By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on December 9, 2007 at 3:13 PM in Current Affairs
Listening to the howls and foot stomping tantrums from Newt Gingrich and John Bolton this past week as they reacted to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, one would think that communist jihadists bent on raping Mother Teresa on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier arrived in Washington. Gingrich called the estimate a “coup d’etat” by former State Department officials. And Bolton insists that the intelligence community engaged in policymaking rather than analysis. Harumph!!
Leave it to Newt Gingrich to believe that providing people with truth is the equivalent of a coup. And John Bolton–a black pot if ever there was one–is angry that intelligence is being used to fix a policy. That’s like listening to John Wayne Gacy complaining about men who get their jollies by raping and murdering teenage boys. Save the faux outrage Bolton.
Folks like Gingrich and Bolton only accept intelligence if it corresponds to their preconceived prejudices. Truth is largely irrelevant in their worldview. Just as long as the story line adheres to neocon orthodoxy, they are happy campers.
Where is the “politicization” or “policymaking” in the current NIE?
It does not exist. As someone who has worked and lived in both worlds it is easy to distinguish between intelligence analysis/assessment and making policy. Asking whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program or capability is an intelligence question. Deciding what to do (or not do) about an Iranian nuclear weapons program is the realm of policy making.
Intelligence analysts describe the threat based on existing intelligence. Policy makers in turn have the burden of deciding whether the threat is worthy of attention and, if so, what to do about it. If the Intelligence Community believes that Iran is well on its way to building a nuke, then policymakers must first decide if that is a threat to our nation. If the answer is yes, then the next set of decisions is to figure out what to do.
The Intelligence Community’s latest NIE on Iran is not based on opinion. It is based on information developed since the publication of the last NIE on Iran in 2005. The neocons’ panties are in knot because the Intelligence Community–specifically the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA, INR, and DOE–concluded unanimously that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
This is not policymaking. This is fact presentation. Gingrich and Bolton are pissed because their well-honed propaganda campaign to persuade the American people that there was no alternative but war with Iran was destroyed by the Intelligence Community’s inconvenient truth. They understand that it is easier to make policy as long as the public is given the mushroom treatment (i.e., keep the people in the dark and feed them shit).
The Neocon Intelligence Cookbook is pretty simple. First, you must persuade people that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Osama Bin Laden. Once you close that deal then the next step–whipping up public furor to attack Iraq as part of the war on terrorism–is easy. If the intelligence community tells you there is no such relationship, you ignore the community and produce your own information. Then you give it to political hacks like Stephen Hayes, who help spread the propaganda and convince the public that war with the enemy is the only logical choice.
It is the public release of the NIE that has Gingrich and Bolton seething. During the build up to the war with Iraq, the objections of the intelligence community about the alleged links between Osama and Saddam were not made public. With respect to Iran the American people now know that Iran is not on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Iran is not pushing for a new World War. Iran’s actions are the opposite of a Nazi Germany seeking to gain more territory and subjugate nations.
It also is important to note what the NIE does not contain. It does not call for more sanctions or less sanctions. It does not encourage or discourage the President from seeking Congressional support for military action against Iran. It says nothing about what the policy of the United States should be toward Iran.
In 2005 the Intelligence Community believed that Iran was determined to build nuclear weapons. Now the analysts who wrote and coordinated on the NIE:
Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
The analysts also concluded that that Iran probably would have the technical means to produce highly enriched uranium in four to six years. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research is the most skeptical of the analysts in the community, and believes that technical and program problems will delay Iran until at least 2013.
Worth noting that the Intelligence Community does not instruct policymakers what they should or should not do. George Bush is still free to advocate for going to war with Iran. Getting this information in front of the public has pulled the rug out from under the Bush hypnotism show. The President and his neocon buddies have been busy laying the groundwork for attacking Iran. Their case was based on a lie. But they were doing a good job of selling the lie to the American people. Repeat ad nauseum–Iran is building nukes. . . .Iran is building nukes.
Only this time, the fix is not in and the neocons don’t have full access to pull the strings. This time the intelligence community offered its factual judgments. The analysts do not infringe on the President’s right to decide what kind of policy he wants. They simply make it more difficult for him to pretend that the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. George Bush is no longer entitled to only rely on his own misguided set of personal beliefs. He is constrained from telling Americans that Iran is building nukes. The Intelligence Community did its job–they gave the President their best judgment. Will George Bush persist in building his Iranian fantasy? That is the key question.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
whewww….you said it better than I could. I also appreciate the associations at top with these guys and Gacy. Where’s Bolton’s little collection of shoes!
That being said, we might add some names to this list like Sen. Kit Bond and other rightwing wackos who took the 2004 Senate Intel Report and summarized their own conclusions into the record then referred to them for years. You know the one….it claimed Valerie Plame sent her husband. Then it was referred to over and over by Boring York of National Review, and Brit Slackjaw Hume of FauxNews.
