunk’ National Intelligence Estimate that George Tenet had hurriedly produced for Congress –
but took great pains to discredit anyone who attempted to debunk that NIE….”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060906_joe_conason_cia_leak/
You may also want to read this by a leading physicist:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11250
Armitage: Cheney Cabal Scapegoat
by Gordon Prather
I think, Dan, you have simply wandered into the wrong place here.
You obviously don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
It’s embarrassing, really.
WARNING FROM LARRY JOHNSON: Folks, it is clear that Dan is not a serious nor intelligent individual. I suggest ignoring the clown. He’s just seeking attention. Instead of responding to the various facts several of you have proffered, he just shifts topics. The man is a loon.
DAN’S POST:
Yeah… I get the feeling I’ve entered the mental ward at Bellevue Hospital, especially when people start linking Joe Conasen articles for me to read. Let me understand you correctly, all I have to do is buy into the fact that Bush and Cheney are evil incarnate and they planned the whole 9/11 ooperation or allowed it to happen, so they could make a lot of money for their friends in the military industrial complex and take away our freedoms. Is that it? Look I hope all of you enjoy the padded rooms in which you play in. The CIA was operating on all cylinders, protecting our country from all external enemies, but apparently not from al-queda as they went about and successfully bombed our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the towers in Saudi, and the USS Cole etc. Maybe Bush did these things before he became president…
Thanks RS Janes for your great Dan debunking. I didn’t know where to start. There was so much BS packed into each sentence.
It’s as if Dan is blaming the CIA for the outing of its own agent.
But the outing of Plame never would’ve become a story if she hadn’t been outed. It became a story because the White House orchestrated a political hit job on Plame and Wilson, who had voted for Bush by the way, after he wrote an oped titled “What I didn’t find in Niger,” NYT, July 6, 2003. Plame wasn’t exposed because her husband went to Niger and filed a report, one of several reports saying that it was unlikely Niger sold uranium to Iraq. Plame was exposed because of the oped her husband wrote over a year later, which accused the Bush administration of exaggerating its case for war. Wilson’s oped has since been proven right.
Plame didn’t have the authority to send her husband on the Niger trip.
From 1976 to 1988, Wilson was served the US Foreign Service with postings in five [count them 5] different African nations. He had the experience to go to Niger, and that’s why the CIA [the CIA not Plame] selected him for the Niger trip.
I hardly know where to begin with this sentence, which makes utterly no sense:
“Fitzgerald prosecuted for the same reason Starr did, because he spent a lot of money on a high profile case, and at the end of the day, had he not indicted someone, anyone (why not Rove who had discrepancies in his account vs other witnesses?) then he would have been accused of covering up or worse, wasting taxpayer money.”
Fitzgerald did indict Libby on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving national security, and a grand jury convicted him. An appeals court upheld Libby’s sentence.
That’s a little more serious than a tax-payer funded partisan witchhunt against a President for allegedly lying about a blowjob. By the way, Clinton was acquitted.
By the way, Dan, if you want to quote the facts in the Libby trial, you should read the trial documents. The entire case is laid out for you:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
There’s not a gay bone in my body, but I swear, I want to marry you and have your children, Larry Johnson. We need a lot more folks like you who are willing to give it right back to these neo-con fools and water-carriers.
oh… and I can’t believe Bobo’s mailbox looks like shit. Jesus christ. I would think such a nice neighborhood would have an HOA? I don’t even want to think of what his bathroom or kitchen might look like.
Then again maybe using a drill and screwdriver, like rational thought, is beyond Bobo’s abilities…
regarding Valerie Plame… there is not a right-winger yet who can answer me this question:
If she was not a covert agent… why were Cheney and Scooter so interested in reveal ing her identity? Why was that considered ‘payback’ if ‘everyone knew’ she worked for the CIA?
That reminds me….I need to go to Amazon.com and pre-order Valerie’s book, Fair Game.
I can hardly wait to read it.
You can lead a horse to the stream…Dan is not really interested in being educated on issues of facts!
Abiodun,
You’re right. Speaking for myself, knocking the Dans of the world down is hardball practice. It’s not about educating Dan.
Here’s a shocking article about how the Bush Administration ENDORSED a 33-month prison sentence for a 24-year Marine veteran for the exact same crime as Scooter. See what happens when you’re not “connected?”
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07/04/bush-filed-to-uphold-victor-rita-sentence/
I get the impression that Brooks’ brain is held together with duct tape, too. As someone said to Hitler, “Did someone defecate in your skull and forget to flush?”
Two observations:
Dan,
With all the politeness in the world, and with sincere wishes for your self-image I proffer you this solid piece of advice: Know when to stop.
You’re in over your head, and the more you pen your thoughts, the more you reveal that you really haven’t a clue, and the more likely you will be marginalized.
Larry,
Of all the things that could improve with the CIA, one would be the depolitization of it’s senior hierarchy. I’m not sure how such a corrective action should occur, but it seems that after the past seven years it is evident that the CIA is susceptible to pressure from a disreputable executive to “produce” or “massage” intelligence to fit the desired situation.
And as we have seen, the results of such “open-ended” relationship is disastrous.
btw, that is one sad looking mailbox…but it is a reflection on the owner.
Oh God, duct tape [laughing], Badge of the Incompetent Handyman. And at that a stunningly shitty job of it.
Thanks for the pic, Larry, what a perfect metaphor of the sloppy ineptitude that characterizes bobo’s thinking and writing.
I love how his NYT column said Bush had done “Exactly right”, but on the NewHour he said “Essentially right”.
“Putz” doesn’t half-cover it.
See, Brooks is trying to prove that he’s a man of the people, not an effete snob. Real blue-collar guys always do their carpentry with duct tape, see?
“it is what these acts say about the level of penetration of these terror groups in highly regarded professions like medicine.”
I hope this is a joke. From here, this looks like a couple disgruntled doctors guessing at how to be terrorists.
I rather suspect actual ‘networks’ exist to enable the doing of more damage with their limited resources.
I mean, really, propane cannisters and gasoline?
Clearly, Mrs Bobo doesn’t trust hubby with a hammer, nail or screwdriver.
And I’ll say it since no one else has: a PINK mailbox, Mr Bobo? What’s up with that?
Since the November 2006, the trolls just keep getting dumber and dumber.
Douchebag Dan is a prime example.
I, for one, like the mailbox.
On balance Brooks has more skill as a handyman than as a political analyst.
He should be doing “local color” pieces.
Whenever I see David Brooks, I think back to the streetsweeper in the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Remember him? The little guy in the white suit with trashcan and shovel, cleaning up after the elephants on the parade route?
There is no better apologist cleaning up after this criminal administration than Brooks…he is the ultimate suck-up, trading his conscience for a plum writing job and a few minutes every week on PBS.
anyone who outs an agent of any agency that protects this country deserves the worst sort of punishment that i could think of,while serving on pbr`s in 67 our boat capt. was interrogating a suspected v.c. while others watched,after refusing to talk,he blew his brains out,the rest talk,we got good info,so covert means covert,no fucking around.
It’s inappropriate —at best— to publish that photograph, Larry.
In fact, if I were Brooks, I’d take it as a threat.
Given your history as an Internet goon, Larry, don’t be surprised if Brooks applies for a restraining order. It’s one thing to disagree about policy, but going to that person’s house is getting personal. Putz.
That mailbox picture is great. David Brooks considers himself a man of the people - just plain folks, and that mailbox is living proof. How could he be anything else but a plugger with an old crappy mailbox like that?
Larry,
Keep up the great work, and give BoBo the finger for me next time you see him on your street. Mr. Brooks and his ilk are responsible for the catastrophe we all face in this country today.
and Dan, STFU, it’s embarrassing.
Mr. Johnson:
I have to disagree with your assessment that Mr. Brooks is intellectually dishonest in his piece.
