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 24, 2007 at 1:32 PM in Current Affairs
When Forrest Gump, aspiring shrimp boat captain, was asked, “Are you stupid or something?” He replied, “Stupid is as stupid does.” So what is Bob Novak’s excuse? Stupidity seems too simple an explanation. I wonder how many people will be required to pull Novak’s fat head out of his ass. It is obviously lodged in a deep, dark place.
His latest column, Subverting Bush at Langley, is one of the most ignorant, error-ridden diatribes I have read in quite sometime. How can he even be considered a credible journalist? Oh wait, never mind, he’s commenting at Fox News. Answered my own question.
Consider these nonsensical assertions from today’s piece:
. . . but the Republicans stand alone in protesting the CIA’s defiant undermining of President Bush. In its clean bill of health for Iran on nuclear weapons development, the agency acted as an independent policymaker rather than an adviser.
Now I can understand the average American living in Hooverville not knowing (or caring) about the difference between the CIA, the NIC, and the DNI. But Novak purports to be an informed commentator. He does not understand even basic points. For starters, the CIA did not write nor promulgate the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. Check out the cover of the NIE. It bears the logo of the Director of National Intelligence. I defy anyone to spy the emblem of the CIA or the signature of the Director of the CIA in this document. The CIA now is but one member of the intelligence community and no longer has management responsibility for the National Intelligence Council and its work on National Estimates.
I guess Novak was too busy to read this paragraph from the intro:
The NIEs are typically requested by senior civilian and military policymakers, Congressional leaders and at times are initiated by the National Intelligence Council NIC). Before a NIE is drafted, the relevant NIO is responsible for producing a concept paper or terms of reference (TOR) and circulates it throughout the Intelligence Community for comment. The TOR defines the key estimative questions, determines drafting responsibilities, and sets the drafting and publication schedule. One or more IC analysts are usually assigned to produce the initial text. The NIC then meets to critique the draft before it is circulated to the broader IC. Representatives from the relevant IC agencies meet to hone and coordinate line-by-line the full text of the NIE. Working with their Agencies, reps also assign the level of confidence they have in each key judgment. IC reps discuss the quality of sources with collectors, and the National Clandestine Service vets the sources used to ensure the draft does not include any that have been recalled or otherwise seriously questioned.
Novak then launches this zinger:
It [the CIA] has withheld from nearly all members of Congress information on the Israeli bombing of Syria in September. The U.S. intelligence community is deciding on its own what information the public shall learn.
It is enough to make Billy Graham curse the name of God. Here are some relevant facts. The CIA does not control signal intelligence/intercepts. That falls under the bailiwick of the National Security Agency (NSA). If info about the Israeli bombing existed there is nothing the CIA can do to prevent Congress from getting access to that intelligence.
How about satellite photographs of the bombed site? That too no longer is under CIA control. The National Photographic Interpretation Center has been renamed and moved:
The National Photographic Interpretation Center, whose functions have since been absorbed into the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), was formerly a component of the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology (DS&T). NPIC produced imagery interpretation reports, briefing boards, videotapes for national-level consumers, and provided support for the military. NPIC employed some 1,200 image interpreters and archivists.
So if pictures of the bombing existed it is not up to the CIA to produce them or turn them over (unless we have succeeded in stealing what the Israelis have). Stealing secrets from other countries is something the CIA’s National Clandestine Service is supposed to do.
But CIA is not the only game in town. What about the Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA. What have they said about the bombing in Syria? Apparently nothing!!! I am told be friends still on the inside that there is no information to tell. A very strange situation, but this is not under the control of the CIA. Plus, the mystery about what Israel did in Syria is a blog post for another day.
Not content to simply pass on false, erroneous reports, Bob “the Traitor” Novak feels compelled to slander a retired intelligence officer. Once again he surfaces the charge that the CIA has nothing but contempt for President Bush (Jesus, please make it so). And he insists this contempt:
was demonstrated during his 2004 reelection campaign when a senior intelligence officer, Paul R. Pillar, made off-the-record speeches around the country criticizing the invasion of Iraq. On Sept. 24, 2004, three days before my column exposed Pillar’s activity, former representative Porter Goss arrived at Langley as Bush’s handpicked director of central intelligence.