But this one,…they are really doing themselves in trying to slam the “intelligence community” as if theres this one entity called, “intelligence community” instead of 15 or so different branches that aren’t supposed to be aligned with each other.
Is my number correct Larry? or there abouts?
I am only thankful about all this for one reason….I will learn more about our intelligence community in this part of my lifetime more than I ever knew before.
The biggest regret I have about it…others who may not have our best wishes at heart….might learn those structures too.
And besides, is there truth to the Gen. Nicolo Pollari - Stephen Hadley connection?
If there isn’t, then I want to bury that reference, but if there is…then we don’t have to worry about the White House waiting for US intelligence agencies anyway, because CheneyBushCo. prefer to listen to foreign intelligence agencies over ours anyway.
Thanks Larry
You bet your ass GW will “persist in building his Iranian fantasy” They are not letting up. The inflammatory rhetoric about Iran is every where in the MSM.
Senator Biden was great on George Stephanpolous “This Week” this morning. He said “who you going to believe Newt Gingrich or 16 intelligence agencies who came to a unanimous conclusion” about Iran
Worth watching and listening to Biden. He ripped up the carpet this morning.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3975197&page=1
The neo-cons sure are trying to hang the CIA out to dry. Will we ever see the complete investigation of the OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANs? Will Feith and the gang ever be held accountable for the false pre-war intelligence?
Joe Biden is by far the most competent candidate and he has the most experience to bring to the presidency.
Joe Biden is the author of that horrible imperialist bill to dismantle Iraq and divide into three parts based on sect.
No thanks.
While you call it an imperialist bill…is it not true that Iraq was held together by force for most of the last century? I don’t agree with Biden on some things but I take his position as a more practical acknowledgement of facts on the ground…and as he has said he is willing to listen to anyones elses plan. While it’s true there was cultral intergration in the past it is not there now.
PS I started reading “Confronting Iran” by Ali Ansari…you find anything you would suggest?
many of the neo cons were ’schooled” in the theories of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. I think Ahmad Chalabi joined up when he was at school there.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0310.rozen.html
I once went to a Podiatrist named Strauss. Every patient in that guy’s waiting room was wearing a surgical shoe. As a new patient, after I filled out the paperwork and proved I had insurance, I was told to take a seat. A staff member then appeared and shoved a piece of paper in my face and said, “Here, read this”. It was a xerox copy of an article about Dr. Strauss that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Strauss performed surgery on my toe. He was, without a doubt, extremely cocky and the most obnoxious man I had ever met. To my horror, when I removed the bandage the next day, I found that Dr. Strauss (of NEJM fame) had removed the nail from the wrong side of my toe, in other words, the side that was NOT ingrown. Extremely livid, I called his home and he had the gall to chastise me for calling the doctor at home on a Saturday. My insurance company was, nevertheless, charged $750 for his incompetence. This was back in the 70’s. Can you imagine what this greedy man or others like him are getting from the insurance companies today?
Thank God Dr. Strauss eventually lost his license to practice in Delaware. But one year later, he hung out a shingle in Pennsylvania. These kind of people have licenses to steal. When are the American people going to stop them?
Ahmad Chalabi/ neocons and Univ of Chicago
http://counterpunch.org/boyle08022003.html
One thing for sure that this administration has accomplished, to its great shame, is the politicization of intelligence to the point that it will take a generation or more to restore its credibility and value in informing policymakers and now, it would seem, fellow citizens and the world. There is something very insidious about this administration that seems to incite dysfunction even in the most unlikely places. I have reached the conclusion that this is the result of the example set by its top echelon of leadership.
I am retired from government. During my 26 years of service, I worked for poor (in terms of leadership and competence) administrations, good administrations, and even a great administration. I have never seen any administration, however, that had the ability to screw up so much of public service on so broad a scale (and I worked for Jimmy Carter, so that is saying a lot). This administration is lost, but I am studying all of the candidates for the presidency very carefully, and I have worked directly with a couple of them. Who gets us out of this mess will be an important, difficult decision and we need to make it as if our lives and the lives of generations to come depend on it.
seems to incite dysfunction
In your experience do see this as being intentional?
The water is made muddy so this very hard to tell.
No, perhap incite was the wrong word. I don’t think that they intend the effect of what they are doing to be dysfuntion, but that is the result. It is baffling.
If what Bolton says is true, then the entire intel community should be disbanded and prosecuted for treason…but then, of course, Bolton won’t want to follow the logic of his own argument.
Lawrence Korb made an interesting point today on CNN. He offered that one reason the Iranians shelved their nuclear program in 2003 might well have been that their true perceived external threat - one Saddam Hussein - was removed from power early that year.
To those who assert that it was our invasion itself - as a new, more dangerous next door - that prompted the move, I ask this: Would not the presence of a greater external threat have pointed toward an accelerated, if admittedly more clandestine, weaponization program instead?