Au contraire, it seems to me that he seems to find his own writing the very height of intellectual discernment, and if one was in possession of his intellect, that might well be true. After all, this is the administration which has given us the virtual limbo bar of intellectual discourse.
However, where I disagree with you most, Mr. Johnson, and I think you need to rethink you premise here, is that this was an intellectual excercise for Mr. Brooks at all.
It seems clear that Mr. Brooks has precious few fact of the case with which to work, and cherry picks the ones he does have. Which would explain his support for Iraq policy.
In any event, sorry to hear about the downfall of your neighborhood. It seems that Mr. Brooks is lacking in common courtesy as well as common intellect.
Such a waste of good column space.
“In fact, if I were Brooks, I’d take it as a threat.”
Like the threats and the insults and the night after night of abuse and lies and downright disgraceful behaviour you’ve exhibited over the years, Toby? Would you like reminding of some of the things you threatened to the posters at Eschaton, say? Compared to your behaviour in the past, someone taking a photograph of their own neighbourhood is hardly a “threat”… but then, to the violent all things are violent I guess
What is so glaringly obvious in the apologias offered by not only Brooks but trolls like Dan is this assumption that the administration had no choice but to out Valerie Plame to discredit Joe Wilson. Only a very dim bulb would assume that just because Valerie Plame suggested her husband for the Niger investigation - due to his contacts in and familiarity with the country - that this in any way rebutted his findings. The way to have shown that Joe Wilson was wrong would have been to show evidence that he was wrong. Instead, we got this cutesy little “you can’t believe him because he’s a girly-man whose wife sent him on an errand” bullshit. Word, mouth-breathers: when you want to prove someone wrong, you collect facts to show that what they’ve concluded is, in fact, wrong. You don’t instead reply that his mother wears army boots. This is what is known as “changing the subject” because you can’t refute what your opponent has said on the topic at hand, and rational, reasonable people see it for what it is. Which explains why Brooks and Dan here don’t get it. Because in wingnut world, whenever you’re wrong on the facts, you simply hurl personal insults and then proclaim that you’ve “won” and the weak-minded, for whom talking tough = being right, will all fall in line.
What pathetic little men they are, these Brooks and Dan types.
Larry….
1)…You may want to think of relocating to another neighborhood….from the disrepair and shabby fix on Bobo’s mailbox, your property values are under assualt from uppity, move on up white-trash;
2)…I suspect that “Dan” is the pseudonym of David Brooks.
How does photographing a mailbox without an address on an unnamed street, in an unnamed neighborhood of an unnamed city rise to the level of a threat?
Charles Bird writes: “Larry, don’t be surprised if Brooks applies for a restraining order. It’s one thing to disagree about policy, but going to that person’s house is getting personal.”
-
LOL. When did David Brooks get promoted to writing policy for the Bush administration?
Yes, isn’t it just terrible that Larry would deliver a letter to his neighbor and photograph his mailbox. Quick, let’s call out the National Guard…oh, they’re in Iraq.
Brooks got a lot of mileage a while back with a book he wrote making generalizations about people based on silly things like the cheese they ate and the coffee they drank, people he called Bourgeois Bohemians, or Bobos. I wonder what insight he could derive about Pundit Quislings, or Puquo’s, from the way they attach their mailboxes.
Labeling something as “evil incarnate” is how the Worst President Ever got us into this mess. If bush & Cheney are not evil incarnate, they are certainly incompetence incarnate. Remember the Onion headline of 2000: “Our long national nightmare of Peace & Prosperity is over”. Maybe if we could teach people like Danno to think rather than regurgiate, bush’s approval ratings would fall well below the current 26%.
Egad! You were waaaay too easy on Bobo during your first go-round, Larry. Frankly, I’d consider civil action given what the Tom -Ridge-style mailbox repair job must be doing to property values…
Hey Larry- You have been very good at making me blow my tequila out of my nose, you’d think by now I’d have learned not to take a shot until AFTER reading your post, but, sometimes duty calls. The one thing in regards to his mailbox that comes to mind is a line from “Cheers” when Woody shakes hands with Cliff Claven and then says-
“Gee, Mr. Claven, your hands are soft, just like a womans!”
He didn’t want to hurt his precious wittle hands doing some real man-work; Then, he might have to stroke his “EGO” with his off hand, and we all know how difficult that can be. Wink Wink Nod Nod!!!
Semper Fi Brother, and Hang Tough, Tap–USMC 86-91
FROM LARRY C JOHNSON:
Danny boy, you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity. If you want to know what I said about Osama I suggest you read the November 7, 2000 op-ed I co-authored with Milt Bearden. You’re just blowing smoke out of your ass and don’t know what your are writing about. Unloosen the belt from around your neck. More blood flow to your simple brain might help you think more clearly and actually help you achieve some independent thought. For now, you’re an idiot.
…….
To Larry Johnson:
You’re the idiot. I read your op ed piece.
Let’s see, in 2000 you wrote that AFTER the 1993 WTC bombing and AFTER the embassy bombings, that al Qaeda was a threat.
Wow, what a blinding flash of the obvious. After almost ten years of bombings, many videos by bin Laden declaring war on the West and threatening the US, numerous web page posts by Jihadists, years of al Jazeera propaganda, you come to the conclusion that al Qaeda is a threat, write a single op ed piece, and think that you can dine off of that one inane piece of work for the rest of your life.
In your case, not only have the horses left the barn, they’ve set up house in a field, had a family and are thinking about retiring to Florida.
Your op ed piece was one of the hundreds or thousands of disparate pieces of intelligence that indicate a growing threat by Jihadists. It was hardly new or timely.
BTW, I noticed that your op ed didn’t mention anything about the rather large 9/11 operation al Qaeda was planning. If the CIA had been doing its job, or if you had been truly prescient, don’t you think you might have mentioned that one little fact?
Brooks probably has his illegal immigrant housekeeper go out to the street to pick up his mail.
As far as Libby’s 30-month prison sentence, I still feel that this was too light of a sentence.
Especially since the Bush administration is still hiding the full extent of the damage done by their outing the covert CIA identity of Valerie Plame Wilson. How many other CIA agents may have died due to her outing (her CIA associates at Brewster Jennings), as well as how many of these CIA agents’ contacts overseas may have been “disappeared” following the publication of Valerie Plame Wilson’s name and CIA affiliation?
When Bush pardons Libby, it will be interesting to see how the pardon reads. Will he just pardon Libby for his lying and obstructing justice, or will Bush issue a pardon that even covers the “underlying crime,” thus protecting Libby (and all his fellow criminsls in the White House) from any future (under a Democratic president) prosecution of these traitorous Bush administration bastards responsible for outing a covert CIA agent, destoying an overseas CIA network and endangering our national security in the process?
Getting a progressive Democrat in the White House, as well as more progressive Democrats in Congress to expand Democratic control there, is essential to getting to the truth.
Karl Rove, and his shadow government of corupt GOP operatives, will do everything they can to steal the elections in November 2008. Count on it.
Larry,
Did you notice Brooks scribling frantically while Mark Shields was skewering him? I don’t know what he was writing because he went all limp noodle in rejoinder.
That’s why Brooks makes the big bucks????
Geez, Charles, do you really expect Mr. Johnson to not go out of his own house? I realize that you conservatives believe that only those with conservative credentials should have any freedom while the rest of the world can just STFU and stay home. This being America and not the fevered conservative dream home that you envision, life just doesn’t work that way. Too bad for you.
Carl Hardwick whines to Larry: “If the CIA had been doing its job, or if you had been truly prescient, don’t you think you might have mentioned that one little fact?”
I can’t think of anything crazier than to suggest that the CIA’s job would be to deliver intel to Larry.