Novak’s unwarranted animus towards Paul Pillar is exceeded only by his hatred of Valerie Plame. Like Valerie, Paul is a true professional. Oh, and by the way, Paul left the CIA a couple of years back. He’s not in a position to pull strings back at “headquarters.” To describe him as a political partisan would be akin to labeling Mahatma Ghandi as a gaudy dresser. Paul is low key, cerebral, and very professional. His only sin was to accuse the Bush Admininstration (per the Washington Post):
of “cherry-picking” intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Damn it man! When are you going to learn that telling the truth will get you in to trouble? Pillar obviously never took the time to read Hans Christian Andersen‘, The Emperor’s New Clothes. He would have learned that the path to happiness and acceptance is to just tell the naked President that he’s wearing a splendid tux. Do that and all is forgiven.
Here’s the truth–not a shred of evidence has been produced by Bob Novak to support his groundless accusation that Pillar leaked information to the press about the NIE or any other matter. And oh, by the way, Pillar was working at the National Intelligence Council in 2004, not the CIA. Got it Bob?
It is clear that disgruntled congressional Republicans, such as Rep. Peter Hoekstra, are primary sources for Novak’s garbage reporting. I am not sure which is worse–an ignorant member of Congress or a hack journalist. It is troubling that someone of Hoekstra’s experience displays such a profound ignorance about the organization and duties of various parts of the intelligence community. Hoekstra apparently still does not realize that the CIA does not write National Intelligence Estimates. I guess his apparent inability to grasp something that simple accounts for his failure to conduct effective of oversight of the Intelligence Community when he chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
But even if Hoekstra is an idiot, Novak should know better. I realize that journalists are not inclined to police themselves of miscreants like Novak. Even if his demonstrated stupidity tends to reflect on others in the profession. Perhaps the problem lies with his “sources.” If Novak’s scribblings are based on Hoekstra, then he has some excuse for shoddy work. But it is still incumbent on Novak–a thickheaded scribe blinded by partisan rage–to get basic facts right. From his perch as a columnist he can blithely mislead many unwitting Americans, who tend to presume that Novak is a smart guy and knows what he is talking about. He’s neither.
So if you are still searching for a last minute Christmas gift consider this–give your nearest and dearest a tip. Tell them Bob Novak is a fraud masquerading as a journalist. In fact, when it comes to people who have damaged America’s national security, it is tough to find someone who has caused more harm than Bob Novak. Hope he gets coal in his stocking tonight.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Well said, Larry. The reality-based world has taken to calling him Bob No Facts, and (as you aptly demonstrate) for good reason.
you beat me to it. evans and novak, aka, “errors & no facts.”
ps. he is good in the sense of knowing what certain rethugs are thinking. as for adhering to journalism’s standards…not so much.
I can’t help but wonder, how did Novak skate away scott free from the outing of Plame? I mean he’s the one who printed it KNOWING who she was. EVEN if he thought she wasn’t covert, wouldn’t it be at least polite not to print the names of our spies for their own and their families safety? I’m no rocket scientist but damn, get a clue old man! Common sense….
Someone should print his Home Address , cell number, home phone and SS # and drivers license number in the washington post and see how he likes the shoe on the other foot. he should at least known ( as an adult) that that was way out of line. But then it all defaults back to my party right or wrong doesn’t it?
He is a disgrace as a Republican, American and mostly as a man.
Larry, you might hope he gets coal in his stocking. I hope he gets taken up by the Ghost of Christmas Future and never brought back.
Larry, I think you went way to far trying to give Novak the benefit of the doubt. This piece of shit has shown time and time again he is nothing but a lying shill for the neoconic agenda. I don’t think there is a lie “too big” for him to write in the service of his masters.
Novak. Opus Dei. An Italian journalist almost assassinated by Bernie Kerick’s Baghdad security.(h/tCentrocitta)
Centro’s conclusion on a prior NQ thread that the rendition was to cover up our using someone to recruit potential terrorists. Italy was getting ready to press charges and suddenly a journalist gets kidnapped in Baghdad.
Italian Secret Service man is killed.
Were we recruiting persons via a cell in Europe? Did any of those persons take train rides?
