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 14, 2007 at 1:04 PM in Current Affairs
Have you watched the videotape of the torture of Abu Zubaydah? No. See how easy that is? The vast majority of folks reading this blog can answer that question succinctly. You do not have to parse. When presidents parse, they are hiding something.
So let me explain why I am certain that George W. Bush, and probably Dick Cheney, watched the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and maybe that of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Let’s begin with the White House smoke screen on this issue. When spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked the other day:
QUESTION: . . . On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?
Perino offered this artful phrasing:
PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning.
No recollection of being made aware? Sorry, if he did not know anything about the tapes then the answer is very simple–Never heard of them, never saw them, and this is the first we have heard of this matter. No room for doubt with that answer.
I know from my time at the CIA how presidents and national security staffs react to intelligence on high priority matters. They are ravenous and they are constantly pushing for more info. I remember, for example, being tasked on an urgent basis to review and analyze Spanish language documents the CIA obtained from a Nicaraguan military defector that described the mutual concern of Soviet and Sandinista officials about U.S. supplied shoulder fired surface to air missiles that were downing helicopters in Nicaragua and Afghanistan. At the time, the war in Nicaragua was one of the top five policy priorities of the White House. And the White House was eager to know what the defector had to say.
So please answer these questions. In the summer of 2002 was terrorism and the threat of terrorism at least one of the top three policy priorities for the Bush Administration? Was the White House interested in any details about the capture or interrogation of Abu Zubaydah?
You know the answers–not only yes, but hell yes.
Take a look at page 241 of George Tenet’s account of where the White House stood on these matters. He wrote:
Detainees, in general, had become a critical issue. . . . Abu Zubaydah’s capture altered that equation. Now that we had an undoubted resource in our hands–the highest-ranking al-Qa’ida official captured to date–we opened discussions within the National Security Council as to how to handle him, since holding and interrogating large numbers of al-Qa’ida operatives had never been part of our plan. But Zubayda and a small number of other extremely highly placed terrorists potentially had information that might save thousands of lives. We wondered what we could legitimately do to get that information. . . .Out of those conversations came a decision that CIA would hold and interrogate a small number of HVDs (i.e., High Value Detainees).
So who is the “we”. When you are talking special interrogation techniques at a National Security Council meeting you are talking with George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft at a minimum. The White House lead on the legal issues was handled by Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales. And we also know that John Yoo at the Department of Justice drafted the letters ultimately used to assure CIA that torture tactics were legal.
Tenet is quite precise in identifying August 2002 as the moment that CIA was given clear guidance from the White House and Department of Justice about the techniques and methods the CIA could employ against terrorist suspects (also p. 241 of his book).
The respective works of Jim Risen (State of War) and Ron Suskind (The One Percent Doctrine) provide a consistent portrait of George Bush as a president keenly interested in Abu Zubaydah. And George Tenet was just the man to feed Bush the information he so desperately wanted. Senior intelligence officers I know describe Tenet’s dealings with the White House as both obsequious and enthusiastic. He would dash to the White House like an excited puppy dog eager for a romp. He was not known as “Slam Dunk” George for nothing.
The ops cables detailing the results of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah were not widely distributed. They most likely were kept in compartmented channels–in other words, just because you held a Top Secret clearance did not mean you were seeing the most sensitive information. If you have seen the latest exploits of Jason Bourne in the Bourne Ultimatum then you are familiar with “Blackbriar”. That’s an example of a compartmented program/reporting channel.
Although not widely distributed you can be sure that these messages made their way to the head of the Counter Terrorsim Center at the time, Cofer Black. His boss, Jim Pavitt also got the reports. And both George Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, had the info as did the staff who put together the Presidential Daily Brief.
We are not talking about some third-rate piece of intelligence on a backwater of foreign policy. The terrorist threat posed by Al Qa’ida was a consuming priority, along with prepping for war with Iraq, and any information about that threat made its way to the Oval Office of the White House.
Ron Suskind quotes John McLaughlin talking knowingly about the methods employed on Zubaydah:
Imagine him (Zubaydah) sitting with a lawyer. That would be an utter cop-out. We would never know what we missed (see pp. 117-8, The One Percent Doctrine).