No matter. The CIA did its job, and the information it gleaned was contained in the oft-cited NIE provocatively entitled “bin Laden determined to Strike in US” and duly delivered to the President.
This was ignored by Bush and his admin, which had decided that bin Laden wasn’t worth paying any attention to, according to Richard Clarke, and many, many many many many others.
Howe many would it take, Carl, before you finally pull your head out of your, uh, sand, and realize that the fault lies squarely with the President (on vacation for the entire frigging month in which the NIE was released and stayed there until a few days before the 9/11 strike?
Don’t bother to answer, Carl, because we all know that you couldn’t possibly admit that you put your faith in such a complete failure of a President. Why, that’d make you partially responsible for his failures wouldn’t it?
Jerk.
Like the trolls, I suspect that Bobo isn’t going to come to his senses anytime soon, especially since he’s paid so well to spin bullshit for his corporate masters at the Newshour.
Sadly, I also suspect that Bobo would be the type of person (i.e., enough of a dick) who would attempt to file a restraining order against you for posting an anonymous photo of his anonymous mailbox on the internet.
What if you, say, taped a small Iraqi flag on top of his mailbox? (post-Saddam, of course.)
Larry,
Per my previous post, I may have uncovered another reason why Libby’s sentence was commuted at this time, instead of his receiving a pardon for the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced.
A Libby pardon for just these crimes would have served the same purpose as a commutation (his not having to serve any jail time), but a narrow pardon like this would not have insulated Libby (or any of his Bush/Cheney co-conspirators) from legal jeopardy for the still non-prosecuted “underlying crime.”
So, Bush and his crooked attorneys actually had three choices to choose from:
1) Commutation.
2) Narrow pardon.
3) Full, blanket pardon for any past criminal offenses, or potentially prosecutable “underlying crimes.”
Thus, the corrupt Bush attorneys put off a full, blanket pardon (or any pardon at all) until the appropriate (political) time…after the November 2008 elections.
(Note: Bush will pull a “pardon” stunt after the November 2008 elections similar to the one pulled several years ago by the GOP Kentucky governor, who pardoned everyone on his staff for any past criminal activity, in an attempt to hide his own criminal activity).
Carl: By that logic, Bush is even more at fault. And Reagan and Bush Sr. should feel like crap for arming Osama in the first place. How did they not know?
Johnson’s op-ed is important precisely because it wasn’t old news. By the time Clinton had enough info to strike Osama for the Cole, it was the middle-of, end-of the nation’s most contested election ever. To strike would have been acrimonious to many, and who would have imagined the incoming administration WOULDN’T act?
That lack of action from our current fearless leader, despite a deep bench of Cassandras growing hoarse, will haunt this nation for generations.
Mr. Johnson,
Has anyone tried to find out if Brooks and pundits of his ilk have something to be blackmailed over. It may not be them personally but a son or grandson etc. who had a brush with the law that was hushed up or some other socially unpopular event.
I’m being serious. When we can’t figure out why an intelligent person holds views that fly in the face of reason and the facts perhaps they are under pressure.
Look at Arlen Specter. He will rail about something Bush is doing as if he’s had enough and then turn around and vote with him. It doesn’t make sense unless he is protecting someone.
There are many such cases. Lindsay Graham may be gay and they have proof. Roberts of Kansas refused to investigate the manipulation of pre-Iraq war intel. Why didn’t Colin Powell blow the whistle on them. Or the cover-up Christy Whitman play into before Congress a few weeks ago.
Charles Bird: “Given your history as an Internet goon, Larry, don’t be surprised if Brooks applies for a restraining order. It’s one thing to disagree about policy, but going to that person’s house is getting personal. Putz.”
Man, I’d give anything to see the look on a Judge’s face: “Plaintiff alleges that defendant took a photograph of his mailbox, visible from the street.”
Charles, I so knew that creeps like you and Toby would be scuttling in here with the “stalker” claim, because what Larry has done is the closest you’ll ever come to equivalence of the many instances of address and phone number posting by right wing nuts, and you know who they are.
You got nothing. Absolutely nothing. Least of all, any defense of the stunningly ignorant bobo.
Jerk. Pardon me, Putz.
Lettuce: “That lack of action from our current fearless leader, despite a deep bench of Cassandras growing hoarse, will haunt this nation for generations.”
Damn you write purdy. Very, very well said, Lettuce.
Going to a neighbor’s house is somehow threatening, says one of the big names at RedState.org? Wow, so much for old-fashioned American values of small towns and personal interaction: far better to lob insults over a wire, I guess. If hacks like Brooks were able to get of their insulated bubbles and engage experts like Johnson who like it or not actually worked in the agencies concerned, he might learn something.
I could go so far so to call sharing that photo as clumsy perhaps, but it does give some insight into the mind of that great chronicler of American mores and values. For all his disdain of Bourgeios Bohemians, he’s in no danger of being seen as one.
If the management at the Times fears it will reflect badly on them if they canned a hack columnist, it looks far worse to let them perpetuate their ignorance, week in and week out. Brooks is predictably wrong, which makes it worse.
If he didn’t have a national megaphone, I would say ignore him, but his twaddle needs to tamped down at every opportunity.
For the CIA and FBI critics - years ago I worked at NSA, and can tell you this: you can submit reports based upon rock solid 100% prime intel, and it doesn’t matter a whit if the higher-ups reading it decide to disregard it ( they might have other motives than to use fact-based intel ), or they “tweak” it, or they just plain don’t like it because it doesn’t fit what they want.
This I know.
Brooks has repeatedly shown a lack of interest in truth and honesty, so it’s no surprise. But every time he and his ilk rises their snake ass heads, someone needs to quickly smack’m with the shovel of truth.
And Dan reflects the Republic Creed: “Let No Facts Interfere With My Talking Point”. I think we ought to place a sign on the Golden Gate Bridge “Diving Reserved For Left Wing Democrat Only” . . . the pile of trolls would no doubt reach the bottom of the bridge . . . followed by a further drop in available 23%ers . . .
Hey, lay off the duct tape jokes folks. Red Green’s fans aren’t partial to people who slime their sacred duct tape–”The handyman’s secret weapon.” And you definitely don’t want to get THEM angry at you. They make Al Qaeda look like a bunch of Campfire Girls.
i love pbs/c-span (tomlinson’s influence on pbs notwithstanding), but i gotta comment on the ‘funded in part by’ at the bottom of the link
adm, pacificlife, chevron, at&t
fine, progressive, forward-thinking companies all
I don’t know where Bobo lives, nor do I particularly want to, but I will note that there are certain tony NYC suburbs which are believed by the erstwhile denizens of that city to be “rural” and to possess a certain bucolic charm.
In some such areas, mailboxes such as Mr. Brooks’ are often vandalized with M-80s and the like (or at least they were back when the biggest US terrorist threat was the Symbionese Liberation Army). Not that I would know from personal experience, but I have heard tell that the unpopular “get off my lawn, ya damn kids!” types, or the insufferably pompous are disproportionately favoured with such pyrotechnics, often occurring week after week.
I suspect this observation applies to many affluent communities surrounding big cities.
This could easily explain the shabby state of Brooks’ mailbox.
BTW, I am quite sure it is a violation of postal service regulations to allow a mailbox to remain in such shoddy condition. The local postmaster’s phone number is probably listed. Just sayin’.
Do your comments about Brooks’ mailbox apply to your haircut as well? Hell, duct tape would be an improvement.
I don’t know what the big deal is supposed to be about the mailbox. Seems to me it’s pretty obvious why he’s left it that way. Shows he’s a Man of the Peeple. Just a reg’lar guy. None a these fancy suburban upscale mailboxes for a downhome dude like our Brooksie. He knows what a Real Person’s mailbox looks like and he’s had one expensively imported from Rural Rte 12 in East Oklahoma, thanks to the Sharper Image Catalogue.