How easily we could peak the headlines for terror, justify unitary measures, by getting word out through someone who had the confidence to be valued as a recruiter…
as for Novak, he should be doing time, the coal should be burning him.
Novak writes:
“Intelligence agencies, from Nazi Germany to present-day Pakistan, for better or for ill, have tended to break away from their governments.”
From what I can tell, more than anything else, Schmitt and Shulsky’s 98 essay, “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By which we do not mean Nous)”, represents an attempt to break away from the government, in particular the Anglo-American tradition of US strategic intel as established by the methodology of Sherman Kent.
The most recent NIE, one hopes, represents the end of the Straussian approach.
Novak writes:
“It [CIA] has withheld from nearly all members of Congress information on the Israeli bombing of Syria in September.”
According to WaPo, it was Stephen J. Hadley who withheld info from the US intel community about the Israeli bombing of Syria.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202430.html?sub=AR
Key quote:
“The new information, particularly images received in the past 30 days, has been restricted to a few senior officials under the instructions of national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, leaving many in the intelligence community unaware of it or uncertain of its significance, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Some cautioned that initial reports of suspicious activity are frequently reevaluated over time and were skeptical that North Korea and Syria, which have cooperated on missile technology, would have a joint venture in the nuclear arena.”
Also Col. Lang had a thread re: Hadley at sst back in Sept.07:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/09/hadley-blocked-.html
Well done, Mr. Smith.
Oh dear, Bob’s gotten into the Christmas Twinkies and Ding Dongs again, it’s not so much the sugar-high logic he uses but that he may gain the shelf life of a Twinkie.
Now that’s what I am ashamed of.
You know, this op-ed and a recent WaPo session with Novak are causing me to wonder if he’s not on a slide into senility. It’s one thing to be a right-wing shill, but this degree of detachment from reality may need another explanation.
Novak could be the very definition of a Senior Moment, but that would not disqualify his commentary in the eyes of True Believers, at least not until he gets so absent-minded he forgets which side he’s on.
Thanks Larry that cloven footed SOB is someone I’d like to see get the Heimlich by Larry “Wide Stance” Craig. As for “Docu Dump” Hoekstra, he’s a nutjob.
[...] See also Larry Johnson at No Quarter. [...]
Larry, I think that your distaste for Novak caused you to skip over a few interesting tidbits from the column. Much worse than getting the organizational details wrong is Novak’s interesting take on intelligence vs. policy:
Excuse me, Mr.
MagooNovak, but “policy” is what you *do* with intelligence, unless, of course, you are in the habit of “fixing the intelligence around the policy.”Then there is this gem:
Since when does the CIA, DNI, NIC, or any other part of the alphabet soup decide what “the public” learns? I assume he really means “the government”, but I’m not sure it is good for my mental health to try to get too far inside his “brain”.
Larry,
you need to add the gop prez contender huckabee to the list of ignorant.
huckabee was on cnn saying the nie was a conflict of intel between dod and cia. duh, also huckabee and his ‘advisors’ also apparently like novak didn’t read the nie’s intro.
Was it not the “he who shall not be mentioned” VP, that suppressed for more than a year ‘what “the public” learns?’ I givem’ coal but they already own all of it.
On the ticker “Grange on CNN” “you can’t kill everybody” all due respect WTF?!
Iran wants to hold Ambassador level meetings regarding Iraq. Think Bush can be held over the Saudi barrel?
I seem to remember taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That, I believe, was for “better,” prinicipally because I owed my loyalty to my fellow citizens It was the various Nazi intelligence services that took that personal oaths of loyalty to Hitler. I consider those to be for “ill,” but apparently Novak and I disagree on this point.
I’m not quite sure who Novak is loyal to. He must’ve been terribly offended at being left out of the movie “Idiocracy.”
It was Hoekstra who inspired Novack’s fellow slack-jawed idiot Joe Klein to write that insane column about the FISA revisions Congress has been considering. Emptywheel observed after that one:
It’s beyond amazing that Hoekstra has so much influence over these simpletons. Oh, wait, he’s one of them!