It remains to be seen whether or not the White House played a role in the CIA’s decision to destroy the videotape interrogations of Zubaydah and Nashiri. But this much is certain, Bush knew about the tapes and probably received a personal screening from none other than George Tenet. What did they snack on while watching Zubaydah hold his breath under water? That’s what I want to know.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
You would know Larry better than any of us. Will be spreading this one around.
So would all of the above mentioned all be eating “popcorn” while watching these tapes?
A question for you. I think that if I were in one of these hot shot positions and was responsible for protecting the lives of multitudes of people. that it would be so terribly tempting to use what ever methods one thought would work to get information to “allegedly” save people’s lives. I honor you and all of the other intelligence officers who do not slide down the slippery slope.
How do you explain what is at the bottom of that slippery slope.
The slippery slope of rationalization. Once you decide that defending the homeland at all cost is good and right then anything goes. Just ask the Germans.
LJ
Kathleen, I like your comments very much. I know Larry Johnson (not saying you don’t), and I respect him very much. Knowing him as I do, he will never slide down any slippery slope. Larry is the BEST! I’m with you in honoring Larry.
Have been waiting for John Deans take on the tapes. You may have all ready read this but if not. Deans latest
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071214.html
Kathleen:Thanks for all the links. After reading this artical, I would bet dollars to a ? that the NYT or WP has copies of the “tapes” and has chosen to sit on ‘em. If Sy says he seen them…some body has them…
And is it really a stretch to think that someone who blew up frogs as a kid would watch, and probably enjoy, taped torture of another human being?
(It’s often cited that harming animals as a child is a “leading indicator” of extreme antisocial behavior later in life.
Bush? Check.)
I suspect Little George watched in rapt attention, knowing that it was he himself who gave the order for the carefully metered doses of torment to be administered. I suspect his heart beat a little faster, and his palms got just a bit moist, as the excitement got the better of him.
I wonder if Laura was walking around with a bit more of a smile on her face the next morning? Or Condoleezza Rice, perhaps?
As for Cheney, well, when you’re the type of “person” to whom someone apologizes when you shoot them in the face with a shotgun, this is just kid stuff.
…..(It’s often cited that harming animals as a child is a “leading indicator” of extreme antisocial behavior later in life…..
It’s also an indicator of little dick syndrome.
Absolutely agree with you Centrocitta - Here is a short list of some of the “hobbies” of the aging 12 year old pResident of OUR White House when he was actually chronologically younger:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/what-if-pete-stark-is-rig_b_69375.html
…or Jim (Jeff “Bulldog” Gannon) Guckert
Hell with watching the tapes. I still think if they still existed you’d see Cheney and/or Bush down there watching in person. Why would sadistic bastards like that settle for second hand viewpoints? Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be interesting to see if any of Cheney’s undisclosed location visits coincided with the timeframes for the torture sessions?
Is Vegas taking any odds on when they be out in the MSM?
If we follow Cheneys’s logic “everythnig leaks eventually”, we just have to give’m a reason to leak it. What honorable person is willing to get FUBAR’ed to make this happen?
Camera guy : what Is your favorite lense?
Pictures don’t lie people do.
Is this a Bush “parse”?
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush#/071213/photos_ts/2007_12_12t180041_450
x311_us_bush_health_children
Parse?
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush#/071211/photos_ts/2007_12_11t102419_450×30
0_us_english
I think this must be a “parse”
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush#/071211/photos_ts/2007_12_11t102419_450×300_us_english
Larry,
First, I think it was ‘Blackbriar’. Not Blackbird.
Second, Would you write an article about how a CIA retired could afford an attorney like Bennett.
The folks commenting at TPM have their hair on fire. They’ve gone from racist remarks about Latinos and torture, to Rodriquez and CIA in general are drug runners, to the profits from filmmaking contracts are funding a mass insurance fund for CIA personnel.
It’s out of control. How do people like you and Plame and the others do it? This is awful the way you can get hung out to dry.
The lawyer thing is easy. CIA officers have the option of purchasing liability insurance to defray lawyer expenses. This emerged in the aftermath of Iran Contra.
Larry: How much have the rates gone up in the last seven years?
Thanks for the holiday cheer.
Sometimes, high level intel executives are represented by high-powered attorneys pro bono when the issue appears to be strictly a matter of judgement as oppose to an intentional crime. I’m not saying that I know for a fact that this is happening with Bennett, I just know that it has happened in the past.