And as a parting question, when has John Bolton been right about anything?
In my experience, Bolton has been correct on a few, relatively minor points. These are overshadowed by his stubborn inability to slip his ideological chains at the strategic view level. After watching him on TV this morning, I have to say that he is becoming somewhat reminiscent of Michael Scheuer reading the New York Times every morning in the Agency library while waiting for the powers that be to figure out his next assignment.
Touché! Game, set and match to you for your astute and biting observation of the actions of Michael Scheuer.
And as a parting question, when has John Bolton been right about anything?
mmmm. Trick question.. I give up..when?
Let us remember that one of their first acts after the Gingrich Gang came into power in Congress in 1995 was to kill off the Office of Technology Assessment. OTA had shown a distressing tendency to provide unhelpful (i.e., true) answers to questions of interest to Republicans.
In 2003, an NIE used the phrase “high confidence” to assert than Iran was advancing toward a nuclear capability.
Same phrasing used, and same conclusion reached, in 2005
Now, “high confidence” that Iran NOT building a nuclear capability.
I have “high confidence” that this bunch (which missed 9/11,Iraq WMD, Aldrich Ames, and on, and on…) is pretty much clueless.
As for release to the public, it would have gotten out there anyway, as the intelligence community keeps secrets as well as Brittany Spears, and has about as much integrity.
And what in the world qualifies you to even have an opinion on the matter? Did you happen to have a thought glimmer while licking cheetoh dust from your fingers? Just because you cannot even get hired by an intelligence organization (primarily because you must have intelligence to be considered for a position) does not mean that you must constantly lash out as compensation for your numerous inadequacies.
WOOT!!!
Thanks for the PDF. Besides a lame attempt to correct the record after the fact saying that the CIA person reporting the to the court “did not know about the existance of the “recordings”
(read left hand did not know what right hand was doing), it says in plain english on page 2 p2 That they listened to a tape and read a transcript. It really sounds that they are parsing discovery to the extreme. And it is not clear what tape they are talking about. At a minimum it implies there is more than one tape.
Chuck Rosenberg who signed off on this.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/March/07_ag_158.html
Thanks larry..
Greywolf has no clue….
BTW.. Hope you don’t mind me posting here.. I am kindof a lighthearted guy that really enjoys the people here and although I lack the skills to post deep and serious material.. I really like reading what you and your staff produce.
Don’t feel bad, Hoosier. I lack the skills, as well — but I know other things and that’s why I’m here.
In 2003, an NIE used the phrase “high confidence” to assert than Iran was advancing toward a nuclear capability.
Same phrasing used, and same conclusion reached, in 2005
Now, “high confidence” that Iran NOT building a nuclear capability.
I have “high confidence” that this bunch (which missed 9/11,Iraq WMD, Aldrich Ames, and on, and on…) is pretty much clueless.
What is not true here?
And Larry, are you showing your “analytical” side by throwing a tantrum and disagreeing by schoolyard name-calling?
You don’t know anything about me.
One thing I will tell you is that it’s impossible to insult me.
I don’t take things personally.
All the insults and name-calling by your cohorts on this board give me an occassional chuckle.
You do now and then indulge yourself in indelicate generalizations and labeling, don’t you, graywolf? Your thick hide does nothing for those against whom you aim your blunderbuss.
Actually, Greywolf makes my point very neatly. If a public (and public figures) conditioned to making judgements based on cable news soundbites from various political talking heads with different agendas, and unaware of the substantial differences between the pre-Iraq “intelligence” process and the 2003, 2005 and 2007 NIE processes, are reaching a conclusion that intelligence is flawed and untrustworthy, it will likely take a generation before confidence in intelligence is restored. This process will require intelligence professionals at all levels to become purer than Caesar’s wife, and that will require the national elected political leadership, both executive and legislative, to both live the example as well as set the standards. And making sure that our elected officials are up to the task is our responsibility. There is no getting around that.
This process will require intelligence professionals at all levels to become purer than Caesar’s wife
Don’t think it can happen. She was something else. It still would be a good thread to look at the history of the NIE’s.
So puppy might then just suggest that we dismantle the whole U.S. Intel apparatus. In fact, if the intel community are the liars that Greypup suggests, perhaps we should prosecute the entire community as traitors? I mean, Puppy is suggesting they are lying to make Little Bush look baddy waddy.
It’s sooooo not impossible to insult Greyembryo. He/she makes it soooo easy.
Leave it to Greywolf to take stupidity to a new low. Gee, what could have changed between 2005 and now? Is it possible for your pea brain to comprehend the possibility that the intelligence community acquired new information? In fact, that is what happened. And your genius prescription? Stick with the old judgment regardless of the facts?
That is why I have no patience with an intellectual wannabee like you. You can’t even pretend to play the game with a modicum of logic.