Hoekstra reminds me somewhat of a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee that dropped in unexpectedly at the embassy in Beirut circa 1983. That esteemed congressman advised the Charge (the Ambassador was mercifully out of the country at the time) that the reason he was visiting Lebanon was “because it is the last remaining Christian country in the Middle East besides Israel.” Fortunately, the Charge had considerable poker as well as diplomatic skills and kept a straight face. I could not. I excused myself for an ostensible call of nature, went back to my office and laughed myself back into composure.
laughed myself back to composure.
priceless.
No-Facts’ ignorance, sloppy reporting, and status as a shill for the far right and a proponent of wingnut fantasies has been known for decades. He is, after all, someone who still contends that Pearl Harbor was FDR’s idea, that Social Security was Stalin’s creation, and Joe McCarthy was a great American. He also relied for years on the traitor Robert Hanssen as his inside source. Thank God for John Stewart for exposing this fraud, setting motion his losing the cash cows (Crossfire, The Capital Gang)he had at CNN.
To me, what is fascinating about the attacks by No-Facts and his fellow members of the Paranoid Right on the CIA as being an out-of-control operation that is a threat to America’s best interests is that this exactly the image of the CIA that for decades had been peddled by the Paranoid Right and mocked by No-Facts and his ilk.
i admit i skipped over r. novak’s quotes/writings in reading your article larry. otherwise if i read nofacts “knowledge”, i would be a dumber person today.
nevertheless, thank you for your continued analysis. i hope you have a merry christmas and a happy new year. happy holidays!
While an extraordinarily low-level Congressional droid in the 70’s I met Novak, twice. I was not impressed with him, except for an appreciation of the extent of his malevolent narcissism.
How great is he?
Just ask him; he’ll tell you. At length.
We can probably expect his career to resurge with Sam Zell’s acquisition of a bully pulpit; too bad it’ll also mean the death of another LA paper as a legitimate news outlet.
Looks like Sam had to put the money some where before the end of the year. This would not have anythingthing to do with FCC rulings recently?
.
http://www.contentbridges.com/2007/11/think-of-fcc-ch.html
Political patronage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Zell
December 20, 2007
http://www.newsvisual.com/newsvisual/2007/12/sam-zell.html
February 8th, 2007
People with extreme view, a demographic that includes all of our sitting administration and many “middle” Americans — including my brother in law — tend to isolate and insulate themselves from information that challenges their views, because there’s just too much of that for comfort.
Soon, they are only watching Faux, and only listening to Limbaugh. These sources make enough sense of their views that, if you don’t think much anyway, you begin to see the sense they make. Such views are at least comforting, because the seductive simplicity of us-or-them is a handy antidote to the real world’s increasingly toxic complexity.
After one makes such a faustian bargain, trading common sense for the security of Rightness, and someone like Hoekstra tells you something you basically already know, as that anyone not supporting the Fantasy Presidency is supporting Al Qaeda, you don’t even need to check such an obvious fact before putting it in a column.
Ask Michelle Malkin, Ms. Righteous Vitriol herself.
It’s hard to take Novak seriously, something about that cheshire cat smile & those larger than movie star teeth…
And the cat wags its’ tail when its angry, I recall.
Why does anyone still take the hacktakular Novak seriously? WaPo are you listening…just asking. Sigh.
Nevermind that Bush supports the NIE’s conclusions, even as he continues to lie about Iran’s WMD capabilities or lack of.
I mean, what’s it going to take? Novak is a hack, a liar, and a traitor. Yet he’s still treated as a serious pundit by all the serious people in DC!?
Thanks for the details, Larry.
WaPo should have NoFacts in the entertainment section, because real facts can get in the way of telling a good story. ‘Good’ as defined by the Rovian wingnuts, of course.
BTW, will we ever know the truth about the Israeli bombing in Syria?
Sy Hersh as an article coming out. Should help clarify some things.
GR3, maybe I will uncover the truth when I visit Syria in April - probably not, though.
I do not believe for one nanosecond the Israeli story that they bombed a nuclear facility, nor will I ever believe it absent some real, actual evidence, which I promise will not be forthcoming because it just doesn’t exist.
Shirin: maybe I will uncover the truth when I visit Syria in April
Are you going to try to visit the site? As of the October 24 satellite picture, two or three of the buildings around the former big one were still there. Even if they don’t contain truth, there might be some useful insight to be gained.
That isn’t on my agenda, but I will be there for a month, and I have left a lot of my schedule open, so i will see.