I read that Bennett was “involved in another case that required the security clearance” he would need to defend Jose and this would only create a 2 week wait. What case might that be? It would sad if Jose had to take the 5th. He might be fishing for immunity for his client as well.
Sorry wrong links
parse
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ss/events/pl/081201presidentbush#/071211/photos_ts/2007_12_11t102419_450×300_us_english
sample comment at tpm
ProDem wrote on December 14, 2007 1:58 PM:
Just a quick comment to hope4usa who said the follwoing:
“Many of these CIA officers put their life on the line for this country. They are no different than Valerie Plame and deserve your respect, they’ve earned it. These tapes were probably destroyed to protect lower level cia from the Hague when the real people who belong there are the Bush Cabal.”
Please DO NOT try and put Valerie Plame in the same catergory as Jose Rodriguez!! Valerie Plame is NOT NOW & NEVER was a criminal, nor did she engage in criminal activity!! Rodriquez knew he was breaking every law in the book!! He deserves to be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law!!
And by the way save the “”Many of these CIA officers put their life on the line for this country” - for somone else!! For agents like Rodriquez that’s all bullshit
I don’t know the man, but I don’t think I would condemn Rodriquez before hearing what he has to say.
One becomes a NOC because the activities they engage in are usually illegal in those foreign countries in which they serve. Starting with entering said country under a false or fradulent passport, moving on to inducement to treason, theft of state secrets, etc etc. I believe one of the significant issues following the initial disclosure of her status and of her cover company Brewster-Jennings was how many of the people she interacted with in foreign nations were at risk from their own CIA/FBI/NSA equivalents.
Well, I happened to have served with Jose overseas. In that particular assignment, we were both authorized to carry firearms because we were both very much at risk. In fact, Jose was much more at risk than I was because of his particular assignment, which was very exposed to armed opponents. So anyone who says that Jose never put his life on the line in the service of his country simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. In fact, while we were on that assignment, one of our colleagues was killed, and now is a star on the wall.
Retired:
Authorized by whom? The local government or the USA government? Most people who break a country’s laws are at some risk. So I guess we will just have to assume you had a concealed carry permit from the local authorities.
We Answer To A Higher Authority.
Actually, in that case, you are correct, I did have a concealed carry permit issued by the national government of the host country, which was the level of government that issued such permits in that particular country. Thanks for your concern, though. And you are right, the people who were threatening our lives were breaking the laws of that country in several ways. Fortunately, we were able to convince them to forego the war and bloodshed route and participate in elections, and they picked up a fair number of seats and were able to influence their country’s policies in the direction that they wanted to see them go. Feel better?
Clarification is always valuable. Sad that one of your co-workers had to lose his life in a peaceful endeavour.
“Feel better?” Not certain what that pertains to, feelings might be useful at some tactical level or metreological level but rarely suffice for anything much beyond that. My feelings would be irrelevant anyway since I was not involved in the mission or in the evaluation of its outcome.
CK,
I am worried about you. This comment scares the heck out of me:
Normal people, who are able to CARE, have those pesky things called “feelings”. Psychopaths/Sociopaths do not!
Give me someone who can CONTROL their feelings any day they are in risky/dangerous situations, as opposed to someone who has none!
By the pricking in my thumbs, something evil this way comes.
By the feelings in my joints, I predict snow tomorrow night.
Other than that I think you missed the content of the thread and my polite answer to a throwaway, two-word retort from Retired.
CK: We Answer To A Higher Authority
Which One?
Even as a regular joe I can’t see going down to the “local” authorities for permission to carry what ever heat I thought required, no matter where I was. As Valerie stated in her book, they do train in the use firearms. Crap I used to carry a pocket rocket in the NYC tubes, and would rather go to jail than the grave, and a getting a permit was the last thing on my list of things to do.
NOC NOC Who’s there? A foreign agent, can I have a gun permit?
Pays your dime; takes your chances. Some steroid raged loon in a NYPD uniform decides you are a lawbreaker, what you going to do with that heat? Use it or get Louima’d in some broom closet in the local precinct?