No, I guess that I can’t play the game that all the intellectual wannbe’s in the intelligence agencies play; with their track record, they’re not very good at it either.
All your name-calling and lame insults can’t hide the fact that the intelligence community’s recent history is one of uninterrupted fucking up.
What “new intelligence” on Iran?
Ooohhhh……can’t say; its top-secret. When it suits our interests, we’ll leak it.
Give me a break. You guys aren’t even good at making it up.
Canis Lupis: Why would you site a comment by a guy who knows about as much as the next man on the street and in the same breath be so angry about the intelligence failures of the past? Can you fix the damage for us? No?
Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle is problematic, so is the fact that you are not the only wolf in your pack to feel the lack of neocon moonlight running through your viens.
So I wonder what Iran would like turned in a glass parking lot? Would that suit ya? Would that make everything better? So if the past is so bitter for you what is the solution? It is important for your pups to know your howl in the emtiness that is your existance.
Actually, he didn’t call you a name. He said you lacked intelligence, which your original post demonstrated clearly. For example:
“missed 9/11″ - I assume you mean the necons. Which part of ‘Al Queda Determined to Strike Inside the US’ didn’t they understand. Oh, CIA couldn’t tell them the date and time of the attack (which was probably not known to the hijackers until soon before anyway). Also, the failure on the FBI side seems to have been pretty clearly also the Executive Branch, who prevented agents from investigating the pilots.
“missed Iraqi WMD” - CIA analysis said in esscence “We don’t know whether he has them or not.” While this is not entirely helpful, they never said “He has them”, this also came from the administration’s OSP. Are you understanding yet why one might think you are stupid?
“missed Aldrich Ames” - CIA was reluctant to investigate it’s mole because of the fallout from the Iran-Contra Affair. and who was responsible for that? Oh, yes, the same a-holes who are responsible for the two items above.
Now, if you cannot connect facts and conclusions, one must assume stupidity or willful ignorance. Granted, Larry didn’t mention the second option, which would simply implie that you like the tax breaks, hate democracy, and just wish everyone would lap up the crap they are fed, facts be damned.
See? Still no name-calling. Several adjectives though.
Graywolf while I do not agree with you on most issues. I have to give it to you for hanging in there. But your questions and comments would hold more water if they were actually based on some facts.
I sincerely believe that rational questions are healthy.
Give graywolf an orange jumpsuit.
The only person who is clueless around here is Graywolf!
The CIA repeatedly tried to warn the Bush administration about al Qaeda. But their warnings went unheeded. Or did you miss the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US”?
It was the Bush administration that insisted that Iraq’s nonexistent WMD posed an immediate threat to the US, necessitating an unjustified invasion and occupation. Despite the fact that the CIA didn’t support that conclusion. And it was Bush who diverted valuable resources away from targeting al Qaeda.
It’s the Bush administration that betrayed a CIA asset[s] in charge of tracking WMD. It’s the Bush administration that has repeatedly leaked classified intelligence whenever it deems it politically expedient.
It’s the Bush administration that tried to squash the NIE on Iran. Because they’d rather start another unnecessary war over nonexistent WMD than admit their policies are reckless, dangerous and based on lies.
Larry,
the question now is — will the stratcom cc be a professional, or will he cave to bush-cheney dillusions and commit war crimes against a nation that has not attacked the u.s. by carrying out a bush-cheney order to bomb iran?
also one has to now wonder just how much israeli intel ‘kooking’ that cjcs mullen was subjected to earlier today when the israelis presented to mullen ‘their intel’ regarding iran and what the israelis say are iranian nuclear weapons development. mullen should be required to present in open public before the congress and the people just how much ‘kooking’ of intel that the israelis subjected him to.
As I hummed to myself:
Here is a discussion by that notorious neo-con Alan Dershowitz:
“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/stupid-intelligence_b_75663.html”
I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but Alan Dershowitz has become increasingly irrelevant to a rational discussions of anything perceived as even mildly anti-Israeli. First it was his irrational, highly qualified treatise on torture that demonstrated he had ridden off the rails, and now it’s his blatantly subjective ‘analysis’ of the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
Far from being the ‘leftist’ you appear to regard him as with your sarcastic ‘notorious neo-con’ label, you fail to see that religion, ethnicity and dogma have apparently driven a sharp legal mind over the cliff. And, into the hands of the neo-conservative crowd. So sad…
The more likely explanation is that there is an agenda hiding in the report. What then might that agenda be?
The old guard is putting America and her interests first?
Puppy - you mean the religious convert Dershowitz…
[...] Posted on Monday 10 December 2007 Schooling NeoCons on Intelligence Analysis [...]
Congress actually decides policy regarding war declarations, it’s the President’s duty to enforce that. Thus the danger on the Iran situation that brought so much ire from constituents.
