Flag Officer Press Conference
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: 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 March 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM in Current Affairs
Today’s press conference with some of the military officers and former senior Defense Department officials is worth your listening time. Taylor Marsh has the link.
I think it is striking that at least two of the endorsers are African American (e.g., Togo West). They are not hung up on the black/white issue. They are concerned about competence and the ability to lead.
Also noteworthy are two former Generals who have sons currently in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. As I have said before, Hillary understands the military and has a strategic vision of how to best use those assets. Her knowledge is deep and genuine. The men and women who spoke today in this press conference have had a similar experience with Hillary.


















Why do all these military personnel hate Obama and, by extension, America?
Yuppies who have never served under the flag are unaware that each of these individuals has taken a sworn oath to
“that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” and so forth and so on
I did that more than forty years ago, when did you do it kid?
It might have been snark, the other point being Cheney, and Bush are suspected of treason, ie the whole FISA issue, and they bleed red right and blue, right?
Obama reminds me of Bush, financed by the same people.
Well, maybe their PR people wrote some of the same stuff, for them, originality, intellect and creativity not being a strong point…
Endorsing Clinton means “hating America”? WTF are you talking about gqmartinez?
Maybe gmartinez was just using sarcastic humor–I don’t think he means it.
Yes. He is a Hillary supporter. He was being snarky.
My apologies then to gmartinez above…
WHY NO-ONE in the MSM is even reporting on her military endorsements? These are top brass…
It is beyond everything they are not even mentioning it anywhere….
I only found a single article:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/former_joint_ch.html
AND NOTHING else.
What can we do so that they do this *before* March 4?
They may not, and that’s the point, the lord works in mysterious ways.
And the stupid republican ops, gaming Obama for a McCain preidency, don’t understand the bigger picture.
At all.
So, should we give up now then?
Larry, Susan, Mike: is it a lost cause already?
Larry, Susan, Mike: is it a lost cause already?
I can’t speak for them, obviously, but the lord does work in mysterious ways, meaning she could sweep, on Tuesday.
Personally, I never stop fighting, no matter what, even if Hillary does lose, Obama is still dirty, and I will continue to write, and research, until he is in prison, and men like Auchi are OUT of our government.
We very simply need to improve the level of talent that goes into our government. Obama, and Cheney represent the decline of the American empire, ie, aren’t talented enough to work yourself to the top? Then cheat. Want to betray the law, ignore it? Ok, you’re special, you’re connected, you can do anything you want. Want more money? Steal it, no one cares, it’s a jungle out there…
And then we lose wars, and wonder why.
We might as well be the Chinese or Russian bearaucracy, we will not stay competitive internationally until men like Obama and Bush are held accountable, to the law, just like everyone else. It’s not OK to take money from Saddam’s henchman.
America can’t survive as a two tiered society, one for the connected, and the no talents, and the other for everyone else.
And that’s what has happened, here. It’s already showing itself by the inability to win this war, as it’s being led by Cheney, and his group.
I think this will happen to Russia, too, btw, and China, without significant reforms. Corruption is a bad thing.
bureaucracy, sorry, I meant to go back and edit, and I forgot.
I think this is the $64,000 question. WTF is up with the fact that the military gets so little attention on such an important topic?
Mighty strange…
“Why do all these military personnel hate Obama and, by extension, America?”
Move beyond the meme.
Where has anyone in the military said they “hate Obama”?
This old dismissive attack has been so played in the Bush years. When someone criticizes Bush, they are dismissed as a “bush hater”. Its an ad hominem fallacy to engage in such a comment.
And to then accuse the officers, these military personnel of hating America…is fucking disgusting. They serve their country with courage. Obama hasn’t spent a fucking lick o time in the military, and you want to smear these officers as hating america?
How goddamn dare you.
This isn’t a game. This isn’t fucking American Idol. This is for real. There are real consequences. You demonstrate oh so well what is genetically flawed with the Campaign for Obama. At their core there is nothing but spite. At their core there is nothing but ambition.
You have run on a vast Appeal to Popularity argument.
You owe these service personnel an apology for your smear.
if gmartinez was being snarky, then pass this on to the schmuck being imitated.
snark over
An ad showing the names of all these military leaders endorsing Clinton should be run in Texas and Ohio. It clearly indicates that Clinton has the high respect of the military–actually more than her husband had. Obama has very little. Maybe he can give some of his magical speeches to win them over.
Key point there.
Maybe.
Isn’t that strange?
Maybe because the neocons/Obamas have proven themselves to be such big mouthed wimps (I’m sorry, but this is correct, swinging a big gun or a googlebomb out of cowardice doesn’t hide your fear of other’s aggression, people still know. It’s OK to be frightened, it’s another to cover your lack of masculinity by becoming an overly aggressive stupid shithead, out of your mind with fear).
But the good thing, is out of all of this, the military, at least that part of the military, progressed, recognized what was happening, and didn’t fall victim to the falseness, it stayed real, and ethical.
And that should make everyone feel a lot better, it is a strong harbinger for American defense.
I hope there are officers still serving who think like the men and women, mentioned.
Those generals.
They need to watch this inspiring video.
I’ve been touched now.
that video is creepy.
Sooo cheesy…. the “Obama Soap Opera”
SusanUnPC -
It was amazingly insipid, but with the right amount of Red Bull and Crack - it might seem less like the Dawn of the Dead? I’ll never know, of course, but that was scary! Zombie City!
10 seconds in my sane half started yelling at me.
“comeback Teak…Come Back…”
I saw this rope….
I thought this was really creepy too — the chanting of his name — it really did have the feel of religious fervor. I don’t see how this helps — if I weren’t already decided, this would really turn me off, it is totally overboard. Somebody else said this about some other aspect of BO’s campaign, but is this where they jumped the shark?
OK, ‘ole Jim finally figured it out.
He’s not Lonesome Roads
and not Chauncey Gardener (well not by much)
He’s Bob Roberts!!!
Actually, that’s his mask.
He’s really Nuke LaLouche, before Kevin Costner, and without the fastball.
“Never Underestimate The Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups”
We’re gonna meet’em at the shores with an invitation to American Idol.
Actually, we also sent some to Congress, others, to K street, still others to the Ivy Leagues, and the remainder to the American press.
And here we are, wasn’t that fun?
My father was a Reagan Democrat. He supported Bill Clinton and since has voted a straight democratic ticket.
He supports Hillary - but the poor guy is bummed. He hasn’t warmed to Obama and he has some serious questions about his readiness, the MSMs love affair and the lack of questions.
I’m sending him the audio of the this endorsement because I doubt he will hear about on CNN or MSNBC.
Because his gut is telling him intuitively Obama is a load of shit, a snake oil salesman, most likely.
And he’s right.
Amen to that, Simon. He really is a snake-oil salesperson.
Why do people fall for that crap?
There is a very good article in this week’s economist, picturing Obama as a COWBOY selling snakeoil.
Poor Europe, the thought of another American cowboy, with control of the US military (though spoiled frat boy would be the better picture, now) must be revolting.
Despite Saddam’s criminality, it truly is frightening to have to watch while a goofy, weak minded commander in chief BOMBS the HELL out of a sovereign country, which was no real threat to America, anyway.
Like it’s their right, or something.
And LOOK at the fucking mess they made…
Haha. Thanks, Tricia and Mike.
Sometimes its hard to tell sarcasm from reality when mentioning Barack “A noun, a verb and a 2002 speech” Obama.
You got me gqmartinez !! This whole election is turning so bad that I lost all my sense of humor at this point….Sorry.
Not me.
I love me some dumb boy.
lol, thanks gqmartinez, sorry for firing back atcha. I don’t tolerate smears on our military personnel.
sarcasm is hard to read sometimes.
Simon, you are right.
Pardon my ignorance, but what defines a flag officer?
A flag officer is a General or an Admiral
Thanks! Why are they called that though?
This audio is so impressive. Officer after officer gives not just an endorsement but an emphatic endorsement, by going into detail about her intelligence, her knowledge, her initiative, her character, her integrity, and how she surprised each of them by exceeding their expectations to what they’ve seen her do.
Many say it’s a privilege and honor to endorse her.
Any chance there will be a print ad with all of these officers tomorrow and Tuesday?
The Audio is indeed impressive; the shear amount of reasons as to why they trust her as Commander in Chief is humbling to hear.
But I must confess I am *f—–* angry there are NO articles on the MSM at ALL reporting on this. NADA
Can you believe the NYT has an article about Russell Simmons (some hip-hop mogul I couldn’t care less) endorsement of Obama in ‘The Caucus” this afternoon and NONE about H. Clinton’s?
They publish every fart of an Obama supporter …
It really enrages me. The endorsemenst of the top military brass couldn’t be more important : it goes to National Security and Foreign Policy.
Yours extremely angry…
Applause for Gen. Clark’s explanation of Clinton’s AUMF vote. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to explain those facts to people convinced that she voted for pre-emptive war and that she is responsible for the war. Of course, it usually comes out that those people are more interested in bashing Clinton than in understanding anything.
Clinton’s Webpage has the Testimonials one by one with the audio if you want to review who said what.
Each name is followed by the corresponding audio of
his/her statement.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6298
This is a nice clip of Togo West and Wes Clark making nice remarks about Hillary Clinton and here qualifications to be CIC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djnmyxzf7gc
[...] the difference. Those e-mails you sent telling your friends about Obama on NAFTA-gate and Rezko and the swelling number of flag officers rushing to support Hillary — those made all the difference. Every e-mail you’ve sent. [...]
Please go give this site some love and diggs.
http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/flags4hill.htm
share it round…
no resting on laurels
Right.
The pregnancy is the easy part, it’s raising the kid that’s hard.
The primary isn’t over by a long shot, I would think Obama’s lawyers are scrambling to mount a legal challenge to Clinton, right now, since Axelrod has xeroxed Rove.
In addition, there is still McCain, and the right wing, and all those problems that need to be resolved, since the wholly incompetent and whored Congress, and Republicans, took Washington.
Big big mess.