Not suggesting that it is necessary for anyone to obey any arbitrary law TWK, mine was a question of clarification regarding a government employee’s responsibility to obey the laws of foreign countries. I am sure that the Mossad agents active in the USA all have fully authorized permits from DHS or some other FedGov agency.
In a “friendly country” sure…no arguement there…not always the case. In the case of the NY finest… I never gave them any grief. I have had to disarm a few idiots in the tubes and did not need to use deadly force. I was one of those folks minding thier own.
Larry asked,
My guess is that you’re close but not quite right: he was downing pretzels between shots of Jack.
I know, that was mean…
Larry, I’m sorry to say on this one I disagree 100%! Bush eats pretzels, not popcorn. Everyone knows that.
Yeah, get your act together, Johnson! You’re supposed to be the friggin’ analyst, here! Even support types know that it’s pretzels and beer!
Just noticed the Poll at right, LOL!
This reminds me of the old joke about why Canadians like to do it “doggie-style”.
Answer: So they can both watch the hockey game.
My only question is whether Dick gave Chimpy a reacharound as they watched the tapes.
It’s those unexpected laughs that are the best;-)
“He has no recollection…”
Treanslated it means that yes, I did watch them, but if I do recognize that, I will be hanged by the two raisins that I have for testicles.
Thanks for cutting through the bullshit, Larry.
This is nauseating, but makes an eery kind of sense.
Your commentary brings to mind a visit to the US cemetaries along the Omaha Beaches in Normandy, and the sound of wind moaning through the trees planted on the cliffs above those beaches. To think that American soldiers gave their lives to oppose Nazis who tortured, lied, and engaged in legalistic pretense to excuse their lawlessness is to shudder. BushCheney are an insult to the memories of those who came before us.
Do you really believe that the U.S. has not made a practice of torturing people before the current Bush regime? If so, I have some lovely oceanfront property in Baghdad that I know you will not want to pass up.
The main difference between the Bush regime and previous U.S. governments is the brazen and flagrant manner in which they operate.
Shirin, while what you say is correct from the perspective of viewing the U.S. as a country, I thought that you would like to know that during my career I worked with a unit that “untrained” foreign government military and other intelligence types from using torture. This proved to be a very difficult task, as the use of torture can be tremendously satisfying to the ego of some people, despite the fact that the interrogator isn’t getting any useful information (useful information supposedly being the real objective of interrogation in the first place). In my experience, the “ego high” of torture has a tendency to supplant the need/desire to get information in quite a few interrogators, it is a notable character flaw.
We ususally did this type of “untraining” under combat conditions. Some of the people that we tried to “untrain” were never able to break the ego high. But there were a few who, once they saw the results of our non-physical approach, really “got it” and adopted our program. The results that they achieved were incredible in some cases.
I wish that we could’ve been more successful with more people, but that was not to be the case. FYI, during the history of U.S. interrogation, we (that is to say, Americans) have had some notable successes in war by using interrogation programs that shun torture and use knowledge of the way that our enemies think and reason to get them to willingly cooperate and give us valuable information. Unfortunately, these have a tendency to be overshadowed by the idiots who like to beat people.
Yes,
But isn’t it a matter of degress - no I am not using “situational Ethics” here.
Example - someone slaps a hysterical person across the face to get their attention, not break their jaw. Is that ‘abuse’ or a quick way to cut through the hysteria? That is what I mean by degrees. What is the minimum “button” or action is needed to get a persons attention! Each individual has their own “fear” if you will - one of mine is nasty cockroaches.
As Ray McCgovern stated, everyone knows the sun rises in the East and no one in Congress feels a need to debate it. Everyone SHOULD know TORTURE is wrong and the scary part is those so called loons in Congress think an absolute FACT needs debate????
TORTURE IS WRONG - period - just a surely as the sun as rises in the East!
this is someone who loves to show off his saddam revolver — that he apparently keeps in the little closet just off the oval office.
yeah, he’s viewed the tapes (if he didn’t have a live feed while the torture was administered). just like he has his own personal collection of the abu ghraib dvds.
[...] agent Larry Johnson must have spewed the coffee out of his nose the other day when he this Dana Perino exchange with a [...]
Jeesh. bu$hlerCo likes to tell about its “successes,” which’ve been really few and far between; they always sort of fall apart at the end so they have to keep making up new charges to continue persecuting whoever they’re holding. So where are the glorious tales of terrists caught using info obtained by torture? Sorry, secret.