Now take Kyl-Lieberman and add view it through Executive Signing Statements.
The President asks Congress to fix policies based on information he can present to them when he gives his Address or at other times. He’s obligated to uphold truth in his presentation and be convincing with facts.
That said, let’s go back to the Gingrich shot across the bow.
Gingrich saying anything about it having been on the DPB, with a former Sgt. at Arms of his from the House working as Luti’s Chief of Staff at NESA (where Kwaitkowski dealt with information) is really a shot across the bow.
Gingrich could actually be the source as well for the leaks re: torture that seem to implicate Dems. Goss could appear before Committee now also, no longer bound by privilege.
The Pentagon oversaw a publicity unit for the INC directly as well. The Intelligence Collection Program was probably a way to phish the same forged leads Cheney had people sending his way at OVP.
Needing two false leads they’d shuttle items for phishing back and forth from OSP and DIA through INC and the collection program.
Push hard at the Dep’t of Energy.
That was what got the ball rolling on Plame when Fitz needed to establish who knew what to that level and who agreed or had reason not to agree with Wilson. The DoE, Niger Amb. an Army Col. all matched what Wilson determined to be true. IN, OPIA, NNSA, AAFO,AAMA,OHR,OCIO,OPMA,OAS, OPPBE, and Diversity Programs are chains touching on DoE capacities for nonproliferation.
DoE-CIO and DoE-PAM, with what appears to be a stovepipe called PA&E “independent, analytic advice” with focus on diversity programs also, because of the fact it set up the newest hires at the time. That how the overall IC stovepipes were being developed.
The Diversity reference of the DoE’s Energy wing in the DCI’s umbrella of agencies. At the time Tenet ran the DNI and DCI, if I’m not mistaken.
Same for the DoE and various other subalterns persons since relegated to other duties or out of gov’t altogether.
This is about other evidence that needs critical review. The items we based the WMD pre-emption upon. It’s my opinion that the same characters helped to shape other false leads, torture was the easiest way to do so. Find who was feeding the DoE the stovepipe chatter, my money says the INC Intel Collection program run by the Pentagon.
That is why torture must be addressed. There’s a good chance much of the stovepipe INTEL was based on false positives shaped by torture, alongside the patent forgeries already put in play.
PPBE was director for PA&E as the independent analytical wing for DoE’s role in assessment of intelligence for proliferation.
Six essential functions in the NIC can shape the DNI’s final report as Executive departments, and everyone knows the Joint Chiefs will do their best to shape the policy to what the C-in-C wants at times like this. That it is not done now is pretty much a signal the worm has turned on the inner ranks of the military.
Fitzgerald really got things going after talks with DoE persons in the other recent era of leaks. Those people rolled on Cheney Inc. like Pillsbury dough, when the heat got strong.
Bolton used to be such a true believer, he has to work in State and no longer could travel to field offices for intimidating analysts and sometimes suicidal intelligence gatherers home and abroad.
He had to be sent into Negroponte’s position, not saying he’s what you’d call ethical in his own right, but he is competent at tasks, a professional.
Those sub senior positions are where the stovepipes most often are set(Gingrich former Sgt.at Arms used to become a Chief of Staff at the State’s branch proliferation issues for a region, NESA). Of which Niger was under Near East, NESA. A man who served on the DPB with Gingrich, Undersec. Luti, headed it at the time. A Senior Gingrich Staffer became Chief of Staff for the stovepipe at State.
All you have to do is push the Senior and Ass’t ranking Staffers, not the Dep’t heads, to get the truth on their plans.
The reason Iran was listed in 2005 is clear, an effort to shape the 2006 race was underway, and to continue sanctions as a measure for regime change, as Scot Ritter said was the reason we did the same on Saddam when we knew his WMD capability was shattered and continued for a decade… as reported by Sy Hersh:
Said Ritter:
wiki copy
BTW, there’s been no impact assessment listed for the price spike in fuel costs resulting from sanctioning Iran.
There should be a matched effort to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve here, otherwise we’re just pushing market pressure upward for Iran to ship oil through other parties and still profit, along the lines of Oil for Food.
If we continue sanctions, demand the SPR be opened and market entry with other suppliers open.
Back to main topic: look at personnel development and appropriations that match proliferation or intelligence gathering and you’ll find the new parallel program that is trying to lie our way into a widened ware theater on a new front, the Persian Gulf.
Put a cost assessment of that on world oil prices into play. Now you see why Executive Singing Statements must be reviewed and challenged if necessary.
INCOMING>>>
“Mr. Murder”, I completely agree, and seriously associate myself with your analysis and conclusions.
While it is assuring that the NIE states that there is no present weapons program in Iran, one still might correctly wonder what evidence there ever was that such a program ever existed in the first instance. The claim that Iran “discontinued” a program that may not have ever existed, continues to be one of those unusual forms of “reality” that continues to plague the minds of our government “information managers.”