My parents live in a nice neighborhood in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. My dad had a stroke last year, and so I have to fly back occasionally and help my mom take care of the tougher “yard stuff”.
Her mailbox was about 10 degrees out of plumb, and I spent an hour putting it back in presentable position a couple of months ago.
Thereby, much as Bush is an authority on pretty much anything, I’m an authority on mailboxes (my grandfather was a postmaster for twenty years).
I’d like to volunteer my mailbox maintenance expert services to David Brooks. For the measly sum of nothing, I’ll fly to Brooks’ home, and with a Brooks-supplied mailbox and support (or $30.00, so I can buy one at a hardware store), I’ll upgrade his mailbox.
In other words, what a putz Brooks is.
Thanks Larry for showing balls, 99% of these rethugs don’t have an ounce of it. I’ve served the US Government as a civilian in Afghanistan, hen I tell my colleagues how f..up our foreign policy is, some (maybe 30%) tell me we would be speaking German if we did not “stay the course”. Make a long story short, I just ask them “why the f.. aren’t you serving in those countries”. Anyway, excuses are rampant, little ignorant bitches that talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
For all the trolls here, let me just note: on the next to last episode of the Sopranos, there’s a scene where Tony is trying to calm Carmella and tells her, “families don’t get touched.”
Compare and contrast with this direct quote from Karl Rove: “Wilson’s wife is fair game.”
How does it feel to be the defenders of a gang whose ethics don’t even measure up to those of a Mafia family?
Your parents must be so proud.
Damn, I’ve never seen right wing folks so upset about something that everyone in the country should be upset about. The Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly syndrome just seems to go to the core of the brain and cause them to forget about the folks that put their lives and limbs on the line every day for our country.
The next thing you know they will be blaming the failure in Iraq on the troops rather than Cheney and Bush. How easy it for them to forget that Joe Wilson was a career ambassador and not a flakey political appointee, and that his wife was working in the trenches just like our troops trying to get real answers to questions regarding nuclear proliferation. I’ll bet these idiots don’t even remember that Joe Wilson went face to face with Sadaam during the Gulf War.
I’m a Vietnam Vet who is really pissed about people that turn an act of treason into political bullshit. Thanks Larry for putting these schmucks in their place.
Damn, I’ve never seen right wing folks so upset about something that everyone in the country should be upset about. The Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reilly syndrome just seems to go to the core of the brain and cause them to forget about the folks that put their lives and limbs on the line every day for our country.
The next thing you know they will be blaming the failure in Iraq on the troops rather than Cheney and Bush. How easy it for them to forget that Joe Wilson was a career ambassador and not a flakey political appointee, and that his wife was working in the trenches just like our troops trying to get real answers to questions regarding nuclear proliferation. I’ll bet these idiots don’t even remember that Joe Wilson went face to face with Sadaam during the Gulf War.
I’m a Vietnam Vet who is really pissed about people that turn an act of treason into political bullshit. Thanks Larry for putting these schmucks in their place.
Plame is a story because the CIA didn’t do its job and lashed out to take the heat off of their performance.
And then, the true trollness of Dan became clear.
I wonder how many of the trolls castigating the CIA about Osama bin Laden are aware that their Pretzeldent has said he is “truly not all that concerned” about him?
Probably none.
Jennifer,
That’s very true. Cartoonist Gary Trudeau tells a story about the late Frank Sinatra being the guest of honor at an Appreciation Dinner back in his “old neighborhood” of Hoboken, NJ or whereever it was. Well, in the ON if you had a beef with a guy you could take a baseball bat to him in the street and nobody would say nuttin’. But you NEVER threatened his family because they were noncombatants.
Well at the dinner Sinatra took the microphone and began attacking Gary Trudeau. And everyone figured Trudeau had it coming because he had started it with some scathing Doonesbury cartoons attacking Sinatra. But then Sinatra began attacking Trudeau’s wife in scurrilous terms. And even though it was Frank Sinatra violating the community standards the audience began to BOO! him, just to remind him where he was.
How the hell did a dipshit like you ever make it into the CIA?
Great thread!
Is there a homeowners association? Clearly that’s not an asset to the anyone’s property value. Plus, now that I think about it, that mailbox is indicative of Bobo’s contempt of the old venerable USPS, founded by Ben Franklin. And unlike this WH it actually does what it is supposed to do. OK, that may a be a stretch.
Then again maybe it’s more symbolic of garbage in, garbage out in regards to Brooks. It is an eyesore, much like Brooks and others like him are a sore on humanity and a dark stain on our country.
Larry, you’re a gentleman.
Dan,
Bear with me for a moment, please.
Intelligence gathering was established by the Patriots from the inception of the American Revoltionary War.
As Americans we honor Nathan Hale and rightly so. In 1776, Hale a captain in the Continental Army, was on an intelligence gathering mission behind enemy lines out of uniform - disguised as a Dutch school teacher. He was captured as a spy, and for being out of uniform, executed.
He was 21, young, like our country which was yet to be. Before he was hung (as a spy and an unlawful combatant)he reportedly said, I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.(paraphrase)
We honor Nathan Hale as we should. He is an early example of others in the intel community who have given their lives in the line of duty. And I’m sure you would agree thet we should continue to honor and respect the professionals that gather and produce intelligence in the interest of US security. The outing of Ms Plame who was covert and undercover by this Admin for political purposes violates principles that this country stands for.
As far as your strawman point about Bush and Cheney planning 9/11, trust me - no one here says that. And if someone did they certainly wouldn’t be taken seriously.
Did you know Larry & Milt Bearden admonished Clinton in a NYT Op/Ed for not taking terrorism seriously enough, particularly bin Laden?
A Glimpse at the Alliances of Terror
NY Times, Nov. 7, 2000, A29
By Milt Bearden and Larry Johnson
-excerpt-
The Clinton administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and a flashy
show of force during the next few months will not change the record. The new administration can
start afresh with a more sharply defined set of goals — for starters, bringing Mr. Mughniyah and Mr.
bin Laden and their protectors to justice — and bring the full, coordinated force of American legal,
diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.
http://www.law.syr.edu/faculty/banks/terrorism/dummyfl/beardon_johnson.pdf
Interesting, Taters, but obviously the neocons who people and influence Mr Bush’s (their “useful idiot”?) administration had little interest in the likes of Mughniyya and bin Laden. They were looking at bigger and better things like unchallengeable world dominance, and step one was a takeover of Iraq.
While bin Laden DID provide them with the “new Pearl Harbor” pretext they needed for their - how did they put it? - “multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”, beyond that they had little interest in him, or Mughniyya, or anyone else of that ilk, and therefore so did li’l Bush. They were not, after all, interested in any actual threats to U.S. security. They had bigger and better things on their mind - like world hegemony. Those guys make Henry Kissinger with his realpolitik look like a humanistic wimp.
I know this is heresy to American patriots, but wouldn’t it be nice if the United States decided to take its place in the world as just one nation among many nations that make up a democratic international community dedicated to unity in pursuit of the welfare of all humanity?
OMG, now I am sounding like some kind of starry eyed idealist.
Shirin,
Great post. Had Iraq gone anything like the original rosy,best case scenarios predicted by those that brought us this war in the first place - the neocons, I certainly think Syria and Iran would have been next on the table.
As far as being a starry eyed idealist, what is wrong with aspiring to our higher nature? Your feet are firmly planted in reality Shirin, unlike the utopians who brought us this fiasco in Iraq.
Larry,
This is weird. Even for you. I’m trying to understand what point you are making by posting a picture of your neighbor’s mailbox. I bet your a hoot at the neighborhood get togethers. Or is that your point? Your invitation was lost in the mail?
Just so the typo king doesn’t get the pleasure of calling me names, I realize “your” should have been “you’re”. ::grin::
Not only that, but it looks like his grass needs trimming, too. David Brooks - not just a putz, but a pig, as well.
Wow..it is amazing how the truth is completely distorted or ignored here. The fact is it was Wilson himself who originally outed his wife. That is clear from the Woodward/Armitage interview. The others told directly by Wilson have not been pressed to admit it, i.e. Andrea Mitchell, Nicholas Kristoff, Tim Russert, David Corn, et al.
The only liars in this whole fiasco are Wilson and Plame. Wilson lied about what he found. Wilson lied about the forged documents. Wilson lied about who “leaked” - it was him after all- Wilson lied about who recommended him.
Plame also lied about recommending him…and under oath. That’s perjury, folks. She should be indicted.
All of this is nothing but yet another demonstration of the left and the lying MSM colluding tpo propogate propaganda.
Brain writes: “The fact is it was Wilson himself who originally outed his wife. That is clear from the Woodward/Armitage interview.”
A lie. That’s one. Although Valerie briefly looked in on Wilson and Woodward’s breakfast interview, no discussion of her or what she did for a living took place.
Brian writes: “The others told directly by Wilson have not been pressed to admit it, i.e. Andrea Mitchell, Nicholas Kristoff, Tim Russert, David Corn, et al.”
A lie. That’s two. Wilson never discussed his wife with any of these people before her cover was blown by Novak’s article.
Brian writes: “Wilson lied about who recommended him.”
A lie. That’s three. Wilson has consistently said that his wife responded to a request for input on the idea of sending Joe. Her email bears this out.
Brian writes: “Wilson lied about what he found. ”
A lie. That’s four. What Wilson found is amply laid out in Joe’s seminal editorial, was confirmed by others with direct knowledge both before and after Wilson’s trip, and has never been contradicted by any other source. Immediately after which the White House agreed that the contention they made had no place in the SOTU address. Joe was right.
Brian writes: “Wilson lied about the forged documents.”
A lie. That’s five. The author of an article citing Joe as a source made the claim you are referring to, not Joe.
Brian writes: “Wow..it is amazing how the truth is completely distorted or ignored here.”
Yes. Isn’t it. Let me know if I missed anything, moron.
Wow, Mr. Johnson. There are few pundits I detest as much as David “Iraq is the Battle of Midway in the war on terror” Brooks; you have my sympathies. Still, be careful what you wish for, mailbox-wise:
http://categoricalaperitif.blogspot.com/2007/07/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html
–nash
I didn’t know Wilson had breakfast with Woodward. And Val was there? Or is that a misstatement and you meant Kristoff? Which had nothing to do with Armitage/Woodward? And the author you claim misattributed Wilson was Kristoff. So, we’re back to square one. Was Val a source for Kristoff? My bet on this one is yes.
Brian says: “Plame also lied about recommending him…and under oath. That’s perjury, folks. She should be indicted.”
Odd, then, that in a Justice Department recently proven to be very highly politicized (fealty to Bush being job #1) that no charges have been brought. Seems like this would have completely taken the wind out of Fitzgerald’s investigation, no? Yet Brian, nincompoop that he is, expects people to buy the bullshit argument that a bunch of thugs who would out an undercover agent as retaliation against her husband (see my comment above about how low that is - it’s something even organized crime families don’t do) would somehow fail to prosecute Plame when they had evidence in hand of her committing perjury.
Sure, Brian. And 2 + 2 = 169, because the bloviators on Faux News say so.
Sue writes: “I didn’t know Wilson had breakfast with Woodward. And Val was there? Or is that a misstatement and you meant Kristoff?”
Quite right, pardon the brain fart and thanks for the catch.
But the Woodward-Armitage exchange shows a babbling Armitage making the claim that Joe has been calling everybody in town, without actually saying that Joe has been telling everybody what his wife does for a living. And of course, there are exactly zero people who claim to have been called by Joe and told that his wife was CIA.
What Brian said, is therefore, still a lie.
Your betting instincts are, as always, irrelevant. Need a reminder of your election predictions?
Cripes another brain fart. Sorry, Sue, I think it was Kim with the 100% wrong election bets.
Sorry!
Incidentally, here’s Valerie’s testimony from the house hearings:
—-
REP. DAVIS: Let me just ask, try to put some — some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer. In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article — not always known for great accuracy — touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said — this was what they said — “In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it but not name him.” Is that account accurate?
MS. PLAME WILSON: I think it is. I had nothing — I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof. And I think my husband did say that he had undertaken this trip, but not to be named as a source.
REP. DAVIS: Okay.
Just to be clear, when your — the article says that — says your husband “met for breakfast with Kristof and his wife.” Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?
MS. PLAME WILSON: Briefly, yes, Congressman.
—
And of course, Kristof hasn’t said that Val spoke to him about the nature of her employment.
So you’d have to be truly, madly, deeply, obsessively crazy as a shithouse rat to infer from this that Valerie outed herself to Kristof, wouldn’t you, Sue?
And for the sake of completeness, here’s a transcript of Woodward’s exchange with Armitage. Note from the first, the weird disconnect between Woodward’s questions and Armitage’s answers. We all know people like this– the conversation they’re having isn’t the one you’re having, and they are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can say what they want to say. I call it “conversational dyslexia” (speaking of Kim again!).
-
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He — he’s perfect. She — she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) “I know who’ll look at it.” Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, “oh, yeah, hubby will go.”
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?
–
Uh, yeah, how about that?
Wow! Just wow. Leave it to the super-sleuthy-coverty LJ to make a mountain out of a (broken) mailbox. It’s the perfect metaphor for the mountain of big, steaming nothing that resulted from the Plame nonsense.
Is this the type of op that gave LJ the prescience to write the following?
“New York Times
July 10, 2001
The Declining Terrorist Threat
By LARRY C. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON — 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.[...]”
That’s some first class analysis there. And the timing… superb. So if Bush was “ignoring” the terrorist threat, as many here proclaim, then I would submit that the host was his willful cheerleader. Or could it simply be possible that a lot of people had it wrong? No, couldn’t be.
Edwards is right, there are two Americas. One where people realize that nothing, especially government and bureaucratic agencies, are perfect, and another that sees a diabolical conspiracy behind everything. Even a man’s mailbox, apparently.
I guess our friend “Chris” here is another coward who thinks it’s just SOP to go after the family members of anyone who publicly disagrees with what Il Douche and his band of merry men want to do at any given moment.
Gee, Chris, if outing someone’s wife and destroying her career (not to mention her cover agency and network of contacts) is ok, is it also ok to stalk the man’s kids and vandalize their bikes? Or perhaps terrorizing his parents with threatening phone calls or running them off the road would be fine too.
You’re an apologist for cowards, which must mean you’re one of them. Those of us who aren’t show appropriate disgust for “men” who would retaliate by going after an opponent’s wife. You condone it, which makes you infinitely worse than what the rest of us scrape off the bottom of our shoes.
Jen,
You forgot the puppies. Gotta go after them, too. Are you serious? LJ is going after Brooks because he disagrees with what he said. Why not post what he said and refute it? Instead, he posts a picture of his mailbox.
Did it ever occur to you that the Wilsons were using her position to play politics rather than do national security? I think I already know the answer to that. Did it ever occur to LJ that the sixteen words were not about Niger?
FROM LARRY JOHNSON:
Folks, I leave this innanity from this dweeb idiot up for now. Further postings reflecting such dishonesty and stupidity will be deleted. The moron says I should “post what Brooks says (sic) and refute it”. DUH!!! Been there done that. Clown obviously can’t read. ADDH probably.
Then he tops it off with the crazy comment that the sixteen words weren’t about Niger. Niger is in West Africa. The British report actually referenced Niger. Yet, this nutjob says Niger wasn’t involved. God almighty!! Are all rightwing trolls this frigging stupid?
Did Halliburton get the contract to repair Brook’s mailbox? That would explain a lot.
Gee, Chris, have you ever heard the phrase “physician, heal thyself?” As in: here you are thumping on LJ for making fun of Brooks’ mailbox…and yet you don’t see the parallel between that and outing someone’s wife rather than simply disputing, with facts, what the guy said that’s become the fly in your ointment? Dumbass, go back and read my first post on this thread. The way to dispute what Wilson reported about Niger yellowcake would have been to…duh…dispute what he said about Niger yellowcake. Instead, they chose to burn a national security asset in retaliation.
Your dad must have slapped your mom after you were born. And you, as I said before, are obviously a coward who sees nothing wrong with the tactics these “men” used.
Jen,
I’d respond but I’m pretty sure Larry’s got me banned. If not I’ll do so in a minute.
Well, maybe not all my posts are being deleted. First, not sure what I did to you to warrant the “your father, your mother” treatment but here goes. You state that Plame/Wilson was “outed” as if it were established fact. No one was even charged with the “outing”, let alone prosecuted or convicted. Why not? Fizgerald was tasked with this and only this for four years. Armitage “outed” her. Why no charges?
FROM LARRY JOHNSON:
You are being deleted for asking stupid, inane questions over and over without even taking time to read and comprehend the facts. Suggest you read:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/letter-to-a-nei.html
Chris writes: “Edwards is right, there are two Americas. One where people realize that nothing, especially government and bureaucratic agencies, are perfect, and another that sees a diabolical conspiracy behind everything. Even a man’s mailbox, apparently.”
That’s rich, coming from the guy who clearly has lapped up and swallowed the “diabolical conspiracy” theory he’s been fed by right wing nut sites which holds that Joe and Valerie were acting in secret concert to further partisan goals, rather than a career CIA agent doing her job to the best of her abilities and a career diplomat using his skills and contacts to investigate claims that Niger was dealing yellowcake to Saddam.
Chris, this has been done to death. Joe’s bona fides are well established and beyond question. If you don’t know what they are, then go find out, and don’t expect the site you typically frequent, whatever it is, to tell you. Joe’s conclusions are well known– that is, now they are, because Joe was forced to go public with them in the face of the Bush admin’s refusal to stop lying about claims which had already been debunked– and as I pointed out earlier to your friend Brian, were confirmed both before and after his trip by others, making his conclusions a rather unremarkable statement of fact, not a propaganda conspiracy blitz against the President.
And lastly, I want to address your apparent wish that we appreciate that governments aren’t perfect, which I am going to assume is your way of saying that we should give Bush and co. benefit of the doubt in this, ’cause they did their best with the intel they had, and made sound decisions.
What nonsense.
In every instance, the President chose to ignore the consensus of experts to seize on a single dissenting voice as the correct one.
In the case of the tons of anthrax and other toxins supposedly still in Saddam’s inventory, he chose to ignore the simple physical law of the short shelf life of the toxins themselves, which meant that even if Saddam still had them, they were inert. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
In the case of the aluminum tubes allegedly acquired for employment in centrifuges for refinement of radioactives, he ignored the nature of the tubes themselves, which due to being anodized and of the wrong thickness, could not have been employed for that purpose. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
In the case of the alleged attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, he ignored the findings of those dispatched to investigate, who found it without basis and further unlikely in the extreme to happen in future. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
In the case of alleged unmanned drone aircraft capable of attacking other countries, he ignored the findings of those investigating, who found primitive model aircraft with no such capabilities. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
In the case of alleged mobile chemical weapon labs, he ignored the fact that one had never been seen, and that the design was in fact the fanciful result of a team tasked with drawing up what such a mobile lab would look like. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process. He lied again during the invasion in claiming that a couple of trucks found were mobile chemical labs.
In the case of alleged collusion between the Iraq government and Al Qaida, he ignored the acknowledged fact that Saddam wanted nothing to do with them, and further had had no contact with them. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
In the case of the alleged stockpiles of WMDs, he ignored the findings of the UN inspectors in the country following leads provided by his own intelligence agencies, who came up empty again and again and were on the brink of certifying that the country was in fact cleared of WMDs. He chose to claim otherwise, lying in the process.
Get the idea? This isn’t a good faith effort to do the right thing, this is a bad faith effort to invade a sovereign nation with no threat against our country– a violation of international law the US is signatory to, incidentally, making it a criminal act.
Chris writes: “You state that Plame/Wilson was “outed” as if it were established fact. No one was even charged with the “outing”, let alone prosecuted or convicted. Why not? Fizgerald was tasked with this and only this for four years. Armitage “outed” her. Why no charges?”
Fitgerald has said repeatedly that no charges were filed because he did not believe it was possible to show, to the satisfaction of the law, that the leakers were aware that Val was covert.
Nevertheless she was, and this also is something which has been repeatedly confirmed, and is not in contention except by a few rather driven nutcases, like you and your friends.
Incidentally, I think Fitz is giving your boys a break here, and I think you should be glad to get it.
The reason why is left as an exercise for the student. Read up on the case, and the legal sense of the word “intent”, and do your own thinking for a change.
CV,
First off, I don’t know Brian. Secondly, if I were to accept your characterizations of Joe and Valerie (I don’t think they are bad people and haven’t swallowed any rightwing conspiracy theories) as disinterested participants in the politics of Iraq, then why was the genesis of the Niger trip misrepresented by, first, Mr. Wilson, and by numerous Democrats like Jay Rockefeller? I don’t discount that he could have been misled by someone. Who and why?
As far as the list of alleged misrepresentations by the Administration and their lies, where has anyone on the left been heard castigating Saddam for not providing the inspectors with this irrefutable proof of compliance and good intentions on his part?
The AUMF, voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the congress, laid out 23 reasons to go to war. 1 of the 23 was WMD. Were the other 22 invalid as well? I ask these questions because they are important and transcend any one administration. The next occupant of the WH will have to do more than say that “Bush lied”.
Was UN Security Council Resolution 1441 decided in bad faith and a violation of international law? You say Saddam had no contact w/al Qaeda as if that is fact. Completely untrue. See the 911 Commission for clarification. It was a contentious issue and the language was politicized but even they concluded that there had been meetings.
I’m trying to argue without any partisanship because Iraq and what happens there is too important to devolve into an intramural food fight. The whole thing was effed up and I supported it, with or without WMD. I think that many here might agree with some or all of that sentiment.
People of good faith can look at a set of circumstances and come to different conclusions without being dishonest or evil. At least I’d like to think so.
I think Brooks was commenting in good faith when he said he believed Libby’s sentence was excessive. He never said innocent, btw. I happen to think that, assuming Libby lied, he did so to protect his job, not to further any grand conspiracy.
And again, can anyone answer why Armitage wasn’t charged?
I see you answered on Armitage. Perhaps Fitzgerald gave him a break, but why would he? Armitage knows the IIPA law and didn’t just fall off the turnip wagon. I think the CIA, while they probably considered her covert, hadn’t protected her in the manner to justify it under IIPA. Just speculation, of course. And Larry (who was gracious off line) could possibly shed some light here. I’m not sure that intent matters w/regard to IIPA. And even if it did, how would gossiping to reporters disqualify him from prosecution? He told Novak and Woodward. He read her name in a classified intel paper and relayed it to said reporters. He says if she was covert her name should have been redacted. Is he correct?
Chris writes: “Well, maybe not all my posts are being deleted.”
Oh, bah-ruther. The weepy implication is that Larry has deleted posts of yours which make cogent and unanswerable arguments, apparently choosing to leave intact only those that don’t.
God what a whiny lying punk you are. Just go, and don’t come back.
CV,
That’s not the implication at all. Larry deleted one of the posts and acknowledged doing so. We had an email exchange, after I wrote that, and he explained why the post was deleted. It’s his place and he can do that. As I posted above he was very gracious about it and while I might not have agreed, it’s certainly his prerogative. And you can call me a whiny lying punk. Not sure what good that does though. As for leaving, I’ll do that on my own terms (or if banned). Ad-hominems are not persuasive.
Chris - CV just told you why Armitage wasn’t charged. Fitzgerald did not think he could prove, to the satisfaction of the law, that he knew she was undercover when discussing her connection to the CIA.
Interestingly, Armitage didn’t lie to the investigators, which is why, unlike Libby, he didn’t find himself up on perjury and obstruction charges. And he didn’t lose his job for telling the truth. Rove, on the other hand, lied and only went back and changed his testimony when it looked like his neck was about to get hung in the noose. So there was indeed a whole lot of lyin’ going on. And as for Armitage’s comment to Woodward that “everyone knows” that Plame was at CIA…I’m sure that by the time Rove and/or Cheney got done issuing the “pushback” talking points against Wilson to everyone in the administration, it was indeed common knowledge in the administration that Plame was at the CIA. Rove certainly had the clearances to know what Plame’s status was, not to mention Cheney, whose notes about going after Plame were scribbled in the margins of Wilson’s NYT op-ed…so yes, there clearly was a concerted effort within the administration to try to discredit Wilson by cooking up this lame “oh, look at what a pussy he is, his wifey sent him on this trip” since obviously they couldn’t push back otherwise, since they knew the yellowcake claim was utter bullshit. If you ask me, simply being caught trying to pull off something so ridiculously low and lame would have been reason enough to try to disown it, which may have been why Libby tried to lie his way out of it, but from what we know now, it’s pretty clear that going after Plame was a strategy that was being widely pursued throughout the administration…which would have been another reason to lie about it. Because certainly some of those involved had clearance to know what Plame’s role was at the agency. But you know what? Whether the ones leaking knew she was covert or not, every one of the leakers is a pathetic excuse for a human being, for the simple reason that they felt that attacking the man’s wife rather than simply addressing his claims was an appropriate strategy. Decent people don’t behave this way. And decent people don’t defend people who behave this way.
You can continue to believe whatever you like, which does seem remarkably resiliant to fact, but the bottom line remains that if you found this strategy of pushback by attacking the man’s wife acceptable or just politics as usual, then quite simply, you are not a decent person.
And that’s my final word to you.
Brian writes: “…why was the genesis of the Niger trip misrepresented by, first, Mr. Wilson, and by numerous Democrats like Jay Rockefeller? I don’t discount that he could have been misled by someone. Who and why? ”
Wilson wrote in his seminal op-ed:
“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. ”
Ther is no misreprentation here, obviously. It is true that Cheney’s office had questions, and true that the agency provided answers to them. Whether Cheney knew specifically of Joe’s trip is irrelevant, as is Rockefeller’s input here. Makes a dandy red herring though, but you knew that.
Brian writes: “As far as the list of alleged misrepresentations by the Administration and their lies, where has anyone on the left been heard castigating Saddam for not providing the inspectors with this irrefutable proof of compliance and good intentions on his part?”
You disingenuous asshole, one more time, UN inspectors were in country and about to certify a WMD free Iraq. Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei both were complimentary to the Iraqi regime in complying with the inspections. They were withdrawn in response to Bush’s decision to invade, despite the fact they’d been coming up empty.
Brian writes: “The AUMF, voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the congress, laid out 23 reasons to go to war. 1 of the 23 was WMD. Were the other 22 invalid as well? I ask these questions because they are important and transcend any one administration. The next occupant of the WH will have to do more than say that “Bush lied”.”
The AUMF required Bush to exhaust all other possibilites before resorting to invasion. He didn’t. Not even close. Not even you could claim he did, though if you’re inclined to try, please do it without lying, for the sake of brevity if nothing else.
Remainder disregarded because I lack the patience. Larry’s right, you’re not arguing in good faith here, and not worth further attention. bye.
Guys,
I respect what you are saying but because I don’t buy into everything as provided doesn’t prove that I’m arguing in bad faith. Armitage leaked her name, wasn’t prosecuted and kept his mouth shut for over three years about it. To ask why is not is not obstinacy or bad faith.
“SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
There was a reason no one was prosecuted under the statute and it wasn’t for lack of trying by Fitz. Either he couldn’t make the case because the requirements weren’t met or Rove, Libby and Armitage were diabolically clever. I choose the former, you choose the latter. If that’s bad faith, then I’m guilty.
The AUMF required a (paraphrasing) determination by the President that reliance on diplomacy alone would not protect the nation. Nothing about exhaustion, and I’m not trying to be prickly. The only requirement was his determination. You can disagree with that determination(most do now, but not at the time), but he didn’t exceed his authority. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
As for the UN inspectors, they had been kicked out for four years beginning in 1998. Bill Clinton declared the official policy of the US to be regime change at that time. He also bombed a chemical weapons factory in the Sudan at that same time which he said was being used to manufacture chem weapons by al Qaeda and supplied by Iraq–al Shiffa, I think.
I’ll just sum it up as Iraq was a when, not an if question. I think most on the left know but don’t want to acknowledge that. Don’t like the way it has been handled? No prob. Me either. Occam’s Razor is appropriate most of the time–the simplest explanation is usually correct. Not trying to change your minds on the facts but at least as to the motivations.
Good night.
You disingenuous asshole, one more time, UN inspectors were in country and about to certify a WMD free Iraq.
Really? I’d like to see that supported. How long would it have taken to certify them?
What I remember is Tony Blair offering five simple actions on the eve of the invasion that Saddam could take to forestall military intervention. France rejected them before the Iraqi government did.
yours/
peter.
peter - then obviously you have a faulty memory.
Because what those of us who knew from day 1 that Iraq was a trumped up case for war remember was Bush’s broken pledge to return to the UN before going in to Iraq, his secret meeting with Blair days before launching the invasion, and then coming out of that meeting and announcing that there would be no return to the UN. We also remember him stating that even if Saddam left Iraq it wouldn’t forestall invasion. We also remember that thousands of pages of Iraq’s report to the UN on the disposition of its stocks of WMDs mysteriously went “missing” after being intercepted by Colin Powell before reaching the Security Council; when it “resurfaced”, the pages were missing and many others were heavily redacted. We also remember one of Hans Blix’s outbursts, born of frustration, that while the Bush administration continued to insist that WMD’s were laying around all over Iraq, that every time the UN inspectors asked the Bushies “where?” and were sent to inspect, they found nothing there. After all was said and done, it’s apparent that the UN inspections were seen as nothing more than a stall technique by the Bush administration - something to satisfy the UN while the US moved men and equipment for waging the war into place. How do I know this? Because, it’s exactly the way it happened. And if after watching these guys operate for the past 6 years you believe that Bush would have allowed himself to lose face by not moving forward with his war, despite the mounting evidence that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq - after having spent months shilling for it, after painting himself into a corner by selling it to the people of this country as “necessary for our safety”, after having spent countless billions moving the men and equipment over there for it - well, then, my friend, you are blind, cannot see the forest for the trees, and are possessed of a stupidity that only death will cure.
peter sneers: “Really? I’d like to see that supported. How long would it have taken to certify them?”
Both El Baradei and Blix said about a year (in comments to reporters in May of 2002 as discussions of resuming inspections were being pursued with Iraq). Inspections resumed in November of 2002. In February of 2003, El Baradei and Blix reported to the UN security council that Iraq was cooperating quite well with the inspections, even detailing a few suggestions that Iraq had come up with for ways to divine through soil testing the destruction of Anthrax and VX that had taken place years earlier.
Bush invaded. Go figure.