It’s crap, there aren’t any.
As LHP said, “bu$h just makes shit up.”
bu$hler wasn’t hot on the trail of terrists for our national security’s sake; that’s never been one of his interests. He was sweeping them all up, buying them if necessary, to vacuum any info that would justify the invasion and continue the occupation of Iraq > Iran. Not unlike the telcos swooping up all info.
bu$h is a perv. He’s seen every dvd, tape, still, phone photo, of every heinous act he’s ever ordered up. “Feels good. Feels GOOD.”
And he was popping Junior Mints.
Perino: “He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday.”
Artful phrasing?
I would call it a ‘tell’.
The best the white house can come up with is the most over used political rhetoric line of all time? Which means what? We’re supposed to believe that IF he was told, that it shocked and awed the president’s brain imto amnesia?
IN this case the white house would actually be better off if they just lied outright.
Don’t mean to hog the thread, nor clutter it with links, but this looks like support for your hypothesis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401269_pf.html
If Bush and Cheney were innocent, the smartest thing they could do would be reveal all details. Instead, looks like their DenialAndFirewallMode is intensifying.
I am reasonably sure this isn’t sage or critical thinking, but do American’s become like the president in some way? Eager for change with some, but imitated during the time in office?
a good part of what we once may have thought were rational people, neighbors and such, have gone mad with this one. We have seen the most depraved ideas in the history of our country become conversation starters, with defenders? People happy to discuss the slaughter of the racially impure. Let’s look at a few.
the freedom of the press, not if owned by republican supporters, it doesn’t exist. period.
The legislature creates laws. Since when? lobbyists write the laws and pay for their passage
the president of the united states. I can’t go on with this one folks, sorry
then on down to those little things they forgot to include;
freedom of speech, not if you install justices that will deny it to adults and children alike as individuals, but grant it to businesses that use it to deceive and destroy
freedom to be secure in one’s person and dwelling, no, not any more or in any way. That one has been buried deep now. wasn’t just the new guy, but he got to put the nails in.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime… How many hundreds or thousands are still waiting? that’s secret.
speedy and public trial? that’s not going to happen by order of….
in suits and public trial, ask Valerie how somehow her job isn’t covered under the constitution
rights of states may exceed those of the federal republic, when? only if the federal government likes it?
the powers not asked for are granted to the people. seems we have that backward as well.
those are just the pesky first 10.
freedom of religion; not any more. it is christianity or nothing around here mister. once it wasn’t talked about because everyone knew we had several that were common, and why offend someone that wasn’t visibly inferior?
Add all that you can to this list. Maybe something will awaken the real patriotism of the people to protect what was theirs. I don’t know that I expect it, because half or more have all ready given their approval to take it all away. Something tells me they may not understand what they gave away but still defend their right to have done so, and break this vast misunderstanding that is democracy
General comment: One of the things I like about Larry, whether or not I agree with his position, it that he gets to the point. Perino’s comment, to me, says it all. If the answer were “no,” she would’ve said it. Since she served up a waffle that would make IHOP green with envy, we have to assume that not only is the answer yes, but when they discussed the question. everyone in the room knew it was yes.
I wonder when politicians are going to figure out that we common folk can figure this out?
Larry, as always, excellent post. and I know in my heart that he saw them. Your analysis of this, as the other topics you have written on is right on target. I haven’t commented on much lately, but just want to say a special thanks to you for all that you do. Not only here at NQ, but for those who can not speak for themselves.
The bush cabal never tell the truth. They are experts at lying out of both sides of their mouths… They tell the people what they want to hear. As OldTree said above, strange things are happening out there, and I’m not sure either how it will all pan out in the end. Somedays I see that small glimmer of hope, but so many times it seems that the good is so overpwered by the self centered, egotistical, demented actions of so many people. Bush Lies, Tortures, and Kills thousands, and people won’t even call him on it. Where is the justice???