I, for one, am looking forward to the day that the true patriots of the IC remove the name of George H.W. Bush from the facade of their headquarters; and with all due respect to Larry, Valerie Plame Wilson, ET AL, that is when I will begin to believe that the IC has decided to ‘depoliticize’ itself.
Mr Murder: I’m allergic to acronyms being a non-governmental type…is there a dictionary for these?very interesting post. Thanks
IN, OPIA, NNSA, AAFO,AAMA,OHR,OCIO,OPMA,OAS, OPPBE,DoE-CIO and DoE-PAM,PA&E
“Associate Administrator for Facilities and Operations
The Associate Administrator for Facilities and Operations provides program organizations with science and production facilities ready and available to perform NNSA’s core missions.
Facilities and Operations is responsible for establishing and directing, through the field elements, an overarching field operations framework that includes five major functions:
support for operations, resource management, human capital, enterprise management, and contractor performance evaluation;
advocacy, policy development, management oversight, and resource management for those infrastructure and facilities mutually agreed upon with the programs to be the responsibility of F&O;
advocacy, policy development, and management oversight of environmental, safety, and health programs;
project and construction management;
and safeguards and security
National Nuclear Security Administration
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has the following mission:
To enhance United States national security through the military application of nuclear energy.
To maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test, in order to meet national security requirements.To provide the United States Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants and to ensure the safe and reliable operation of those plants.
To promote international nuclear safety and nonproliferation.
To reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction.”
“Changes in Structure and Staffing - Management and Administration will comprise the following six offices: (1) Office of Human Resources; (2) Office of the Chief Information Officer; (3) Office of Procurement and Assistance Management; (4) Office of Administrative Services; (5) Office of Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation; and (6) Diversity Programs. M&A will consolidate administrative functions performed by both DP and NN, as well as manage several additional functions (such as personnel and procurement) required to maintain a semiautonomous agency. ”
The Budgetary items give you ways to follow the money and look at who they did contract work with.
Look for any conflicts there(former work arrangements, transfers to or from the private to public sector, etc.) and compare that with known knowns, assessment conclusions held at the time, note changes and look at what those changes were, who initiated the different take, and how that basis veered from or matched ongoing IC and industry views.
The restructure of the IC in particular detailed the DoE because it was given status under the NIC to weigh in matters concerning the final report of the NIE.
At the time it was a swing vote in the civilian sector of the NIC if I’m not mistaken. All put in place after the Bush coup, and made material for determining INTEL and voting on policy suggestions as of May 03, 2001.
You had essentially three legs of policy formulation and data interpretation.
The Joint Chiefs directed departments with varied Intelligence tasks.
Civilian Executive bodies tasked security domestically and abroad.
Executive Cabinet Seniors and Staff tasked alike.
All it takes is one of those NIC groups being co-opted to initiate a stovepipe. If pushback occurs you need to bring in more votes across the board.
DoE was being put in, Cheney’s ability to push through his view was key in the days before the actual war. You can see the design in the plans well before 9-11.
Now if the Energy Task Force notes could be examined alongside this shuffle of the NIC you’d get an idea of what was up.
You see the language was already being peaked(weapons of mass destruction) to set a stage that would justify pre-emptive acts, provided we could shape the narrative to an extent it would be agreed upon.
PAM-Procuremanet and Assistance Management, one of the big dogs for the DoE role in assessment. PA&E, Program Analysis & Evaluation was in essence another stovepipe function, one that could review intel; within department and switch funding if the item didn’t meet to expectations.
It was made to coordinate infrastructure to “develop(sic)national defense objectives” within the scope of the DoE’s role for evaluation regarding proliferation; “integrate resources”(so it could remove pushback and promote the yes persons); and work in “major systems acquisition”(a good way to intimidate would be prospective analysis) and “support recommendations” as a rubber stamp.
There’s too long a paper trail to lose here. It cannot be restricted for national security since it’s an ongoing item. Push the House and Senate Energy to review previous assessments, within Committee, as a review of ongoing security policy related to Energy and also way to review overall policy for proliferation concerns.
Thanks for the allergy medicine and the string for the kite. I appreciate your time in responding. I have a number of questions, but I have to wade thru this. Just think a treasure drove of work connecting who is who. It takes people to make money move. Thanks again.
There should be a matched effort to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve here, otherwise we’re just pushing market pressure upward for Iran to ship oil through other parties and still profit, along the lines of Oil for Food.
The Rich Boys | Business Week
An ultra-secretive network rules independent oil trading. Its mentor: Marc Rich
……belong to the ultrasecretive informal network of traders who dominate global independent oil trading. They don’t necessarily act in concert with each other, but they often chase the same opportunities. They are the Rich Boys. All operate in the world of onetime fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, the most-wanted white-collar criminal in U.S. history until his controversial pardon on President Bill Clinton’s last day in office in 2001.
Rich came to prominence in the 1970s, when he worked at Phillips Bros. (later Phibro), then the biggest trader. With veteran partner Pincus “Pinky” Green, he pioneered “combat trading” — getting trading rights from countries in turmoil. Rich, called El Matador for his killer instinct, did the deals. Pinky, “The Admiral,” arranged shipping…….
Rich is notorious for trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, South Africa during apartheid, and Cuba and Libya during U.S. trade embargoes…….
……As Alaskan and North Sea oil production declines, new supplies increasingly come from some of the most corrupt or politically unstable places on earth, such as Equatorial Guinea and Sudan. These are the new frontiers where major U.S. oil companies fear to tread because of sanctions, embargoes, and antibribery and anti-terrorism laws. But it’s where these traders, many like characters out of the James Bond flick Goldfinger, make good money, especially when oil tops $60 a barrel.
……Trader Clyde Meltzer, one of Rich’s business partners in the 1970s who remains close to him, says: “Marc is the most upstanding guy you’ll ever meet. It’s untrue he ever did anything dishonest.”…….
Like Marc Rich + Co. holding, most of the Rich Boys have offices in the tiny Swiss canton of Zug, with its quaint stores, Gothic architecture, and low tax rates. These maverick middlemen typically don’t own or operate oil refineries or wells. Instead, they buy oil from producers, line up buyers to refine it, and charter tankers to ship it. Oil trading is often nebulous and opaque. Title to a tanker’s oil, for example, may change a dozen times before the ship reaches port.
Some of the Rich Boys, like Pollner and Chalmers, have never worked for Rich. They’ve merely done business with him or have connections to him through other traders. Typically, Rich has bankrolled or owned stakes in the traders’ companies, or sold them to close associates. Among the mightiest is commodities giant Glencore International, based in a suburb of Zug, which boasts annual turnover of $72 billion, according to its financial disclosures, making it one of the world’s largest private companies…….
Many of the Rich Boys’ tactics may be hyperaggressive, but they’re perfectly legal. One way they do business: exploiting opportunity in Eastern European or Third World countries in dire need of funding. Rich taught his disciples — called Lehrlings, German for apprentices — to lend cash-strapped companies money and get the right to buy their commodities, industry experts say. Last year, for example, Glencore loaned $40 million to Peru’s second-largest zinc miner, Volcan Compañia Minera. Volcan agreed to sell zinc and other minerals to Glencore from 2004 to 2010.
At times, some Rich boys apparently use front companies — opaque holding entities — to disguise deals……Based in tax havens with strong banking secrecy such as Panama, Liechtenstein, and Gibraltar, they come and go like flickering harbor lights once a deal is done…….
One reason the rich boys are so busy these days is because they thrive in a world of high oil prices and scarce reserves. Big U.S. oil companies are desperate for crude yet don’t want to dirty their hands getting it from global trouble spots. Says a former partner of Rich’s, who requested anonymity because he routinely trades with Big Oil: “Majors don’t want to touch the oil, yet they want to buy it. If you think Pablo Escobar [the Colombian drug king] was guilty, weren’t people who used cocaine, too?”…….
…..Oil majors are also under pressure to shun pariah states. For instance, there are tight limits on deals with war-torn Sudan because it backs terrorism and engages in genocide. But companies set up by the Rich Boys, including Trafigura and Glencore, are among those buying crude there, trade reports say. China is a big customer for the Rich Boys there and elsewhere……..
I’d like to know how thee folks relate to China’s aggresive efforts to secure oil on the world market.
Torture is a wrong in and of itsel;f, but find out who instilled torture policy and yopu’re right back to the same people pushing forgeries for invasion…
Pelosi had better come out strong on this today. Screw the baloney national security excuse. Go to jail if necessary.
I want to know what the Gang was told. Was it the book outline or the full novel? Were there threats?
TELL THE TRUTH for frikkin once.
I want to know about the sources that the WaPo received their info from?
The journalist and others who added to article’s agenda?
Who were the CIA attorneys who “designed and cleared” these torture “techniques”?
Such an effort to have Harman coming out smelling like a rose? Is the F.B.I still investigating her?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html
Who is after Pelosi and Senator Rockefeller?
Will Rockefeller complete Phase II of the SSCI?
Sure seems like the “stovepipe” crazies are still focused on tarnishing the Cia.
Nothing in the US MSM about the sixth delay of the Aipac Rosen Espionage trial. Anyone see or hear any reports about this delay?
Speaking of spin, this is spin squared from the Wall Street Journal:
Iran Curveball: This latest intelligence fiasco is Mr. Bush’s fault.
Spin squared it is. The title of the editorial could mislead a reader. Here’s a typical paragraph from the piece:
Cleverly, the editorial writer manages to slam all those who see any merit in the recently-released NIE, thus taking up for the Bush administration, while finding George W. Bush to be less than a take-charge executive—all of which is to burnish WSJournal “conservative credentials,” of course.
Maybe the thinking is that if you spin fast enough, no one will see the seams. No such luck for the WSJournal.
Murdoch eh?
[...] Schooling NeoCons on Intelligence Analysis (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) Leave it to Newt Gingrich to believe that providing people with truth is the equivalent of a coup. And John Bolton–a black pot if ever there was one–is angry that intelligence is being used to fix a policy [!]… Folks like Gingrich and Bolton only accept intelligence if it corresponds to their preconceived prejudices. Truth is largely irrelevant in their worldview. Just as long as the story line adheres to neocon orthodoxy, they are happy campers. Where is the “politicization” or “policymaking” in the current NIE? [...]
Scarecrow at FDL this morning
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/10/a-joint-investigative-committee-and-open-hearings-can-ex
pose-the-torture-coverup/
A Joint Investigative Committee Should Expose the Torture Coverup
Justin Raimando’s new article on the NIE blowback
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12030
Iran, Nukes,
and the ‘Laptop of Death’
How we were almost lied into war – again
Raimando “The question that cries out for an answer, however, is: who duped us the last time around?”
Hello Senator Rockefeller where is the complete report on Phase II of the SSCI?
Now, who, I ask you, would try to pull off such a dastardly deed?
This made me laugh and think of the guy who left comments here castigating the CIA and praising you know who.
Finally - the NeoCon sponsored path to prescribed intelligence failures re: 9/11 may have been placed before us?
This is a strange piece of reporting by the La Times in that they say a program started in 2005 to undermine Iran’s “Nuke Program”: Was this not was Valerie Wilson was doing in 2003. The artical mentions the size of the Iran section prior to the Bush wackers…(Thanks Molly)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran9dec09,1,7573825.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/151525/15/740/420300
You’re gonna love this
“Still, intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science. The complete reversal from the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program to the latest NIE serves as its own caution in this regard. The information we receive from the intelligence community is but one piece of the puzzle in a rapidly changing world. It is not a substitute for policy, and the challenge for policy makers is to use good intelligence wisely to fashion good policy. ”
Harman and Hoekstra teamed up to write a WSJ op ed. Check it out.
I believe there are records of Bolton deriding certain Europeans for not believing in an active Iraqi nuclear weapon program in 2002, it was later proved the Iraqis had their single reactor offline since 1992. For several ‘news networks’ to use this discredited source as expert commentary shows their willingness to serve the imperial agenda. In the ninteenth century the most ’savage’ American Indian tribes were those resident on gold fields, now the most dangerous ‘Islamofascists’ are oil bearing countries unwilling to put the US and Britain at the top of the preferred customer list.
I thought I’d come back here and see if Larry and his Admirers were still defending the NIE. Of course, the Usual Suspects were still at it.
But Larry, you’d expect both John Bolton and Podhoretz to be outraged. And of course, I mentioned the Israelis, who have an intelligence capability within Iran that the Two Car Funeral crowd at CIA could only dream of.
But let’s face it, when the British, the British, publicly trash your report, your crown jewels, publicly, and do so in a manner that must have had the approval of Gordon Brown, then they must have read the NIE with some amusement. Money quote from the Telegraph:
A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.
Now, understand that like Israel and France, Britain actually has an intelligence service worthy of respect, MI-6. I mean, the Joe Wilson scam would have never happened there. When the whole John Profumo/Christine Keeler thing blew up, there was never a thought about dragging MI-5 or MI-6 agents names through the Old Bailey-they simply went to John Profumo and told him that his career in Whitehall was over.
More outrage over the NIE hijinks from our friends in the Anglosphere:
The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. “We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.
The article goes on to say that midlevel CIA officials aren’t all lining up behind the report either, so there appears to be some Trouble In Paradise.
Understand that George Bush actually had a videoconference with Gordon Brown and briefed him about this report prior to its release.
Methinks the Brits looked at their own evidence and didn’t like what they saw. Neither did the Israelis.
That should tell people here something, but I don’t think anyone here will care.
The British had enough from the INC items to know a ringer when they heard one.
We tapped people who knew it was so and they fed the narrative as Bushco. wanted, it probably got shot down by analysts because it no doubt contained enough forgery and patent BS in it to stand out as a ringer’s work.
It’s not like Bush’s people ever change Modus Operandi. They’re still stopping people from trying to count things and claiming they’ve got the votes when the facts on the ground don’t support that assertion…
Maybe they can fly a charter Enron jet to Iran, full of GOP Congressional staffers, and demand the IAEA stop any talks with Iran…
WHERE’S KEYNES WHEN WE NEED HIM?
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” - John Maynard Keynes
Bush said the new estimate “doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world — quite the contrary.” CNN, 12/04/07
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?