Anything else, asshole?
Chris writes: “The AUMF required a (paraphrasing) determination by the President that reliance on diplomacy alone would not protect the nation. Nothing about exhaustion, and I’m not trying to be prickly.”
Glad you said that, Sonny. It provides a perfect illustration of the transparent lack of intellectual honesty characterizing your appearance here, and lays to rest any doubts anybody reading this may have had about who is arguing in good faith and who is not.
Thanks!
Chris writes: “As for the UN inspectors, they had been kicked out for four years beginning in 1998. Bill Clinton declared the official policy of the US to be regime change at that time. He also bombed a chemical weapons factory in the Sudan at that same time which he said was being used to manufacture chem weapons by al Qaeda and supplied by Iraq–al Shiffa, I think.
“I’ll just sum it up as Iraq was a when, not an if question. I think most on the left know but don’t want to acknowledge that. Don’t like the way it has been handled? No prob. Me either. Occam’s Razor is appropriate most of the time–the simplest explanation is usually correct. Not trying to change your minds on the facts but at least as to the motivations.”
Posted by: Chris
–
Geez, Chris just invents facts. Yes, the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. But Saddam didn’t kick out the UN weapons inspectors in 2003, as you imply. UN weapons inspectors left before they’d finished their job because Bush was pushing for war.
Yes, Clinton declared regime change as official policy. So what? Does US dislike for a dictator give us the right to attack another nation that hasn’t attacked us? No. If it gave us that right, then it would give other nations that right too. In other words, if another nation doesn’t like Bush, then they could use the policy of “regime change” to attack us as well. India could attack Pakistan, etc…. You can’t run around the world attacking other nations just because you don’t like their leaders.
But that wasn’t the reason Bush attacked Iraq. Bush said we had to go to war with Iraq to avoid the “smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud.” Only it turns out, Saddam didn’t have any WMD. What’s more Bush knew it!
You assert that the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan connected al Qaeda to Iraq–based on what? Are you basing this belief on the word of one man, Mubarak Fadl al Mahdi, who wanted to hurt the owner of the plant? To date, the public doesn’t have enough information to confirm the plant was connected to al Qaeda. Do you have more information? Name your sources?
You assert Iraq was a question of when, not if, and the left knows this but refuses to admit it. Based on what?
Then you cite Occam’s Razor: Occam’s Razor involves using facts. You don’t use any! The simplest explanation is usually correct–an explanation of what??
Well, at least the Bush administration, including Powell and Rice, knew Saddam didn’t have any WMD. Who knows what Bush knew or knows.
“Occam’s Razor is appropriate most of the time–the simplest explanation is usually correct.”
I’ve got an Occam’s Razor for yeah Chris. Bush invaded because Iraq was sitting on a $100TT worth of Dick Cheney’s oil.
“As for the UN inspectors, they had been kicked out for four years beginning in 1998.”
Saddam did not kick out the weapons inspectors “for four years beginning in 1998″. The weapons inspectors were ORDERED out by their U.N. boss in order to clear the way for Clinton’s upcoming bombing campaign so disgustingly romantically named “Operation Desert Fox”. Not surprisingly, Saddam was not overly eager to allow them back in after Clinton completed his little orgy of violent death and destruction, particularly since their number been illegally infiltrated by U.S. agents.
Prior to that the Iraqi regime had discovered that Clinton, in a clear violation of the U.N. inspection mandate, had inflitrated the inspection teams with his agents in order to locate some nice targets to bomb, not to mention to try to gather information that could be used to assassinate or overthrow Saddam. Whether you like Saddam or not, as the leader of a sovereign state he had a legitimate right to object to American spies among the U.N. inspection teams. The Americans also engaged in what were clearly deliberate provocations, which Scott Ritter, among others, have described.
“Bill Clinton declared the official policy of the US to be regime change at that time.”
And that makes it legitimate?
“He also bombed a chemical weapons factory in the Sudan at that same time which he said was being used to manufacture chem weapons by al Qaeda and supplied by Iraq–al Shiffa, I think.”
That’s a flat lie. What he bombed was not a chemical weapons factory. It was a perfectly legitimate pharmeceuticals factory (government-run, as I recall - I can confirm that later). There was and remains no evidence whatsoever that the factory was used for any purpose other than the legitimate one of producing pharmaceutical products, nor is there any evidence of any connection of that factory with Al Qa`eda.
=====Your betting instincts are, as always, irrelevant. Need a reminder of your election predictions?=====
Sure, since I don’t remember making any predictions about the election, at least not here. Do you visit other sites I inhabit? Still, don’t remember any predictions, just hopes and dreams, that were dashed, of course.
====There was and remains no evidence whatsoever that the factory was used for any purpose other than the legitimate one of producing pharmaceutical products, nor is there any evidence of any connection of that factory with Al Qa`eda.====
So in essence, he lied.
====I’ve got an Occam’s Razor for yeah Chris. Bush invaded because Iraq was sitting on a $100TT worth of Dick Cheney’s oil.====
I thought it was because of his daddy. Or Israel. There have been so many reasons floated I can’t keep up with all of them.
====To date, the public doesn’t have enough information to confirm the plant was connected to al Qaeda. Do you have more information? Name your sources?====
There was enough confirmation at the time to bomb them though. Affidavits and all.
“So in essence, he lied.”
Someone lied.
“There was enough confirmation at the time to bomb them though. Affidavits and all.”
LOOOOOL! I LOVE it! Affidavits signed by whom? Bin Laden himself? Can you also produce affidavits confirming that Saddam and bin Laden were best buddies?
===Affidavits signed by whom?===
Figure it out yourself. Or not. I’m not interested in trying to educate anyone. Just spouting talkin’ points, doncha know…
Shirin,
I really have no desire to provide facts and links. Those posts magically disappear. My flippant, cutesy ones remain intact. You’ll understand, I’m sure, why I no longer take the time to prove what I say.
Yes, Sue, it is quite obvious you are just spouting talking points without having a blessed thing to back them up.
So, why are you wasting your time and ours?
“I really have no desire to provide facts and links. Those posts magically disappear.”
LOOOOOOL! Yeah RIGHT, Sue. they disappear because no one here wants the truth to come out, I suppose.
What a crock of processed bull food!
=== So, why are you wasting your time and ours?===
I can only waste your time if you bother to read and respond. You could just ignore me.
=== they disappear because no one here wants the truth to come out, I suppose.===
So it would seem.
Riiiiiight, Sue!
And DO make sure you’ve got that tinfoil hat of yours centered properly on your head.
===And DO make sure you’ve got that tinfoil hat of yours centered properly on your head.===
Oh, I’m always very stylish. But I wear pink earmuffs, not tinfoil hats.
Shirin, Sue’s been here before, and like others before her, typically gets her ass handed to her, can’t back up her shit, and winds up posting something really offensive that gets her banned, in order to duck actually supporting with facts whatever crazy shit she’s just been called on. By way of example, note her above crazy shit oncerning Val outing herself to Kristof, and her response in lieu of supporting facts.
This is invariably followed by a trip back to whatever blog she normally inhabits, there to commiserate with her fellow earmuff enthusiasts over the unfair treatment afforded here to those like her who clearly only desire constructive debate, boo hoo hoo.
Old, old story. Old, old bullshit.
Chris, I just LOOOOOVE her little story about her posts being deleted every time she tries to back up her crazy a** stories.
You gotta wonder what - if anything does - goes on in the heads of folks like that.
Cheap ass neocons. Picking on his poor mailbox. He can’t afford a new mailbox because he’s direct depositing his paychecks into the Scooter Libby Defense fund.
Be thankful for the trolls presence (seriously). They are actually subconsciously absorbing the truth the more time they spend here, even if their neurons are working overtime to cloud it with their emotional rightwing fogs.