Where is the OUTRAGE??? I agree with the poster above that said he probably watched on a live link… hell, I talk to my grandson over my old desktop… no fancy technology here. For Perino, to stand and say what she did, only convinces me more… the operative word is indeed : TELL, and the phrase is: Destruction of the Tapes. So, in essence, she is telling the ‘truth’ because she isn’t actually ‘telling a lie’…
Bush and all his minions should be impeached, dragged down the streets of Baghdad butt naked, and held in a hole until thier trial in the Hague. They are war criminals, war profiteers, and should be waterboarded under oath, until they tell us the information we need to hear to protect ‘us citizens’ of this Nation…
OT
Eating popcorn is what Der Shrub did with his other hand while watching torture tapes…
Mr. Johnson or anyone, can you answer me this question. When will, or if ever, will this administration be held accountable for any of the offences they have committed that is a crime…?????!!!!!
Probably never. It’s just too close to the election, and the politicians who might be in a position to hold members of the administration accountable need to focus on getting elected next year. Politically, they can’t afford a major impeachment effort. One could make the argument that the more junior, non-political, career employees of the U.S. government might begin to pay the price for their following of the current administration’s orders. There would appear to be little political loss at first glance in sending GS-12 interrogators to jail for several years. Even this has its blowback, however, because if you pursue this path, once your own party takes the presidency, who’s to say that the remaining GS-12s will now follow your orders?
I agree with my esteemed former colleague.
Yes, I agree that they are dragging their feet on the Impeachment because of the proximity to the election. But I think there are many other reasons as well. It is a shame that so much time seems to be spent on campaigning, when there is so much of the people’s business to rectify.
I think however, that I also agree with Wexler who says that Impeachment is now our responsibility. Forget the campaigns, and step up the pressure. Who knows, impeach Cheney, and Bush might do one honorable thing… resign.
I hadn’t ever given much thought to the position of the current GS-12’s, but there too, I think I would have to agree. I couldn’t wait until a couple of those GS -7 & 8’s were under my supervision… in the ‘old days’… I didn’t make life any easier on them as they came into shape… and many never got that far, because they were not respected, and could not ‘elicit cooperation’ from others.
Excellent points. As always.
My favorite fantasy: The Hague.
Project Censored: Hard Evidence of US Torturing Prisoners to Death Ignored by Corporate Media
As if by design, it seems Carla Del Ponte, The Hague prosecutor from Lugano, the Italian region of Switzerland, begins a new job in Buenos Aires, Argentina on January 1. She has arrested Bosnian war criminals as well as Mafia thugs and doesn’t seem to be afraid of anybody. I think it will be very nice to have Carla already in place in South America when the Bush criminals arrive there in 2009. Best of luck to Ms. Del Ponte.
Did Bush eat popcorn
Nope. He pleasured himself.
Larry, Susan: interesting nexus between Torture Tapes and a case that looks to be about to backfire onto Bushco here
How does the Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein fit in? He was not mentioned. Sorry,not much of a breeze here today.
[...] analyst Larry Johnson dares to publicly ask, Did Bush Eat Popcorn While Watching the Torture Tapes? This is a very scary article, more for its plausibility than for its audacity. There are rumors [...]
TeakWoodKite, in the Jornada piece, it says that Wainstein declared this week that this “was a plot by agents of the Venezuelan government to manipulate a US citizen in Miami, with the goal of covering up a growing international scandal.” Wainstein is investigating the torture tapes. So, same guy is involved in a what looks like a politically-motivated (and incompetently planned) attack on Chavez and on discovering who torched the terror tapes. There is a strong odor of political hack/fixer over both.
Busy Guy. Almost as busy as U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy. Thanks
http://laempresaprivada.blogspot.com/2007/12/four-foreign-nationals-arrested-and.html
Wasn’t that about the same time Bush “choked on a pretzel”?
He probablysat down expecting to be thoroughly entertained from watching the waterboarding, so he took a bag of pretzels with him.
But, once the waterboarding began he became so sexually aroused he had an unanticipated orgasm, causing him to choke on the pretzels.
Mystery solved!
[...] klamamse på No Quarter, som absolut er værd at læse. Samme sted spørger værten Larry Johnson, hvordan det kan være, at Bush ikke bare kan sige “nej”, når han bliver spurgt, om han har set de famøse [...]
[...] whether President Bush had actually seen the tapes. Larry Johnson says it’s highly likely that Bush viewed at least part of them. I’m with Larry on that. Then four senior lawyers at the White House were involved with the [...]
George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.
Bush should be locked up.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA